The What if NTTD is the last EON produced Bond film? page 62

1121315171863

Comments

  • Posts: 1,917
    Maybe a controversial opinion, but I thought Leiter was pretty useless in DR. NO. I didn’t grow up with HAWAII FIVE-O, so I don’t have all that much of an affinity for Jack Lord like older generations do. He honestly just feels tacked on in the film in order to give Bond a white peer to talk to. It’s a shame because he’s the best cast Leiter, but he ultimately comes off as a nonentity to just provide an exposition dump for Bond.

    Overall, Leiter on film has been pretty underserved since day one. Just one scene between the two on R&R would have justified his presence beyond exposition dump.

    I would agree with this. You see the potential there for a strong character but he just comes off as mysterious and sort of robotic. Quarrel is easily the more interesting of the two.

    I would say Lord likely gets more attention and credit because of Hawaii 5-O. It was a regular on American TV when I was growing up and often on at my house. But in retrospect without that association Lord would come off as forgettable and underwhelming as his successors.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    Interesting thought @MakeshiftPython Lord plays what he's been given in the script and while it's not much he does manage to make it interesting. I like that his Leiter matches Bond in the coolness factor. Both look good and both have a sense of danger to themselves.

    It was a wasted opportunity that the character wasn't continued in the manner of DN. We tend to get someone who either cleans up Bond's messes or is Bond's servant. As pointed out in a recent Bond and Friends podcast. (check them out if you haven't already) even Hedison's Leiter in LALD is just cleaning up Bond's mistakes or damage.

    Connery in DAF says "relax I've got a friend named Felix who will fix everything."

    If Lord, or another actor of his age and stature, had continued in the role perhaps we would have seen the relationship like the books unfold in the movies. I wonder if Leiter took a break in the Moore years cause the character was too associated with Connery's Bond? He could have easily appeared in TSWLM and perhaps MR and OP?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Would be ironic. There was a concerted effort to do away with a lot of the Bond iconography in LALD so that Moore’s film could feel unique enough without feeling too similar to Connery’s films, whereas OHMSS tried to hit you over the head with “THIS IS A BOND FILM!” I think Leiter managed to make it in that film only because his character was in the novel so Mankiewicz kept him in the process. Same with “Quarrel Jr”. Had they not had a presence in the novel they probably would not have appeared in the film version.

    I think Leiter never appeared again in Moore’s run after LALD because most of the Bond films’ literary counterparts didn’t have Leiter, so it never occurred to a writer until TLD to think of bringing him back. TMWTGG novel had Leiter IIRC, but the film is so unlike the novel it’s pretty much it’s own thing like TSWLM and MR. CR was the first film in over 30 years to have a novel counterpart with Leiter involved, and the most crucial given him helping Bond to buy back into the game.
  • Posts: 2,917
    Maybe a controversial opinion, but I thought Leiter was pretty useless in DR. NO. I ...He honestly just feels tacked on in the film in order to give Bond a white peer to talk to. It’s a shame because he’s the best cast Leiter, but he ultimately comes off as a nonentity to just provide an exposition dump for Bond.

    Not just feels, but definitely was tacked on, since Leiter of course wasn't in the book. I also think that though Lord looked closest to Fleming's Leiter, he was also a bit miscast. Lord is a fundamentally cold actor, whereas the original Leiter is meant to be a warmer, earthier character than Bond. Leiter is the guy you'd like to have a beer with, whereas Bond is a bit too melancholy and hard-edged to really enjoy a drink with.

    While on the topic of Felix, why did the Brosnan films so defiantly refuse to use him? Instead we got the boorish Jack Wade and the creepy Falco. Was the intent to give Bond an uneasy relationship with the CIA? Or was the series so traumatized by the Leiter-heavy LTK that it refused to use the character in any of the following films?

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Revelator wrote: »
    Maybe a controversial opinion, but I thought Leiter was pretty useless in DR. NO. I ...He honestly just feels tacked on in the film in order to give Bond a white peer to talk to. It’s a shame because he’s the best cast Leiter, but he ultimately comes off as a nonentity to just provide an exposition dump for Bond.

    Not just feels, but definitely was tacked on, since Leiter of course wasn't in the book. I also think that though Lord looked closest to Fleming's Leiter, he was also a bit miscast. Lord is a fundamentally cold actor, whereas the original Leiter is meant to be a warmer, earthier character than Bond. Leiter is the guy you'd like to have a beer with, whereas Bond is a bit too melancholy and hard-edged to really enjoy a drink with.

    Not only to have a beer with but also argue about American cars vs European cars.
    While on the topic of Felix, why did the Brosnan films so defiantly refuse to use him? Instead we got the boorish Jack Wade and the creepy Falco. Was the intent to give Bond an uneasy relationship with the CIA? Or was the series so traumatized by the Leiter-heavy LTK that it refused to use the character in any of the following films?

    Yeah, his absence on Brosnan’s run really highlighted to me how disposable EON treated Leiter. Just getting him back in CR felt like the series coming home in a sense.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Revelator wrote: »
    creepy Falco. Was the intent to give Bond an uneasy relationship with the CIA?

    Falco was head of the NSA not CIA.
  • Posts: 2,917
    Murdock wrote: »
    Falco was head of the NSA not CIA.

    I stand corrected. So the intent was to give a Bond an initially adversarial relationship with the American intelligence services, later redeemed by NSA agent Jinx. The CIA seems entirely left out of the film.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2019 Posts: 8,182
    The NSA distinction was always kind of amusing to me because American agencies have typically been treated pretty interchangeable in Bond movies. I do think they were presented to be a bit adversarial in DAD, not so much the CIA in GE and TND with the severely underserved Joe Don Baker (twice as Whitaker and Jack Wade).
  • I think Leiter would be remembered a lot more fondly if Lord has continued for at least a couple more films, not necessarily through to LALD. But because he pulled a Terrence Howard, I don't think Lord does enough to warrant being an 'iconic' part of the series in the way Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell were able to do. That being said, no one in between Lord and David Hedison left much of an impact on the series, so it is plausible that the chemistry between Lord and Connery could have developed into something quite special.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    Some good thoughts on the character of Leiter. I do think having the character with some continuity might have helped to make the character more liked. I always thought the "They got a lot closer to you in Jamaica." As a kind of way to show that Leiter was still in touch with Bond after DN.

    Then in TB Bond's first meeting Leiter is sneaking around and then greets him at the door by throwing around his double -o number. I always found it funny that Bond punches Leiter in the gut and then later when the lackey is getting up he throws out double-o-7 casually. "Sorry Felix but you were just about to say double-o-7."

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    Okay as M said in YOLT, this is the BIG one double-o-7. The what if that seems to bring out a variety of opinions and thoughts. We've already discussed what if OHMSS was made in 1965 after GF. Now lets do another what if with OHMSS.

    As we all know Connery hung up the Walther in 1967. Declaring he was done with Bond and walked away from the role. But what if he hadn't? What if after reading the script from Maibaum and the director Hunt he had been persuaded to stay on for one more Bond. Would the movie be better for it? Would him staying for a more serious Bond had impact on him staying for longer in the role? Would OHMSS been the better movie for his Bond to end on?

    What say you Mi6...what if Sean Connery had starred as James Bond in OHMSS in 1969?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,205
    If he would have returned, in shape with enthusiasm, it would have been an epic return; if he would have been doing it for a paycheck and showed up flabby and poorly groomed, as in DAF, then it would have been better to go with Lazenby.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Assuming the movie turns out exactly as it did but with Connery in Lazenby's place, and giving a more engaged performance like the early films? I think it certainly would have been more applauded in 1969.

    There's always been an argument, mainly by Lazenby's defenders, that audiences wouldn't have bought Connery's Bond being depicted more emotionally vulnerable. I vehemently disagree. I think audiences would have been moved to see Connery's Bond falling in love with Tracy. This is a man we've seen for five adventures. He's gone through so much, and here he finally meets someone who feels exactly like the kind of woman Bond would want to spend the rest of his life with. It would work for audiences not only because they're already on Connery Bond's side but that he EARNED it. This would have been regarded as a truly special Bond movie because it not only provided the thrills that the franchise has offered in the past, but to everyone's surprise, it's emotionally moving!

    It's a shame because this was exactly the kind of stuff Connery would have salivated, but I don't blame him for wanting to walk away from Bond after YOLT, while a fun spectacle of a film, isn't as rich in character like the earlier films were.
  • Posts: 2,917
    Heartily agreed @MakeshiftPython ! The critic Charles Taylor argued that OHMSS was the close of the first cycle of Bond films, and there would have been immense poignancy in seeing Connery close that cycle, since it was almost entirely his own. That Connery had the acting skills and could exhibit the vulnerability required for the film is in no doubt, considering his performance in The Offence two years later. Lazenby of course did a very fine job, but seeing Connery in OHMSS would have had a resonance impossible to duplicate with anyone else.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Revelator wrote: »
    Heartily agreed @MakeshiftPython ! The critic Charles Taylor argued that OHMSS was the close of the first cycle of Bond films, and there would have been immense poignancy in seeing Connery close that cycle, since it was almost entirely his own. That Connery had the acting skills and could exhibit the vulnerability required for the film is in no doubt, considering his performance in The Offence two years later. Lazenby of course did a very fine job, but seeing Connery in OHMSS would have had a resonance impossible to duplicate with anyone else.

    Connery certainly would have been able to convey the very weary Bond of the novel too, which Lazenby was too young to ever depict that aspect of Bond for that story.

    This reminds me: I always felt the filmmakers were stretching it having a 37 year old Daniel Craig play the upstart Bond written in CR. So it got me thinking of switching the two actors. Lazenby as the upstart in CR, and Craig as the weary agent in OHMSS. Somehow that just sounds more right.

    I also felt Lazenby really should have had a standard adventure as a debut. Something action packed like LALD to suit his physicality. The Fleming's OHMSS just always felt wrong for a debut actor, and with Lazenby the kind of calibrated the film by de-emphasizing the weariness (like having Lazenby Bond upset that M would take him off assignment, when Fleming's Bond wanted out).
  • Posts: 11,425
    Revelator wrote: »
    Maybe a controversial opinion, but I thought Leiter was pretty useless in DR. NO. I ...He honestly just feels tacked on in the film in order to give Bond a white peer to talk to. It’s a shame because he’s the best cast Leiter, but he ultimately comes off as a nonentity to just provide an exposition dump for Bond.

    Not just feels, but definitely was tacked on, since Leiter of course wasn't in the book. I also think that though Lord looked closest to Fleming's Leiter, he was also a bit miscast. Lord is a fundamentally cold actor, whereas the original Leiter is meant to be a warmer, earthier character than Bond. Leiter is the guy you'd like to have a beer with, whereas Bond is a bit too melancholy and hard-edged to really enjoy a drink with.

    While on the topic of Felix, why did the Brosnan films so defiantly refuse to use him? Instead we got the boorish Jack Wade and the creepy Falco. Was the intent to give Bond an uneasy relationship with the CIA? Or was the series so traumatized by the Leiter-heavy LTK that it refused to use the character in any of the following films?

    I think EON still saw the Brosnan era as direct continuity with the previous films so since Leiter had been half eaten by a shark in LTK they couldn't bring him back into active service.

    CR obv changed all that with an explicit reboot. And tbh no one would have cared anyway. EON had been soft rebooting for years - it's just no one called it that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Getafix wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Maybe a controversial opinion, but I thought Leiter was pretty useless in DR. NO. I ...He honestly just feels tacked on in the film in order to give Bond a white peer to talk to. It’s a shame because he’s the best cast Leiter, but he ultimately comes off as a nonentity to just provide an exposition dump for Bond.

    Not just feels, but definitely was tacked on, since Leiter of course wasn't in the book. I also think that though Lord looked closest to Fleming's Leiter, he was also a bit miscast. Lord is a fundamentally cold actor, whereas the original Leiter is meant to be a warmer, earthier character than Bond. Leiter is the guy you'd like to have a beer with, whereas Bond is a bit too melancholy and hard-edged to really enjoy a drink with.

    While on the topic of Felix, why did the Brosnan films so defiantly refuse to use him? Instead we got the boorish Jack Wade and the creepy Falco. Was the intent to give Bond an uneasy relationship with the CIA? Or was the series so traumatized by the Leiter-heavy LTK that it refused to use the character in any of the following films?

    I think EON still saw the Brosnan era as direct continuity with the previous films so since Leiter had been half eaten by a shark in LTK they couldn't bring him back into active service.

    CR obv changed all that with an explicit reboot. And tbh no one would have cared anyway. EON had been soft rebooting for years - it's just no one called it that.

    Would have been interesting to see Leiter post-shark attack like in the novels, though I'm sure most audiences would have been like "who's this cripple?", and I'm not sure they would have brought back David Hedison for the part.
  • Posts: 11,425
    In which novel does Leiter get attacked by a shark?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Getafix wrote: »
    In which novel does Leiter get attacked by a shark?

    The second novel, Live and Let Die. After that he becomes a private detective, but is sometimes recalled to the CIA for special operations.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Had Connery starred in OHMSS, I wonder if he would have done DAF as well. And I doubt it would have been a comedy, regardless of actor. It might have influenced the tone of the next couple of films as well. Perhaps the parodical aspect would have been toned down a bit.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Had Connery starred in OHMSS, I wonder if he would have done DAF as well. And I doubt it would have been a comedy, regardless of actor. It might have influenced the tone of the next couple of films as well. Perhaps the parodical aspect would have been toned down a bit.

    It would certainly have been played as a proper follow up, especially with Hunt back as he was keen on doing a follow up (albeit only with Lazenby). I think Connery would have cashed his chips after DAF. After that, who really knows? The DAF we got only happened because of OHMSS underperforming, and bringing back Hamilton to lighten up the series was part of a course correction that lead to Moore’s run.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,583
    Connery in OHMSS is definelty the biggest what-if moment for me in the series. He did turn down a 1 million dollar payday for it. But also went on record stating that he always wanted to do a Bond film of such nature. However, there would be a huge continuity flaw with it since the appearance from Sean to George allowed the undercover Hillary Bray aspect to work. He had already met Blofeld prior. So how would it work with him posing as Bray and Blofeld not immediately recognizing him on the spot? Hence how OHMSS should have followed up TB like the books did.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Remake them all in chronological order. The obvious next step for EON IMO
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2019 Posts: 8,182
    They might have played up more with Bond’s disguise. Perhaps a fake beard. Besides, it was already stretching it that no one in SPECTRE recognized Lazenby, as his Bond was presumably the same one targeted in FRWL. Of course in the novels Bond had only encountered SPECTRE once in TB, so there was no history of foiling them multiple times.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    Thank you @Revelator for that perspective. I can see what that critic was saying. It does feel like the end of an era or a character arc. In fact Tracy not being mentioned at all till 1977 briefly and then again in 1981 seems like a rather tenuous link to the films of the 60's. Perhaps if it was referenced more it would be easier to see it continuing an arc rather then it ending one.

    I do think Connery could have pulled off the acting required in OHMSS. I wonder if he read any scripts or whether he was so turned off by the YOLT experience that he just refused to even entertain coming back. I can see the scene with M reassigning him playing much differently and with the audience feeling more in Bond's corner. I would hope all the cheesy references to the other films would be gone and instead he'd open a flask and drink in his office.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    I have a feeling that if Connery had indeed returned, OHMSS would have been a very different film. More gadgets, no Diana Rigg, more humor, etc.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,418
    I can see no Diana Rigg. Humour? I am not sure there would have been more in this film. I think Hunt was driving a more back to basics approach and I am not sure that it would be different because of the leading man.

    I know the 1965 version of this movie was very different to what came to the screen in 1969.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,182
    Remington wrote: »
    I have a feeling that if Connery had indeed returned, OHMSS would have been a very different film. More gadgets, no Diana Rigg, more humor, etc.

    If Peter Hunt weren't directing, perhaps it would have been just another spectacle like YOLT.
    thedove wrote: »
    I do think Connery could have pulled off the acting required in OHMSS. I wonder if he read any scripts or whether he was so turned off by the YOLT experience that he just refused to even entertain coming back.

    I believe he announced YOLT would be his last in the middle of production. He was done. He had set his mind onto leaving so he could do other films. Getting time to do other movies between Bond films was very limiting because of the fast pace EON was cranking them out that he was lucky to catch a break. That and they wouldn't let him into the creative process. Dean Martin was making more money off of Bond parodies than Connery was as the real Bond actor seems pretty naff. Contrast that with how it works today, where Robert Downey Jr is able challenges Disney "if you think I'm that important to stand in a green screen set for months, pay up".
    I can see the scene with M reassigning him playing much differently and with the audience feeling more in Bond's corner. I would hope all the cheesy references to the other films would be gone and instead he'd open a flask and drink in his office.

    "Same old James!"

    That's an aspect of LALD I like, that the filmmakers weren't trying to hammer home the idea that Roger Moore is the same James Bond from the last seven films. It's just "here's James Bond, now let's get onto the adventure".
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I bet Connery would have been more at home with a kilt.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    A brief thought, if I may. As you well know, OHMSS was meant to follow GF. And the producers obliviously found a formula in GF. In Charles Helfenstein’s magnificent tome, “The Making of OHMSS”, he suggests that in Richard Maibaum’s various screenplays to OHMSS, that the tone would be more fantastical, a’la TB and YOLT, ranging from ‘65 to ‘67-ish. And for some reason, Maibaum was obsessed by bringing back Goldfinger’s twin brother.

    With that in mind, Connery wouldn’t sign on to appear in his 6th Bondian epic, quitting the role in the midst of filming for YOLT. With problems with Gilbert’s regular editor, Thelma Connell, the producers asked Hunt to return. As part of their deal, they agreed that Hunt could direct OHMSS.

    Let’s get creative in this alternative reality of ours, shall we? With Hunt vowing to do OHMSS as a straight adaption, could he convince Connery to agree to play Bond again? So, Connery read a rough draft of the script, and thusly he was reinvigorated to play ol’ Jimmy Bond.

    (I.E. if Connery was enthused, in the vein of, let’s say, FRWL, then hell yes. But if he was unenthused, like YOLT, then I’d rather stick with Lazenby)
Sign In or Register to comment.