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
I have mixed feeling about this one. I could see myself going either way really. If agreed, it would be because I felt like the character of Kissy was pretty lame and didn't receive enough screen time to be that important. If disagreed, it would be because I always liked the death of Aki, which I thought was well done and one of YOLT's stand-out scenes. I'll probably agree since I never cared for Kissy Suzuki that much.
you sure you haven't switched the names there? If there's one of the two that ought to be compared to Brigitte Bardot it's Akiko, imo. I never cared for Mie Hama's looks at all. Anyway, the story shows Connery's lack of interest, as Bond just lets her death pass like an intercity train. There she was and oh, now she's gone. next! Even for Bond that's harsh.
http://www.mania.com/madame-x-mie-hama-bonds-bride-kongs-consort-godzillas-girlontherun_article_26257.html
Anyway, that article gives indeed good reason to compare her to Bardot, even if it isn't the looks that justify the comparison. Good read that, thanks!
<font color=blue size=7><b>Despite its flaws, DAF as is was necessary and saved the franchise.</b></font>
Disagree- I find the movie to be pretty damn stupid. You could argue that Connery was necessary, but that's about it IMO.
Even if Lazenby had called it quits, they could have at least had Connery really go for revenge in an OHMSS style sequel.
I will always consider DAF to be one of the biggest missed opportunities of the whole series
I don't know believe another film in the trend of OHMSS would've sunk the franchise. I disagree with the thesis.
I partially agree with the thesis. I think DAF, as well as follow-up film LALD, were well received by audiences and thus helped the franchise to enter the 70s. That said, I'm not sure that any other style of Bond films wouldn't have done the job equally well or even better. How about an OHMSS 2, starring Connery? Was is the film that people responded less enthusiastically to, or the Bond?
Ok I'm done, lol :-t
The evidence that Eon had in 1970 was that GF and TB worked but that YOLT and OHMSS were box office disappointments. This is likely why they were talking about bringing Gert Frobe back as GF's brother in DAF.
The film industry was in a crisis in 1970; indie films like Midnight Cowboy and Easy Rider were all the rage while studio films were in decline.
But Connery was still a huge draw in 1971 and his swan song, combined with the novelty of Moore in 1973, kept the series afloat, at least until Jaws in 1975 and Star Wars in 1977 ushered in the blockbuster era, which again allowed Bond to thrive.
I would agree only as far as getting Connery back in the role to save the franchise both popularly and financially, it definitely was public opinion as well as that of UA. It would have been a mistake to go with another new Bond at that point and credit to UA for recognizing that.
As far as most everything else, the movie seems to have few fans. I enjoy it because it's Connery, it's an official film, and I can have fun with it because it's obvious Sean is mailing it in and having fun and that's the spirit of it. If I look it at a sequel to OHMSS, which it's painfully obvious that they were trying to stay far away from, in comparison to what QOS was for CR, it fails miserably in comparison and it's also very understandable why DAF is in the bottom five or not much higher for most people.
So depending on what the context of the thesis is, I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree. I'll say disagree though, because its one of my least favourite Bond films.
YES! Lazenby would have brought Bond down to its knees if he attempted another go-around as 007, seeing as how unsuccessful OHMSS was back around its time of release. It was completely necessary because it brought the fans back around to where they wanted to go, at least for one more time, Connery in a larger-than-life mission with a diabolical scheme to unwrap. It might get corny and cheesy at times, but I think I'd take it over OHMSS which was a complete flop for Bond.
I would disagree with your entire statement as -
a) Cubby and Harry begged George to stay right up until the last possible minute and I think they know a bit more about filmaking than you.
b) OHMSS was not unsuccessful it was merely less successful. According to IMDB it made $87m on a $7m investment. Those are figures most films can only dream of. YOLT made $111m back on a $9.5 budget and DAF $116m back on a $7m so yes they were more successful but considering $1m of the DAF budget was just for Seans fee it really didnt make sense to keep trying to lure him back. If OHMSS had truly flopped then they wouldnt have been so keen to keep George on.
In terms of the thesis I disagree. Firstly on the basis that DAF itself didnt 'save' the series, it was Seans return. DAF succeeded solely because of Sean. With him its a mess but without him its a real dog of a script (Mankiewiczs one liners apart) and had John Gavin starred the series would truly have ended.
Secondly - did the series need saving? OHMSS made a healthy return, OK less than the usual massive figures but still enough to warrant continuing the series, and we will never be able to say for whether George would have grown into the part and been accepted by the public or rejected and needed Rog to save it. I would argue that Rog saved the series more as after the turbulence of the Sean/George/Sean flip flop and the shambles of a film that was DAF he got things back on an even keel.
That's not the point of the thesis. The question asked is whether or not DAF saved the franchise financially... in other words, would a 2nd Lazenby film, or a 2nd film in OHMSS vein be successful or not .
I think it would be foolish to say Sir Roger didn't create a new renaissance of interest in Bond films. He was a known and well liked commodity unlike Lazenby and that didn't hurt. But he also had the benefit of a perfectly timed film plot that capitalized on "Blaxploitation" and a runaway hit classic title song, both of which also generated a lot of interest in the film. I was plenty old enough at 11 years old to remember all of it.
Speaking of remembering, what you wrote about the period between OHMSS and DAF is not exactly what happened. United Artists panicked much more than Cubby and Harry over the critical and box office reception, Bond was their #1 meal ticket so to speak and they decided to make Sean an "offer he couldn't refuse". Cubby and Harry were happy to find another Bond not named Sean, what they didn't want was an American actor which is what UA did want. Believe me, at least from what I heard and again can truly remember first hand, many people absolutely hated George as the new Bond and said they wouldn't watch any new movies unless Sean was in them. The fact that Sean was fat, balding, and on obvious autopilot did finally make people realize that his glory days in the role were long gone and that change was inevitable.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Valentin Zukovsky worked better in the GE script than he did in the TWINE script.</b></font>
I agree with this and disagree with the thesis. He had a better relationship with Bond in TWINE based on working together in GE, but Zukovsky was still a bit of a crook and Bond still didn't trust him.
Ditto.
Therefore, going to disagree with thesis