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

1495052545563

Comments

  • timdalton007timdalton007 North Alabama
    Posts: 155
    To quote another movie released in 1977: "I have a very bad feeling about this."

    One of the things that's great about TSWLM is that it's where the franchise as a whole finally stepped out of the shadow of the sixties. It's the film where Moore's Bond finally settled into place and they stopped, as Lewis Gilbert rightly pointed out, writing the role like Connery was still playing the part. True, the plot has more than a few echoes of YOLT, but there's a sense of scale and its own identity that gets firmly established that rivals or even excels what the earlier films did. TSWLM that proved Bond could make it without Connery, especially after Golden Gun's reception and everything going on behind the scenes made that look unlikely for a time.

    Bringing back Tatiana (or Blofeld and SPECTRE for that matter) leaves the franchise still chasing after those days gone by. Arguably, that's the problem with DAF-Golden Gun, in that they were chasing past glories still instead of trying to forge ahead. It's one thing to briefly mention Tracy, for example, but it's another to say "Why create a new female lead when we can just use another one?" Maybe it would have worked and we could have had more internal continuity between films than we'd had since the very earliest days of the series (and wouldn't have again until Craig's era, but throwing in Tatiana strikes me as a move that makes the audience go "Wasn't this character better in that Connery film?"
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,604
    I think it could have worked, but the big problem would have been Daniela Bianchi: she long retired by then. Would she have honestly come back? With her voice dubbed again? I think not.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    I don’t see how she could come back. If you think about it logically.
    At the end of FRWL, Bond and Tatiana would’ve gone back to the UK, even if she wasn’t an agent, the British would allow her to safely defect to the West.
    How and why would she be working as a top Russian agent in TSWLM?
    Of course a story could be made up. But would it be believable, and more importantly, would the audience be accept her with a different Bond?
    Whilst it would be a nice idea if Connery was still Bond, I don’t think it would’ve worked well for Roger Moore, or the story as a whole.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Weren't they also going to bring back Barbara Bach for AVTAK?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    echo wrote: »
    Weren't they also going to bring back Barbara Bach for AVTAK?

    I believe there was an idea to bring her back, in AVTAK.
    But then we got Pola Ivanova instead.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,787
    echo wrote: »
    Weren't they also going to bring back Barbara Bach for AVTAK?

    Bach refused it.....
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    If Tatiana came back she'd be jaded. And p***ed.

    Likely out to assassinate 007 for moving on to other conquests. Maybe he could win her back over.


    Daniela_Bianchi_chaplin45.gif
    e569e75fd7230821c326bbacfefed5cc.jpg
    s-l500.jpg
    Daniela-Bianchi-hot.jpeg
    Daniela-Bianchi-9.jpeg



  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,787
    If Tatiana came back she'd be jaded. And p***ed.

    Likely out to assassinate 007 for moving on to other conquests. Maybe he could win her back over.


    Daniela_Bianchi_chaplin45.gif
    e569e75fd7230821c326bbacfefed5cc.jpg
    s-l500.jpg
    Daniela-Bianchi-hot.jpeg
    Daniela-Bianchi-9.jpeg



    That's an interesting premise, imagine her being this Rogue 'former' Russian Intel a la what happened to Bond in LTK, but she accidentally encountered Bond along the way, it would've made an unusual partnering, then she would be involved in Bond's mission, because Bond's enemies were also targeting her too, now (because again, she got involved in Bond's mission), and they're now helping each other to finish Bond's mission, but in the middle of the mission, it would be revealed that Bond's mission was also the same rogue mission of Tatiana's, means, Bond's enemy was also the same as Tatiana's enemy, having their rivalry more stronger because they're competing for who should kill the villain; is it Tatiana or Bond?
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,604
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Weren't they also going to bring back Barbara Bach for AVTAK?

    Bach refused it.....

    Because she married Ringo Starr and saw his bank account.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited April 2023 Posts: 3,787
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Weren't they also going to bring back Barbara Bach for AVTAK?

    Bach refused it.....

    Because she married Ringo Starr and saw his bank account.

    No, because she said that Bond is a 'chauvinist pig'

    https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1631080/James-Bond-girl-Barbara-Bach-The-Spy-Who-Loved-Me-Roger-Moore/amp
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited April 2023 Posts: 13,767
    With Tatiana, she was a sweet lady maybe she returned as an environmentalist.

    And Bond had to save her again for being involved in villainous enviro-mischief.


    th?id=OIP.wr2JVoE_IODhk-ChoKsegAHaLH&pid=15.1
    FqotJGCWcAMUQyu.jpg
    tumblr_okp28rCJUw1vq0t5so2_400.pnj



  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Sadly Tatiana's character was the sacrificial lamb of the story this round. To keep the focus on the other returning character Pussy Galore.

    And so she was run down in the first act by a speeding freight train.

    61S4M58DLXL._AC_.jpg

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,404
    I was inspired by re-watching OHMSS and listening to Peter Hunt say he originally wanted the film to end with Bond and Tracey driving off into the sunset under the flowers. Then the next film would open with the death of Tracey. Once George had made clear he wasn't staying for another film, he had no choice but to end the film on the death of Tracey.

    It lead me to think, what if....what if Peter had kept the film the way he intended. OHMSS ends with a happy ending, the next film opens with the tragic end of Tracey. Would it change the way OHMSS is viewed, would the ending be a whimper and not a jaw dropping ending it was? I realize this change would have greater implications, as it would mean George was back for DAF, or if they had to re-shoot, Connery would be with Rigg in the Aston.

    What say you Mi6, what if Peter Hunt's original ending had stayed with the death of Tracey being the start of DAF?
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited May 2023 Posts: 3,147
    I suppose it would've had a similar impact as Marie being killed unexpectedly at the start of The Bourne Supremacy. But a greater one, given the relative unexpectedness (is that a word?) of such a move in 1969-'70. Marie doesn't die in Ludlam's books and Doug Liman said that had he stayed on as Bourne director, he wouldn't have killed the character - it was Paul Greengrass's idea. Given the striking similarity, I wonder if Greengrass knew of the original plan to kill Tracy at the start of DAF and that's where he got the idea from in the first place? Dunno. He wouldn't have been able to just copy it if EON had gone with Hunt's original idea, though, so the Bourne sequels would've been different at least!
    But, yes, I think OHMSS would be viewed differently if Tracy had survived to the credits. The downer ending maybe wasn't what its original '60s audience wanted, but it does contribute to the positive modern reassessment of the film. I do think OHMSS would've been reassessed anyway, but Tracy's death gives it so much more gravitas than if the last shot had been the wedding car driving off. It wouldn't be the same film without the ending we got. By the same token, nor would DAF!
  • Posts: 463
    Honestly I feel like the impact of OHMSS’ ending is due to exactly how it happens. Move it to the start of the next film and it loses tons of impact, imo.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited May 2023 Posts: 480
    The final scene was definitely shot before Lazenby decided that he wouldn't return.

    It wouldn't have made much sense to keep it in store for the next film. There was naturally no Internet in those days, but the audiences would have known how the original novel was supposed to end and that Diana Rigg wouldn't play a big part in the sequel. Her death wouldn't have been such a shocking moment. Then, it would have been much of a departure to get Bond happy in the first minutes, then moping, then back to his efficient self during most of the sequel. Give the man some time to grieve offscreen… It made more sense for an OHMSS followup movie to return to Bond after a few months where he was a shadow of his former self, getting eventually the revenge he was seeking.

    Then, the lyrics of "We Have All the Time in the World" don't take their full meaning unless there is the tragic ending. And the song was written and recorded before Lazenby had made a decision.

    But more importantly, the final scene was Lazenby's best bit of acting in the film. He sells the hell out of Bond's pain, displaying some vulnerability that Connery may have never been able to match. I don't see how it could have made shot while Hunt simply needed a scene to take care of loose ends, given the intensity of the performance. This isn't some half-assed conclusion delivered by an actor who's eager to leave the franchise behind.

    Sure, Hunt may have considered at some point in development keeping the scene for the sequel and may have talked about it with the producers, but it's obvious that it had been confirmed in its rightful place early during production.
  • I think it’s interesting to note that every single draft/screenplay that Richard Maibaum penned for Majesty’s always ended with the death of Tracy, some even ending with the deaths of Blofeld and Bunt too. Note also the early drafts of Diamonds Are Forever, which began with the death of Irma Bunt in most cases. So while Hunt may have desired the death of Tracy for the beginning of DAF, Maibaum certainly did not.
  • edited May 2023 Posts: 1,708
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Weren't they also going to bring back Barbara Bach for AVTAK?

    Bach refused it.....

    Because she married Ringo Starr and saw his bank account.

    No, because she said that Bond is a 'chauvinist pig'

    https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1631080/James-Bond-girl-Barbara-Bach-The-Spy-Who-Loved-Me-Roger-Moore/amp

    yes , a coked out drummer beats 007 any day :P

    Im glad OHMSS is th way it is.....wouldv cheapnd Tracys death in DAF , not th same impact imo
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited May 2023 Posts: 673
    Sure, Hunt may have considered at some point in development keeping the scene for the sequel and may have talked about it with the producers, but it's obvious that it had been confirmed in its rightful place early during production.

    According to the inside documentary, it sounds like it was very much Hunt's intention to end with the wedding (skip to 35:40), he refers to it as "dramatically how it should have been."



    However, I agree it works much better as is. It leaves far more impact immediately following the wedding, showing us just how short a time their shared happiness lasts.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    It's one of Fleming's best stories, so I'm glad they kept it as is.

    I can understand why Hunt would say that because the films are in their own universe, especially in the spy-crazed mid- to late '60s. (YOLT to OHMSS is as abrupt a tonal shift as MR to FYEO, but maybe as abrupt as OHMSS to DAF.) And clearly CR in 2006 did not choose to go with a (completely) downer ending.

    Ironically, because a future with Eon did not work out for either Hunt or Lazenby, we got the best possible film under these circumstances.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,404
    Some what if's are not improvements. While I think a more upbeat ending to the film would be audience pleasing, but it wouldn't have the same impact to have that be the beginning of the next film.

    I only wish the producers had taken some patience and allowed the next film to be a continuation. Even with a different Bond, they could have acknowledged Tracey and the death of her character.

    Having Moneypenny joke about wanting a ring with a diamond was in poor taste in terms of the grieving Bond. But since DAF doesn't acknowledge the death or anything about OHMSS I suppose it's not too bad.

    Maybe we should create an "if only" thread! LOL
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    OHMSS would have been a weaker film that's for certain. God only knows how they would explained that in DAF had Lazenby not come back, at least with the end Majesty's had, it was straightforward to pick up from.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,344
    Sure, Hunt may have considered at some point in development keeping the scene for the sequel and may have talked about it with the producers, but it's obvious that it had been confirmed in its rightful place early during production.

    According to the inside documentary, it sounds like it was very much Hunt's intention to end with the wedding (skip to 35:40), he refers to it as "dramatically how it should have been."



    However, I agree it works much better as is. It leaves far more impact immediately following the wedding, showing us just how short a time their shared happiness lasts.

    Yeah that's a terrible idea. That sort of thing just undermines the previous film, making the audience feel like they've been cheated. Usually when that happens it's because a cast member can't return or the new director can't come up with an idea of how to use the character in the new one- to actually plan to do that a couple of years beforehand is madness.
  • Posts: 15,106
    That's a nightmarish "what if". And I can only imagine the very worst as most probable scenario: weakening OHMSS but not saving Lazenby from losing the role and making DAF even more of a spoof than it was. Because I thjnk they woukd hsve kept DAF a parody. Just imagine Sean Connery phoning it in in the PTS, grieving for a minute, then going on full Austin Power 2 mode and being happy to be single again. Actually, it already sucked in AP2 . Imagine how it would have sucked in Bond.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,147
    Ludovico wrote: »
    it already sucked in AP2 . Imagine how it would have sucked in Bond.
    Imagine if they'd taken the idea of Austin and Dr. Evil being brothers and used that in Bond...
  • Posts: 15,106
    Venutius wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    it already sucked in AP2 . Imagine how it would have sucked in Bond.
    Imagine if they'd taken the idea of Austin and Dr. Evil being brothers and used that in Bond...

    I actually think this was more accidental than anything else and blown out of proportion by SP critics. Yes, it was a bad idea. But it was not taken from AP, the "brothers turned enemies" was a cliché that predates AP. And in SP's case, it's toned down by the fact that the assumption is entirely from Blofeld's point of view. Bond even stops calling him Franz Oberhauser when his new identity is revealed.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited May 2023 Posts: 3,147
    True enough, but when it's been done in Austin Powers, of all things, you just can't. You've served yourself up on a plate for every mickey-take going. Although, to be honest, I'd've disapproved even if AP hadn't got there first. It just seems lazy. Maybe it's just me - I didn't like the idea of DAF featuring Goldfinger's brother either! ;)
  • Posts: 15,106
    Oh I don't like that cliché in any way, shape or form.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,767
    Powers. Bond.

    Turnabout is fair play.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,404
    Maibaum had many great ideas and wonderful screenplays but having Goldfinger have a brother who was fascinated in diamonds was a horrible idea. Glad the producers had the good sense to reject that villain.

    I think the "brother" thing in SP has been over stated. I question why they felt they needed this angle. The Blofeld, Bond dynamic should have been enough to make for an intense hatred without adding in this adopted brother angle.
Sign In or Register to comment.