It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Okay, I'm not sure why you get that impression. I haven't said that you think anything about Mendes: I've just said how people around here are very dismissive of him, and that having a good reputation -as Fukunaga has- doesn't stop that. I was making the comparison, I wasn't claiming that you were. I thought that was clear.
Okay, that's what I thought getting 'down and dirty on the script level' meant.
I'm hopeful of that too, but it's too early to say without seeing that. That's what I'm saying. It might be terrible, and saying that it might be more suspenseful than the last veers close to praising it before we've seen it. We don't know if CJF was a good choice yet.
Tamahori made Once Were Warriors- it doesn't always translate. And yes, that's me making the comparison again; I'm not saying you are, just to be clear.
Thanks @Bentley007!!! Very kind of you. There's no doubt about it-- there were some intriguing threads that I was also interested in re: The Boyle Film...
There was an idea in this film that when pitched to the producers, was considered "golden" (as we all heard)... It just sounds that between the pitch and the script, something went terribly off the rails-- which isn't uncommon in pitch meetings about "ideas" and then the execution of the idea in script form.
However, EoN now owns that script, and we may still see elements that they liked show up in future films down the road...
I’m quite aware he was joking; I understand sarcasm. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t made in poor taste. You don’t joke about serious issues like that, it’s insensitive (and I hate using that term) to people who actually have those struggles in real life, especially coming from a guy getting paid millions to do this job. I don’t care if that’s how his “wit” is, it was a crappy statement. I’d say the same thing if Brosnan, Connery, or Moore stated that. Can I understand not wanting to do another immediately? Yes, but as I said, he should’ve been more professional, and put those feelings in a way that’s a more refined manner, otherwise the press wouldn’t have run with it the way they did, and those comments wouldn’t have come off as ungrateful and in bad taste.
And yeah, I’d say Moore wasn’t doing it for the cameras. He’s said himself he had to lose weight and get into shape to prepare for Bond. He wasn’t lazily sitting around on his arse not taking anything seriously. Obviously Moore wasn’t as fit for the role as Craig is now, but to say that he didn’t to whip himself into shape for the films is absurd. I can buy that maybe towards the end of his tenure he didn’t do any kind of workout training, because the man was pushing 60, but his earlier films do show him in good shape.
I’ve never said they were “being awful and horrible to Brosnan because they secretly hated him”, that’s yet another ridiculous and absurd statement that you’ve completely pulled out of thin air (I admire your creativity in misinterpreting my statements BTW), I simply stated they planned their move behind his back. You can say I’m “over emoting” my statements on Brosnan all you want, just as I can say your “overreacting” to what I’m saying and not accurately reflecting my comments. But allow me to share with you a quote from an interview Brosnan gave with the Toronto Sun in 2004;
“They (the producers) invited me back right before I went to present that film (Die Another Day), before I went on the road with Halle Berry to sell the movie. They said: ‘We’re so happy with the success. We want you to come back!’ I went on the road a happy man, you know? I thought we’d get a fifth and no more. That would be it, really. I’d done it. You get bored. You get older. You give of yourself to something and then you have no more to give. But I thought a fifth would be good. And then one day the phone rang— I was here in the Bahamas —and my agents told me that the goalposts had moved and that they had changed their minds.” What do you call that? Letting him in on their plans the entire time? Or planning their next move behind his back? Barbara obviously felt bad for doing so, Brosnan said she cried on the phone, but that doesn’t sugarcoat the fact they were planning their next step without letting him know. That also wasn’t how they moved on from Dalton. Cubby approached Dalton to do Goldeneye, but expected Dalton to sign on for an additional 4 films afterwards, to which Dalton declined.
I’m not talking about singular sequels, I’m talking about planned connected storytelling that spans multiple films (I.E Marvel and Star Wars), perhaps I should’ve made myself more clear.
Look I can understand you not agreeing with what I say. Hell I can understand you not liking what I say, but at least have the common courtesy to not take everything I say out of context, and rearrange what I’m saying to fit your own views and opinions. That shouldn’t be an issue.
Oh okay: you said "If he was joking" which suggests you didn't know.
I'm not going to argue there: it was crass (he's always a bit crass and sweary in interviews) and you can bet that EON's PR gave him a real whipping because his words caused a big issue by people taking it out of context, as you have here. But the meaning behind the words was just 'I'm tired and can't even think about doing another one right now'. That's the meaning, judging a man because of the way he says something rather than the meaning behind it isn't very reasonable I think.
This is silly. Yes he lost a bit of weight because Cubby told him to, but trying to argue that he had it as bad as Craig has, with his little muffin top over the top of his trousers, is absurd.
But it is: you're painting a picture with words. That phrase 'behind his back' carries an awful lot of connotations, and I would suggest that there was a reason you chose that particular phrase instead of something like 'they decided they needed a new lead actor' for a particular reason, as if he was being hard done by.
Why do they have to let him know? They let him know when they were ready to. It's not a cosy club, it's a business. And a business he didn't even work for: he wasn't under contract for them. When you agree not to hire a freelancer again there's no reason you're supposed to invite them in while you discuss it.
And look how, in that quote you chose, Brosnan said he was "getting bored"!! The bastard! :))
Why make a petty comment like that? Where's his enthusiasm? ;)
That's the polite company line, but many people including the chiefs at the studio have said they didn't want Dalton and he was basically removed. Not Cubby's choice, but not Dalton's choice either. I'll dig out the name of the guy who said that's how it happened later.
There have been loads of sequels which span multiple films. The Craig Bond films took their lead from the Bourne series, for one. No one liked Harry Potter, Lord of Rings, Back To The Future.. ?
Please have the courtesy not to accuse me of things I'm not doing. You're clearly determined to argue with every little thing to the extent that you even took issue with the idea that Craig puts a lot more physical preparation into the role than Moore did, which is as close to an objective fact as you're likely to get. Don't make it personal please.
Fair enough on your first point, I simply chose the wrong words in my response to you.
When did I say Moore “had it as bad as Craig has?” I simply stated Moore did 7 films back to back without making comments like that. He was exhausted considering he was getting long in the tooth and was uncomfortable continuing on with the role, but he was still a good sport about it. I simply replied to you’re statement that Moore “didn’t work out for the role”, which you seemed to have contradicted yourself saying “he had to lose weight because Cubby said so.”
I’m not painting a picture with any words, that’s yourself painting that picture. My original statement wasn’t meant to provoke an image of “evil Barbara and evil Michael”, it was meant to portray what had happened. I agree they were just doing business, but none of my comments have said otherwise, nor have they painted EON as being evil and malicious. I simply stated “they did it behind his back”, which is true, even you admitted it.
Also Brosnan never said “he grew bored” in his tenure, he said that if he had done more than 5 films, if presented the opportunity, then he’d grown uninterested, and older. That’s why he wanted to stop after 5. That’s not being petty, that’s being honest and upfront. Where was his enthusiasm? In the interviews after DAD where he says he’s looking forward to doing another one, that’s where.
And the Dalton comments weren’t “a polite company line”, that’s from the mouth of the man himself. Fair enough there are conflicting stories, and I know what your talking about with UA not wanting him back, but there are just as many conflicting stories about Lazenby not doing another. David Picker outright said they fired him, and we all know Lazenby chose to walk away.
There have also been loads of sequels which have little relation to the first film (Die Hard 2, Batman Returns). I agree the Craig era was mounded after Bourne, only the Bourne films did a better job of presenting the overarching story on a film, by film basis than the Craig era has.
I wouldn’t be accusing you of stuff you weren't doing, if you actually weren’t doing it. You’ve taken my words out of context so much to try and confuse what my intent is behind those words, and I’ve simply called you out on it. You’ve even said it yourself above that my “Brosnan” comments painted that image in your head, which kind of backs up what I’m saying about you taking my words out of context. Also how can I take issue with “Craig working out more than Roger”, when I’ve simply stated Roger didn’t sit around lazily, and did some working out of his own. I also have even admitted to Craig being more physical. Again, more of my words taken out of context. I’m not trying to be rude, but please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not taking anything personally by replying to every little thing you say, just as I imagine you aren’t. It’s called debating. I’m simply stating that I’m not okay with what you’re obviously doing. I’m not trying to argue, but I’m also not going to allow you to continue rephrasing my words to fit your own meaning without saying something. Also at the same time, you can’t criticize me as taking this “personally” when on another thread, you yourself stated you felt to “insulted” by my opinions, and dismissed them as coming from “a guy sitting on his arse typing on a computer.” I didn’t want it to go this far, I really didn’t, and I don’t want to keep having these types of interactions with you. You seem like a nice guy whose well informed in his opinions, but I just ask for you to have some respect and to not misconstrue my opinions when I’m perfectly clear on how I feel on such subjects. I apologize if I came across as rude, but I’m afraid you have also. Let’s leave it at that.
The Bond series has missed out on opportunities for continued stories on a couple of occasions. For example, DAF would have been a much better film had Lazenby and Savalas returned in their respective roles. While I agree that every actor should have standalone movies, I don't see any issue with occasional continuity if done well. There is something to be said for the epic-nature of story and character progression over several movies. While I definitely understand the reservations behind bringing back characters from a forgettable Bond film, Fukunaga is vastly different from Mendes. Since NTTD is a sequel to all four Craig films, it can easily be one of the most memorable Bond films to date if executed properly. But it will be a tough movie to get behind for some fans if they aren't willing to let go of its connections to SP.
But the script itself needed a lot of work, hence the suggestion a script doctor come on board to fix it up.
What’s also forgotten about this is that Universal also had a big say on the script not being up to snuff. They’re distributing and these guys know what a “big tent pole “ film is. They didn’t think Hodge’s script was close to that. So the idea that EoN pulled the rug from under Boyle isn’t true (although they released the official announcement); this was a creative decision from the main partners in this film.
EoN did try and move ahead with Boyle, but Boyle didn’t want a script doctor(s) to touch Hodge’s script.
That seemed to be the final straw.
'Losing weight' ≠
You're just arguing for the sake of it. Show me a picture where Roger looks like that and then I'll accept that I contradicted myself.
My point, as you well know, is that he took a lot of pain and effort to get looking like that, and maintain it throughout shooting, and that's not really the same as Roger eating a bit less jelly and doing few lengths in his pool in the morning. I love Roger, but I don't think he'd ever claim to going to that much effort.
Okay, then say all they did was replace an actor with another one and that there's nothing wrong with that.
Here's the meaning of the phrase:https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/to-do-something-behind-someones-back#:~:text=If you say that something,an unfair or dishonest way.
If you say that something was done behind someone's back, you disapprove of it because it was done without them knowing about it, in an unfair or dishonest way.
I didn't say at all that they did it 'behind his back' because I don't think there was anything dishonest or unfair about it at all. If you didn't know that's the meaning of that phrase then fair enough, but that's what I was reacting to.
If the point you were trying to make wasn't that Brosnan was hard done by and Craig isn't a bad guy, then there's not much left of your points.
So he was planning to get bored?! That's even worse!!
I'm playing with you of course: I'm trying to show how easy it is to twist these statements if you've decided that the person making them is bad. Honestly: if Craig said tomorrow that he can imagine getting bored if he made another one, you wouldn't be saying how awful he is?
Well, of course it is. No offence to the guy, but he would say that. And he may even believe it to be true, I don't know. Maybe they both had the same idea at the same time. But when you look at what's most likely given his lack of success in the role and that they wanted to relaunch the series after six years away, it's not likely that he had the choice to make himself. Maybe he even managed to jump before they pushed him.
Yes I know, but that's irrelevant. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it again. No one has denied these exist. You're just trying to find any reason to contradict me, even if it's nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Again, argumentative and off the point. Your original point was that audiences aren't interested in continuing stories.
The fact that some unrelated sequels exist neither proves nor disproves your assertion: it's irrelevant. I just have to show that it's not true that audiences can like linked narratives through a series a films, and they do.
Nope, read my point above about the meaning of the phrase you used.
If you don't understand, I can't explain it to you.
Look, I've explained why I think you're wrong, you decided to have a pop at me, which suggests to me you don't have faith in your own points. I would never say I'm insulted by someone else's opinions about Bond films: how can you accuse me of taking your comments out of context when I've quoted them so carefully and then make up something like that? I'm tired of it now.
That rings true bearing in mind some of Boyle's recent stuff which I don't think has had strong enough stories. And I've no idea what happened with Yesterday: he seemed to have gone mad making that.
What if TB the novel never existed? What would the huge film of 1965 be? Would Connery ever have come back after DAF? And the big one...would Fleming have lived longer and written more novels?
You are forgetting that Danny Boyle & John Hodge also pursued Barbara. They had an unusual idea and went to EON with their idea.
Considering Fleming was a heavy smoker and drinker for most of his life, I guess he would have suffered a heart attack with or without McClory. Maybe he would have died a few years later but I doubt he would have lived much longer. The main question seems to me to be whether SPECTRE would have been introduced into the novels or not. Regardless of McClory, I think Fleming would sooner or later have created an international crime syndicate, as it is consistent with the geopolitical context of the time and Fleming's interest for gangsters (didn't Umberto Eco suggested that the Spangs were a forerunner of SPECTRE?).
Perhaps in this context we would have had OHMSS earlier in the timeline, with Blofeld introduced for the occasion, or maybe another novel would have been written. Assuming OHMSS would have been written regardless of Thunderball, I think it would have been adapted as soon as 1965.
Without TB, we very well could have seen an OHMSS that was the Bond blockbuster in 1965.
On second thought, I thought to myself that it would have been possible for Eon to negotiate with Charles Feldman at this time to adapt Casino Royale. It was shortly before the release of Goldfinger that discussions took place between Broccoli and Feldman and, without McClory, it would arguably been the prospect of a rival Casino Royale that would have been judged as something more harmful to the official series.
In this context, we could have had an adaptation of Fleming's first novel, based on Ben Hecht's drafts, staying true to the heart of the plot while adding action scenes to make it a blockbuster.
Fleming definitely did not do Eon any favors by selling off the various rights piecemeal! CR, MR, in addition to the TB lawsuit. Otherwise, we might have gotten a more faithful MR in the '60s.
According to an old IGN article (https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/10/04/featured-filmmaker-john-hough), director John Hough (Twins of Evil, Watcher in the Woods, Biggles) on a DVD commentary track, explains that he came close to direct a Bond film with David Warbeck as the lead. Here is the quote reported by IGN:
While it's unclear which installment Hough is referring to, it's likely to be FYEO since, for Octopussy, James Brolin was the favorite to take up the mantle and Glen was more or less guaranteed to direct the film.
So, what if John Hough directed For Your Eyes Only with David Warbeck as Bond?
I've never heard of Hough or Warbeck so this got me really curious and I looked up Warbeck. I wouldn't be surprised if he was on Cubby and Harry's radar following Lazenby's departure and later Connery's. He had a long career but kind of reminds me of the Rick Dalton character in Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood with all the exploitation films he did.
Here's what his profile on Wikipedia said about his Bond association: Thanks to his appearances in several high-profile action and horror films, Warbeck was being seriously considered as the next James Bond, but the role was taken by Roger Moore. Warbeck claimed that for many years he was paid an amount to be a substitute or back-up Bond on the conditions that he not tell anyone and that he be ready for filming at a moment's notice in the case of Moore leaving or threatening to leave the role. One day he read about Timothy Dalton being chosen and was told by the producers that he was now "too old for the role".
That's an interesting claim and I'm surprised Eon never took action on such a statement. Would they really pay a guy not to play? While I don't doubt he was considered, Hough's claims seem to be a stretch also. Wasn't Glen always considered the heir to the director's chair after MR? Besides that, I don't think they'd have considered filming anything back-to-back as the writers only seemed to do one script at a time.
I guess nothing was ever set in stone, all the more so when we know that even for LTK Cubby proposed to another filmmaker (in this case John Landis) to direct the film when he already had Glen. And I agree with you about the back-to-back shooting concept which is really strange for the time. Still, I don't see what interest Hough would have in inventing such ideas.
It's on page 24, where he goes into more detail.
"But it's ironic that I was actually contracted to be the new Bond and my director was to be Johnny Hough, because I had chats with Broccoli amd said no, I didn't want to work with John Glen, because I have this problem with Directors."
He goes on to liken the younger Campbel to Glen, in that they didn't see his sense of humour. I can certainly picture Warbeck as Bond, he had a fair ammount of experience behind him, but wasn't a mainstream star. He could have been Bond up until TLD, LTK at a push. Which would rule out any chance of Dalton being cast.
They did exactly that with Gavin and DAF.
True, but a major difference. In this case it was worth the cost of getting the man who was the face of their franchise. It just seems really far-fetched to pay an actor whose services are pretty unlikely to be used to be used at a moment's notice. If so, then why test other actors at all if you have the perfect alternative.
Or perhaps even as Ernst Stavro Blofeld in YOLT. Morley was a wonderful actor who I believe could've made a wonderful Bond villain.
Can't seem to find the right thread for this, but this one appeared the closest.
When producer Gregory Ratoff was alive and planned to do a Casino Royale adaptation between the end of the 50s and the beginning of the 60s, Robert Morley was apparently considered to play Le Chiffre. Or at least that's what an article from The Times ("Big American Film Plan For England", June 28 1960) suggests:
I suppose the idea was to have Morley as Le Chiffre and Finch as Bond. This could have been a great cast and Morley would have been a great Chiffre!
Yes, from what has come out subsequently it seems that Craig and the producers had that ending in mind as well as Bond having a daughter very early on. They were incorporated into Boyle's script and do not seem to have been an issue.
From what I've heard his script seems to have involved Bond going to modern day Russia, the plot having something to do with his origins, and for a good chunk of it he would have been imprisoned. I suspect problems started because a) it sounds like a strange script anyway, very hard to get right, and even in 2018 setting a big franchise film in Russia would have been politically questionable, and b) Boyle is a very impressionistic filmmaker who often blurs the lines between reality and fantasy in his films. One can imagine Bond hallucinating while in prison as if he was in 127 Hours or something. It's just not quite right for a Bond film.
Boyle did the film 'Trance' which is arguably the closest indicator as to what he might have done with a Bond film. It's rather low key, but very stylish. Bonkers as all hell too. I don't think a Bond film under his direction and creative influence would have worked.