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

15758606263

Comments

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,787
    007HallY wrote: »
    Ultimately though, I suspect OHMSS would still have had an underwhelming reception. Neither Lazenby nor Dalton were stars at the time, Dalton was rather young, and Connery had been too big in the role. A change in direction for the next one would have been needed.
    That's also my opinion. While Dalton would have been a better actor than Lazenby, I don't think the audience would have reacted well to him. The only actor I could imagine fully succeeding in 1969 would have been Moore. Moore was popular, he would have been accepted as the new Bond; I'm not sure a dashing 23 years old Dalton would have been seen as Connery's successor.

    I would even go as far as thinking that it would have been even more likely to see a second Lazenby Bond instalment after OHMSS than a second Dalton one. Taking into account OHMSS filming conditions (56 days of shooting in Switzerland) and Dalton's young age, I doubt he would have wanted to continue. I read he was still uncomfortable with all the marketing part of the Bond films in the 80s, so I can only imagine it would have been worse in '69, especially when their was a need to sell this new face and to really have him be at the heart of the marketing campaign.

    With Dalton playing Bond in '69 and leaving the role after OHMSS, I guess the future of the series would have been more or less the same on the short term: Connery returns for DAF, then Moore stars in LALD. The real change would come in 1986 with the casting of a new actor in the lead role for TLD. Sam Neill, Antony Hamilton, it could have been anyone.

    This, I agree, I couldn't said it better.

    Heck, Dalton was even considered for FYEO, but he declined (again, stated there in your post), because he didn't liked the series ' direction at the time.
    So him in OHMSS would've been harder because aside from his age, it would've been harder for Dalton to follow Connery (as he'd told so, he's not confident in following Connery's shoes), so yes, it would've been the same, and of course, with the box office result of OHMSS (it did performed fine, but not as high as the previous Connery films) because of a new Bond actor, Bond falling in love and getting married, Bond Girl dying at the end, this would disappoint Dalton more and would be more reluctant to continue in the role.

    And would've been far more worse, as he wouldn't likely to become Bond in 1987 because of the trauma happened to him in 1969, so who would've been Bond in that era? If it's Brosnan, then it would've been still great, but what if others? Sam Neill? Heck no! Anthony Hamilton? Not familiar with the guy, Christopher Reeve? He's an American and too much of a comic faced character to be taken seriously as Bond (he would've probably been more campy than Moore).
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 1,324

    Yes, but with Dalton in OHSS and Brosnan in TLD.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,344
    Yeah Dalton would have played it better than we got I'm sure, but still would have been a touch miscast and a pale comparison to Connery. As you say, probably given the boot by the next one- you needed Connery or Moore in that film.
    It's perhaps not impossible that he'd have returned in the 80s, although yes, a different one seems likely- I'm not sure who third choice was?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 4,109
    I don’t think anyone could have elevated OHMSS to having a better reception. Honestly, even with Connery I think it would have had an underwhelming reception.

    But at least with Moore he had that star quality/acting skill, and we know that he was capable of playing Bond with that lighter touch the series subsequently leaned into. So yes, I think in hindsight Moore could have done it.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 1,324
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    Lazenby was a placeholder. He was useful for Connery and Moore, that's for sure.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited December 2023 Posts: 3,787
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    Lazenby was the right Bond at the time, yes, it's the audience who was the problem at the time, none of such guys could've fared well in people's eyes but Connery.

    But again, it's in the film itself, I'm sure not many people wanted to see Bond fall in love, got married, and cry in the end, it's not their Bond, after seeing Bond as a fantasy material, it's hard to take it away from the people's perspective of Bond, why Moore made it successful too? Because he went back to escapism.

    OHMSS was such a different beast back in 1969, because it's different from the previous Bond films, I think in my opinion, OHMSS should've been shelved for a later era when the people were ready, but again LTK didn't also make the hit for making it too personal for Bond.

    Really? It's only Casino Royale that proved to be successful because it's different.

    Maybe they should've made it with Craig? I mean not Brosnan, especially coming after the failure of LTK in the box office, still a proof that people didn't liked personal stories for Bond.

    It's only when the Craig Era happened that these people began to reassess and praise LTK and OHMSS because of their personal storylines.

    OHMSS is a film, that's made in the wrong time, I think, because to shock people with a Bond that's different from what they've seen (I mean Connery only made 5 films at the time, then have this film to which contradicts every Bond trope that's seen in the Connery Era was quite too early for the audiences, sure the book is a bestseller, but 1969 is different, not many people have read the book by that time, and the storyline of OHMSS took the people by surprise).

    The audiences were still not prepared for that kind of Bond story.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    edited December 2023 Posts: 4,606
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    Lazenby was the right Bond at the time, yes, it's the audience who was the problem at the time, none of such guys could've fared well in people's eyes but Connery.

    But again, it's in the film itself, I'm sure not many people wanted to see Bond fall in love, got married, and cry in the end, it's not their Bond, after seeing Bond as a fantasy material, it's hard to take it away from the people's perspective of Bond, why Moore made it successful too? Because he went back to escapism.

    OHMSS was such a different beast back in 1969, because it's different from the previous Bond films, I think in my opinion, OHMSS should've been shelved for a later era when the people were ready, but again LTK didn't also make the hit for making it too personal for Bond.

    Really? It's only Casino Royale that proved to be successful because it's different.

    Maybe they should've made it with Craig? I mean not Brosnan, especially coming after the failure of LTK in the box office, still a proof that people didn't liked personal stories for Bond.

    It's only when the Craig Era happened that this people began to reassess and praise LTK and OHMSS because of their personal storylines.

    OHMSS is a film, that's made in the wrong time, I think, because to shock people with a Bond that's different from what they've seen (I mean Connery only made 5 films at the time, then have this film to which contradicts every Bond trope that's seen in the Connery was quite too early for the audiences, sure the book is a bestseller, but 1969 is different, not many people have read the book by that time, and the storyline of OHMSS took the people by surprise).

    The audiences were still not prepared for that kind of Bond story.

    Now, ironically, people want the Bond stories to go back to non-personal stories. That includes certain other characters: M, in particular. It doesn’t help that her personal stories make her unsympathetic. In TWINE and SF, she makes the villain(s), who they are. No sympathy from me when she died.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2023 Posts: 16,344
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    I don't know; I don't think people were sick of him after DAF and Moore replaced him pretty effectively then. Maybe Lazenby appearing had put the idea in the audiences' minds that 007 could change face and given them a sort of soft launch of the idea by Connery reappearing, but I think they'd probably have been fine with it in 69.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    Lazenby was the right Bond at the time, yes, it's the audience who was the problem at the time, none of such guys could've fared well in people's eyes but Connery.

    But again, it's in the film itself, I'm sure not many people wanted to see Bond fall in love, got married, and cry in the end, it's not their Bond, after seeing Bond as a fantasy material, it's hard to take it away from the people's perspective of Bond, why Moore made it successful too? Because he went back to escapism.

    OHMSS was such a different beast back in 1969, because it's different from the previous Bond films, I think in my opinion, OHMSS should've been shelved for a later era when the people were ready, but again LTK didn't also make the hit for making it too personal for Bond.

    Really? It's only Casino Royale that proved to be successful because it's different.

    Maybe they should've made it with Craig? I mean not Brosnan, especially coming after the failure of LTK in the box office, still a proof that people didn't liked personal stories for Bond.

    It's only when the Craig Era happened that this people began to reassess and praise LTK and OHMSS because of their personal storylines.

    OHMSS is a film, that's made in the wrong time, I think, because to shock people with a Bond that's different from what they've seen (I mean Connery only made 5 films at the time, then have this film to which contradicts every Bond trope that's seen in the Connery was quite too early for the audiences, sure the book is a bestseller, but 1969 is different, not many people have read the book by that time, and the storyline of OHMSS took the people by surprise).

    The audiences were still not prepared for that kind of Bond story.

    Now, ironically, people want the Bond stories to go back to non-personal stories.

    Well, some loud fans do. I wouldn't confuse that with the general audience.
    Fans always like it how it used to be back in the old days, because that's what made them fans.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 4,109
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    Lazenby was the right Bond at the time, yes, it's the audience who was the problem at the time, none of such guys could've fared well in people's eyes but Connery.

    But again, it's in the film itself, I'm sure not many people wanted to see Bond fall in love, got married, and cry in the end, it's not their Bond, after seeing Bond as a fantasy material, it's hard to take it away from the people's perspective of Bond, why Moore made it successful too? Because he went back to escapism.

    OHMSS was such a different beast back in 1969, because it's different from the previous Bond films, I think in my opinion, OHMSS should've been shelved for a later era when the people were ready, but again LTK didn't also make the hit for making it too personal for Bond.

    Really? It's only Casino Royale that proved to be successful because it's different.

    Maybe they should've made it with Craig? I mean not Brosnan, especially coming after the failure of LTK in the box office, still a proof that people didn't liked personal stories for Bond.

    It's only when the Craig Era happened that these people began to reassess and praise LTK and OHMSS because of their personal storylines.

    OHMSS is a film, that's made in the wrong time, I think, because to shock people with a Bond that's different from what they've seen (I mean Connery only made 5 films at the time, then have this film to which contradicts every Bond trope that's seen in the Connery Era was quite too early for the audiences, sure the book is a bestseller, but 1969 is different, not many people have read the book by that time, and the storyline of OHMSS took the people by surprise).

    The audiences were still not prepared for that kind of Bond story.

    Maybe I’ve not been a Bond fan for quite as long as others, but I’m not entirely sure if that’s true. I think both those films had reevaluations by Brosnan’s era. Certainly amongst general audiences I remember Dalton having a cult following as early as when I was a teen, and many directors have praised OHMSS, probably even as early as the 70s/80s. I suspect fans probably went back on these films earlier. Remember, those more ‘personal’ aspects were there pretty much from every film after LTK onwards so they made their mark. I think there’s always been a portion of the fans wanting to see those more Fleming-esque aspects of the character onscreen too. Ironically now we’re in a different place with some fans wanting less of this.

    Otherwise yeah I agree, I don’t think the material of OHMSS was going to have wide appeal at the time. It’s a bit dammed if you do dammed if you don’t really. You had some great, hard hitting films in the late 60s which were willing to break genre moulds and push things, and when Bond did something similar it didn’t quite meet with success. The change in actor didn’t help, but I think even then it wasn’t an easy sell.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited December 2023 Posts: 3,787
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, some loud fans do. I wouldn't confuse that with the general audience.
    Fans always like it how it used to be back in the old days, because that's what made them fans.

    Fans liked to see Bond tackle some interesting storylines, it's us who re-evaluated OHMSS and LTK after all, because we know Bond better than the general audiences, we've read the books, we know everything about Bond.

    General audiences wanted the Back to basics better because they're not much familiar with Bond, half of the majority were into the cinematic aspect of Bond being a fantasy, it's in the general audience where people disliked LTK and OHMSS because they don't know Bond, let alone reading the books.

    This is very much a proof in Reddit sub, you're going to know who were fans and who were casual audiences, there's the difference.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    No one could have successfully replaced Connery in 1969, not Dalton, not Moore.

    Lazenby was useful, in retrospect.

    Lazenby was the right Bond at the time, yes, it's the audience who was the problem at the time, none of such guys could've fared well in people's eyes but Connery.

    But again, it's in the film itself, I'm sure not many people wanted to see Bond fall in love, got married, and cry in the end, it's not their Bond, after seeing Bond as a fantasy material, it's hard to take it away from the people's perspective of Bond, why Moore made it successful too? Because he went back to escapism.

    OHMSS was such a different beast back in 1969, because it's different from the previous Bond films, I think in my opinion, OHMSS should've been shelved for a later era when the people were ready, but again LTK didn't also make the hit for making it too personal for Bond.

    Really? It's only Casino Royale that proved to be successful because it's different.

    Maybe they should've made it with Craig? I mean not Brosnan, especially coming after the failure of LTK in the box office, still a proof that people didn't liked personal stories for Bond.

    It's only when the Craig Era happened that these people began to reassess and praise LTK and OHMSS because of their personal storylines.

    OHMSS is a film, that's made in the wrong time, I think, because to shock people with a Bond that's different from what they've seen (I mean Connery only made 5 films at the time, then have this film to which contradicts every Bond trope that's seen in the Connery Era was quite too early for the audiences, sure the book is a bestseller, but 1969 is different, not many people have read the book by that time, and the storyline of OHMSS took the people by surprise).

    The audiences were still not prepared for that kind of Bond story.

    Maybe I’ve not been a Bond fan for quite as long as others, but I’m not entirely sure if that’s true. I think both those films had reevaluations by Brosnan’s era. Remember, those more ‘personal’ aspects were there pretty much from every film after LTK onwards so they made their mark. I think there’s always been a portion of the fans wanting to see those more Fleming-esque aspects of the character onscreen too. Ironically now we’re in a different place with some fans wanting less of this.

    Otherwise yeah I agree, I don’t think the material of OHMSS was going to have wide appeal at the time. It’s a bit dammed if you do dammed if you don’t really. You had some great, hard hitting films in the late 60s which were willing to break genre moulds and push things, and when Bond did something similar it didn’t quite meet with success. The change in actor didn’t help, but I think even then it wasn’t an easy sell.

    Yes, anyways, just for clarification: I mean, if it it would be Brosnan's debut, I don't think it would've been as successful as Goldeneye, because like what I've said, LTK didn't fared that much in the box office, then came the 3 year hiatus, then to have Bond back in 1995 getting married and cry over his dead wife would've been more of a worse view, at least Goldeneye was a fresh take, sure, there are personal elements like Alec Trevelyan and his relation to Bond, but it's still not deep as OHMSS.

    Maybe after that, in TND, we've seen Brosnan mourn over a dead Paris Carver, but it's brief and the film were mostly covered with action and escapism, but yes, it's started to get into there with TWINE breaking box office, so maybe OHMSS should've been Brosnan's third? Although even TWINE still played it safe with Bond ending up with Christmas Jones and not crying at the end.

    The thing is OHMSS was a groundbreaking story for Bond, it went against all things Bond: Bond falling in love deeply, Bond getting married and have his wife killed, it's really a risky idea to put on screen, audiences were really going to shock because it's against all the tropes that the people were used to seeing, and that's the same situation as with NTTD with the bold move of killing off Bond and giving him a child, but the difference is, people were now open to those aspects, unlike back then.

    When it comes to OHMSS, I mean, it didn't worked because the James Bond series was already cemented with the idea of Bond being a male fantasy figure, I know many 60's films pushed the boundaries, but Bond was already a built in franchise when OHMSS was released, for audiences at the time, Bond should've been played by Connery or else have it end, Bond should be a sex symbol, a womanizer, Bond should get the girl in the end (alive!), No dramas, and etc, it should've been bombastic and basic.

    And OHMSS contradicted the Bond tropes that are established in the Connery Era.

    It's not a one off film.
  • Posts: 1,324
    I liked OHMSS and LTK before Craig... but I never asked for OHMSS 2 or LTK 2.



  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited December 2023 Posts: 16,344
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, some loud fans do. I wouldn't confuse that with the general audience.
    Fans always like it how it used to be back in the old days, because that's what made them fans.

    Fans liked to see Bond tackle some interesting storylines, it's us who re-evaluated OHMSS and LTK after all, because we know Bond better than the general audiences, we've read the books, we know everything about Bond.

    General audiences wanted the Back to basics better because they're not much familiar with Bond, half of the majority were into the cinematic aspect of Bond being a fantasy, it's in the general audience where people disliked LTK and OHMSS because they don't know Bond, let alone reading the books.

    This is very much a proof in Reddit sub, you're going to know who were fans and who were casual audiences, there's the difference.

    General audiences are the ones who go to see the films, CR was a massive hit, Craig one of the most popular Bonds ever... it doesn't take much to pick that apart. And audiences do expect a bit of emotional involvement nowadays.
    The loud fan voices ask for a dumbed-down Bond film, and yet for some reason the consensus also seems to be that Nolan should direct the next one; which I find a bit odd because the idea that the guy who directed Oppenheimer would do a cartoonish movie where 007 just shoots some evil baddies and kisses some ladies without getting a hair out of place seems a touch unlikely to me.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 1,324
    mtm wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well, some loud fans do. I wouldn't confuse that with the general audience.
    Fans always like it how it used to be back in the old days, because that's what made them fans.

    Fans liked to see Bond tackle some interesting storylines, it's us who re-evaluated OHMSS and LTK after all, because we know Bond better than the general audiences, we've read the books, we know everything about Bond.

    General audiences wanted the Back to basics better because they're not much familiar with Bond, half of the majority were into the cinematic aspect of Bond being a fantasy, it's in the general audience where people disliked LTK and OHMSS because they don't know Bond, let alone reading the books.

    This is very much a proof in Reddit sub, you're going to know who were fans and who were casual audiences, there's the difference.

    General audiences are the ones who go to see the films, CR was a massive hit, Craig one of the most popular Bonds ever... it doesn't take much to pick that apart. And audiences do expect a bit of emotional involvement nowadays.
    The loud fan voices ask for a dumbed-down Bond film, and yet for some reason the consensus also seems to be that Nolan should direct the next one; which I find a bit odd because the idea that the guy who directed Oppenheimer would do a cartoonish movie where 007 just shoots some evil baddies and kisses some ladies without getting a hair out of place seems a touch unlikely to me.

    Well, I want the real Nolan. I don't want another copycat. It's very different.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 2,264
    I don’t think people want a dumbed down Bond film. I think audiences might want the next era to be a bit more fun and upbeat however, and perhaps it’s best to leave behind all the deconstruction found in Craig’s era. Make a Bond film that’s unabashedly a Bond movie, and not one that seems to be ashamed of being a Bond film.

    Also, as for the question, I think I’m in agreement with some of the folks above that a Dalton version of OHMSS may not have made much of a difference from a financial point of view. Plus I’d rather we keep Dalton in the late 80’s where he belongs because he was perfect in those two films, and I wouldn’t change that for the world.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,344
    I don’t think people want a dumbed down Bond film. I think audiences might want the next era to be a bit more fun and upbeat however, and perhaps it’s best to leave behind all the deconstruction found in Craig’s era.

    Kind of the same thing though really: folks seem to complain about the idea of any sort of emotional element or high personal stakes for the characters in it.
  • mtm wrote: »
    I don’t think people want a dumbed down Bond film. I think audiences might want the next era to be a bit more fun and upbeat however, and perhaps it’s best to leave behind all the deconstruction found in Craig’s era.

    Kind of the same thing though really: folks seem to complain about the idea of any sort of emotional element or high personal stakes for the characters in it.

    I can’t speak for everyone else, but personally I just found the way they went about achieving those emotional/high stakes to be a bit repetitive by NTTD. I think movies like TSWLM, and GE had that balance down pretty well, and I’d rather we have personal stakes similar to those films than what we’ve had in the likes of SP and NTTD.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,404
    Interesting discussion about Timothy and how it might have been a reach for him to take on the role in 1969.

    Lets look forward, give your predictions of the future. According to Barbara they haven't even started to look at the next adventure. Taking her at her word, and figuring that they will need a director, they will need to cast the new Bond. (usually it happens in that order). They will need a script and everything else that comes with a script.

    Lets be optimistic and say the next Bond film adventure comes out in 2026.

    What do you imagine this to look like? How will Amazon use it's might to promote the film? How do you think they will engage the general public. For Daniel there was a motorboat on the Thames. I don't think Timothy and Pierce had such a dramatic introduction to the world. Will they go low key? Or do you see them pulling out all promo stops to make this a BIG deal?

    What if the next Bond film adventure comes out in 2026?
  • Posts: 15,106
    Honestly I don't want to speculate on this question.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited January 4 Posts: 4,512
    In think there official whant Bond 26 vijf years later, insteed of April 2020 - November 2025, it can be October 2021 - November 2026. The need a year for filming and post production, so filming should begin in October 2025 for release in October 2026. In October 2024 there should start then with pre production.

    If there start 2 months a go, then October/November 2025 is possible.

    Mr-Kiss-Kiss-Bang-Bang.jpg

    Spectre-1260.jpg
    3 stand symbol for 15 years of Daniel Craig as Bond between 2005 - 2020 and shot later there take one closer shot to one them, possible symbol for Daniel Craig last / next 5 years (2015-2020) Bond. This last 5 years match with year jump from 2015 to 2020 in next movie No Time To Die. But as you can see there is stil hidden place for another one ,symbol for till 2020 we are sjure but after that is the quistion / But James Bond will return in 2025.

    Because of Corona delay if 2025 it will feel same as time between Die Another Day (2002) and Casino Royale (2006). But if producers stil whant the end of NTTD to sink in for 5 years then it wil be 2026.

    I like to see sort of story contuned, this also why ''Sea Fire'' is one my title sugestions / partly based on Sea of Fire from John Gardner. Tomorrow Never Dies / Quantum Of Solace inspyred kind of story.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited January 4 Posts: 14,557
    I would take an @M_Balje -directed Bond film in 2024! You know his name but he knows the numbers.
    Mr Double Dutch Bang Bang
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    I think 2026 is very possible. Crazy that it would be 20 years on from CR.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,404
    Lets jump back to 1985 and the filming of AVTAK. The character of Ivana Polanova was originally going to be Anya Amasova. That's right the writers were going to bring back Barbara Bach would have returned and had a scene with Moore. The part would still be a small one and have the scene with Bond in the jacuzzi.

    Would this have been a highlight of the film? Would the stunt casting helped at the box office?

    What if Barbara Bach had returned in AVTAK as Anya?
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,196
    I think Bach returning would have been fantastic and a great way to wrap up Moore’s tenure as Bond.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    talos7 wrote: »
    I think Bach returning would have been fantastic and a great way to wrap up Moore’s tenure as Bond.

    💯% agree!

    I'm sucker for that type of thing, so long as it's not overused.

    And having Bach in Roger's final film would have been, forever, awesome...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    I wish they would have brought her Bach.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,787
    It would've been okay, perhaps, actually the Pola Ivanova character doesn't offer that much in the film, I don't know, the film could've been the same without her, she even failed at the end which makes her character all the more like a nuisance.

    Regarding Barbara Bach, it's hard to picture her acting the same as Fiona Fullerton did (or maybe because her acting style is better), I couldn't imagine or envision Barbara Bach's Anya in that hot tub scene, I don't know.

    Although I think Barbara Bach had became at least an inch of an improved actress by this point as she had starred in some films (especially Caveman with Ringo 🤭), but still, I'm having a hard time envisioning her character there, and I could also do without the Pola Ivanova character either.
  • Posts: 1,324
    Fiona Fullerton should have been the main Bond girl.
  • Posts: 4,109
    It depends on how much it would have been highlighted in the trailers. I can see it backfiring somewhat though as presumably she would have had Pola’s role and she doesn’t exactly do much.

    I’m not sure it would have added much, but maybe getting Bach… well, back would have expanded the role.
  • edited March 8 Posts: 859
    Well I read that on internet as well, I don't know from where/who it come from, but I don't think there is any true true it.

    Pola Ivanava was in fact conceveid by the writers originaly as a male, called Tola with a T, then it became a woman with a P. I didn't saw any major Amasova in any script of AVTAK I had studied (even if it would had made sens to have her), was always Tola/Pola in them.
Sign In or Register to comment.