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
Some of the blame with Hamilton's other 3 films have to lie mainly at the script too. With GF he got lucky, as GF is one of the novels that really works when adapted to the big screen - if anything it's the one adaptation that actually improves on the novel.
It would be pretty difficult to mess GF up when you have such a solid script in the first place, and surrounded by an array of talent. Likewise with OHMSS, another first class script that was solid enough that even an unknown actor with very little experience playing the lead couldn't spoil.
Editors are enormously important to movies. I was listening to a podcast about the editing of Planes Trains and Automobiles, and that film got completely revamped in the edit, even building the ending to work differently. They can be the real hidden filmmakers.
I think most of the Bond films which actually do adapt their novels (so not including ones like DAF or MR) improve on the source material. They all tighten it up or make changes to make them more interesting or work better.
I watched it again the other day and I can’t deny my opinion of Lazenby in it did slip even lower. He’s a real black hole in it and they really just shouldn’t have. I think if he doesn’t ruin it, he really spoils it. Looks great though.
One thing I hadn’t ever really appreciated before though is the stock car scene. I think I’ve always been a bit down on it because it’s so nonsensical, even for a Bond; but the photography (when it’s not being messed around with rubbish editing tricks) is rather stunning, and it’s got quite an impactful, almost gritty air to it.
The bobsled scene on the other hand has always been too silly for me, and it looks ridiculous with all of that back projection work.
It's a good question. Off the top of my head, it seems like a lot of the Moores (not FYEO, sadly) went smoothly.
Where and when did FYEO get into a scandal? I know that there was recasting drama, and Richard Maibaum bashing Roger Moore for not being real enough.
No scandal, per say, but some problems during the production, none of which was too bad: There was the monks putting out their laundry to protest the shoot on Meteora in Greece; there was the death of a stuntman in the bobsled during that chase scene; Bernard Lee dying before shooting his part; Moore supposedly protesting when asked to kick Loque's car off the cliff; Carole Bouquet not being able to do any actual underwater scenes due to some condition and having to work around that. There may have been others.
Upon release, there was the controversy over the main poster art with the girl with the thong being covered up, cropped or other alterations in many newspapers. Then much later there was the mini scandal with Tula, who it was revealed was previously a man.
In DAF you can IMMEDIATELY feel Peter’s absence. Hamilton’s normal pacing is slower normally anyway in his non-Bonds. However the slower pace allows for a relaxed feel which fits the film’s inherent satire and wicked humor. And interestingly it took two editors and they kept the film right at two hours. So in spite of it not being at the usual quick Bond rhythm it’s still at the right runtime which allows for the film to not overstay its welcome. Also the producers were still probably miffed over Hunt not revealing OHMSS being a reel or two longer until right before the premiere.
Also DAF still has the Bond gloss with Hamilton, Maibaum, Ken Adam and Ted Moore coming back.
The real issue would have been the original plan shooting entirely at Universal studios in LA with John Gavin. Gavin wouldn’t have been the issue but shooting at Universal would have as the film wouldn’t have looked or felt like a Bond film any longer.
I would argue the energy of DAF comes not from the editing but from Mankiewicz being the fresh blood and injecting newness to the series.
It is said that Hunt felt that it was not his place to interfere even though he was director of OHMSS. It is noted that Hunt didn't want to talk much with Lazenby or have the cast and crew talk to him on set in an effort to make him genuinely angry on screen.
Honestly I don’t even think Peter Hunt would’ve been able to convince Lazenby to return. Lazenby was too much of a free spirit, and he would’ve stuck with the advice Ronan O’Reily gave him despite all the enticing offers he may have received. Plus I don’t think the rumors of Hunt ignoring Lazenby for the entirety of the shoot are 100% true. You can’t direct a Bond film without having direct contact and conversations with the Star. However, Hunt did state once that on the day they shot the final scene, he chose to ignore George to get him in that state of nervousness, and fair enough it paid off extremely well.
Such talent. And yes, Peter Hunt did focus a bit much on style and visuals but he did it in a way that is timeless and has only been closely matched by the timelessness in terms of style and visuals with QoS in the decades since.
He may have been the best director of the series.
Some of his creative decisions I do question though, I’ve always felt the sped up footage in films like Thunderball and Dr. No aged quite poorly, but the way he uses that sped up footage for the fights in OHMSS is quite brilliant. I would agree that Hunt is a runner up for best director of the series, hell probably the best editor the series had.