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
Brosnan doesn't even know the order of films
Is that true? I always thought Brosnan had good memories and a good memory. I have some vague memories of the livestream and recall some awkward spots where he didn't seem to know what to do or say. With a recorded commentary I would think he would make comments and they could be edited around the film?
Whether he was joking or not. He stated that he didn't remember whether TND or TWINE was first
Which isn't that strange to my mind. Both have a very similar feel to them, and the work on it took quite some time. I often don't know if something happened 10 or 15 years ago.
But still, I'd prefer DC, as, as has been said, he was far more involved in the whole production process as well.
There are three films that feature Blofeld as the main baddie. YOLT, OHMSS, and DAF. This had been building up for the 4 films that came before it. Unfortunately for the film makers we ended up with two different Bond actors facing off against 3 different Blofelds. Needless to say continuity got messed up with Bond facing Blofeld in YOLT and then Blofeld not recognizing Bond at all in Majesty's.
Which leads to the question:
Would you rather had the same Bond actor for the trilogy OR the same actor play Blofeld?
If you choose the Bond actor you should name whether you would have preferred Connery for all three films or George for all three. Consider this a fantasy question and feel free to switch up the order of the films but it must be these three films. Tell us why you prefer this and what you think the improvement to the films would be.
If you choose the Blofeld option, name which of the three actors you would have cast in the three films. Pleasance, Savalas, or Grey. Tell us why and what improvement having the same actor might do for the films.
Please don't over think this, have fun!
I'm reading Some Kind of Hero and the initial Connery script for OHMSS was pretty abysmal.
Same supporting cast too, Bardot was considered for the role of Tracy and geez, the woman can't act!, And if you have watched Shalako, she simply had no chemistry with Connery, although I understand how iconic she was at the time, but for a meaty role like Tracy, no one could bring justice to the character other than Diana Rigg herself.
Bardot was not just a good actress, she's sexy, that's all she have, but she can't act to justify her sexiness.
Anyway, I would rather have George for all three, Connery should've exit by Thunderball, when he's still in good shape and in the mood, by the time of You Only Live Twice, he's just sleepwalking into the role and out of shape, George could've given those films justice, as long as they would still stay the same with the exception of Diamonds Are Forever which would be a sequel to OHMSS of Bond avenging Tracy's death and killing Blofeld and Irma Bunt once and for all.
In terms of Blofeld, I actually have the unseen Blofelds as the blueprint, so instead of the actors that we've got (although Savalas is the best version of Blofeld, so far), I'd rather have an entirely different actor playing Blofeld in all those three that would match the unseen Blofelds of the earlier films, probably I would've stick with Jan Werich or hire Max Von Sydow.
Tracy was really too smart for Bond, it's the trait that made Bond fell in love with her, those are her qualities, and that sets her apart from the rest that's why again, he fell in love with her, but again, Rigg helped propelled the role to greatness, I doubt Bardot would be convincing at playing "intelligent" 🙄, she strikes me more as a Denise Richards/Christmas Jones type rather than a Tracy type of character.
But equally I’d rather go for the off-menu pick of Roger in OHMSS, as I just think the movie suits his romantic playboy version of Bond more. His Bond had a bit more heart. Plus there’s even a comedy bit where Bond dresses up; it’s made for Rog.
Roger delivering the “just a slight stiffness coming on” would be worth it on its own 😂
Yeah I went back and referenced other potential screenplays for a Connery OHMSS.
1. Blofeld would have been Goldfingers twin brother.
2. Bond rescues Tracey in an underwater Aston Martin with Harpoon
3. Ford Gran Turismo with blowpipe ski-poles, ski strap grenades and 3D TV
4. Bond is imprisoned in a chimpanzee cage and not the cable car wheelhouse
I know the 60s were big on drugs but my gosh those would have been awful. No wonder Connery wouldn't come back.
It is an interesting question and I think I am leaning towards having a consistent Blofeld. I think to have this character played by different actors hurt any chance of a story arc. It would have been unheard of back in the day that the same actor played the role in different films but I think the story demanded it.
That said, I'm glad things turned out the way they did. Without Lazenby's immaturity/inability to connect to the general public as Bond we wouldn't have gotten the subsequent course corrections and by extension eventually Moore (ie. a proper and established actor with actual charisma) in the role, which proved the series could last and reinvent itself.
The producers weren't stupid though; I'm not sure they would have persevered with him for too long.
To be honest, as much as I liked Savalas, the Producers failed to recapture the unseen Blofeld of the previous Bond films, yes, me too, liked a consistent Blofeld, I agree with you what you've said, because different Blofelds means different varieties, unlike a one Blofeld where he just changes appearances like in the books would still be consistent because he's still the same actor, keeping the acting style and the banter between him and whoever the Bond actor was.
The only thing that kept Connery from being cast in OHMSS for me is Diana Rigg, she wouldn't have been cast had Connery been cast, even in an alternate universe, Bardot would still be there, wherever Connery was at the time, there she would be, i.e., Shalako, and sorry, I just don't see her as a Bond Girl, despite of how iconic she was, I just don't see her as a Bond Girl material, she comes off to me as a 60s Denise Richards.
Difficult to say, and we're really getting into hypotheticals. I think you can make a case that DAF wouldn't ever have been the revenge driven sequel to OHMSS that it began life as even with Lazenby in the role (I think by the time the reception for OHMSS sank in they had Maibaum do rewrites. Cubby may still have had his Howard Hughes dream, and even if it wasn't quite as camp as it became with Connery, it could still have been a soft reboot of sorts with a bit more humour). Hunt from what I understand was committed to something else anyway so it's not unlikely they would have still gone with Hamilton. I'm not sure if DAF would have been quite as successful or fun without Connery/that more hard line course correction though.
Lazenby was a bit of a wild card and may well have gone off the rails after '71 too. So depending on things like contracts it may have been a case where we would have gotten Moore anyway by '73. But again, all hypothetical.
I am pretty sure that with Lazenby the series would have died.
Basically why they backed up a Brinks truck to Connerys house for DAF and then went with a recognized actor with Moore.
Not quite, they were content to get John Gavin to play Bond in DAF. Only when David Picker interceded and negotiated with Connery did the brinks truck get backed up! LOL
I still question the logic behind casting an American as Bond but that is for another thread and another time.