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
It was his BEST performance.
Yeah I agree: but I think the writing really doesn't help him- the sleazy stuff with him trying to bed Goodnight because there's nothing better to do, and forcing her to get in the cupboard and listen to him shagging Anders; then "women!" etc. It is horribly written, and I'd say the low point of a depiction of Bond onscreen. Not least because, as I've said before: he's pretty much the villain of this film. Scaramanga has actually not done anything at all to Bond, and he even actually says he has nothing against him and offers that they part ways unharmed- how many villains do that? Also, he's stolen nothing from the UK (Gibson leaves to work for him and Hai Fat and develops the Solex whilst in their employ- in the film it is never established as being an invention the British Government have any ownership rights over) - basically, although Scaramanga is undoubtedly not a great guy who murders his business partner, what then happens is that a British agent turns up to murder him and steal his property.
What happens is, even though it's probably his low point as 007, you've still got Roger Moore playing, so he can never be all bad. I do actually kind of wonder how it would come across had Sean played this film- he was a touch of a tougher character, so would he, together with this script, actually have pushed this Bond into being properly unlikeable?
I tend to blame Guy Hamilton as I'm not sure he quite got Moore's Bond properly working. Certainly I'd say the two subsequent versions of this 007 with Gilbert and Glen were the more successful. So maybe they missed an opportunity by not getting another director.
Yeah, Palance was never exactly bad; and it's easier to see him playing the Scaramanga from the novel, but Chris Lee was perfect for the Scaramanga in this script, so they missed no opportunity there. He genuinely is Bond's equal in this, and it's not hard to imagine a whole film just watching Scaramanga going around and doing sort of anti-hero things- I think the bits with the gangster in the PTS and then with Hai Fat are a bit of a window into that, because I think we the audience are just enjoying watching him as the main character. He's even got a gadget gun- just the sort of thing Bond would have! Sometimes it really is just his film, in a way I'm not sure any other baddie quite has it. He's so charismatic we're kind of rooting for him.
I find this one kind of fascinating, because in many ways I think it's the weakest Bond film, and yet there's also so much potential in it.
That's an issue with the whole franchise, that might have started with TMWTGG actually: the killing of a 00 often comes off as way too mundane and unimportant like the killing of a red shirt. I think only in GE and maybe, maybe, maybe OP is it treated with the necessary gravitas. So yes, Scaramanga killing one should have been an important plot point.
eon took 3 years to reset, reconfigure and revive the franchise. First time they had waited so long between films. Roger Moore burst onto cinemas in 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me. As the advertising stated "Nobody Does It Better".
So much to like in this film, but were there any missed opportunities?
Lets talk about the missed opportunities of The Spy Who Loved Me!
1. The character of Anya Amasova, she was supposed to be this kind of Bond's equal, a tough agent, independent and one of the best KGB agents who's trained in Siberia Survival Course, but the film didn't played it that way, instead, she's just there doing nothing for most of the time, always standing on Bond's side, and even became a damsel in distress at some point (she couldn't managed to fight Jaws in the train and Jaws overpowered her, sure, Bond also had a hard time fighting Jaws, but he outwitted him, it's something that's missing in Anya, then second in the climax, where she's literally tied to a recliner and waiting for Bond to save her).
2. Same for killing her lover being thrown out of the window in the end as Anya was easily overcome by Bond's magic seduction, then it's still her, as she's supposed to have a tension and rivalry with Bond but when Bond meets Naomie (Stromberg's secretary), she's suddenly became jealous?
3. Barbara Bach's casting, Catherine Deneuve wanted this role so badly that she even reduced her salary to play for the role, but Cubby chosen Barbara Bach over her because she's more cheaper, in return, we're given an unconvincing performance.
4. Karl Stromberg doing nothing and lacking personality, never posed any threat at all, not even menacing.
5. I've never felt that Bond was in danger in this film, he's mostly in control.
It's a shame they didn't adapt at least that broad idea for the villain in Burgess's script. The concept of a group of wealthy individuals simply out to create chaos is actually quite scary when you think about it, and would have been even more chilling when coupled with the 'under the sea' plot the film ran with. I suppose it could be adapted for a future film though (probably would be more timely now if anything).
Other than that I don't think I can name a missed opportunity as such. TSWLM is a film which seemingly came along at the right time.
Eon's script vault must be an interesting place.
Yes, full of Richard Maibaum’s monkey that saves Bond cameo scripts.
Thought that was Maibaum's TSWLM script (the one which involved SPECTRE having an internal civil war which Broccoli deemed 'too political'). That said just going from descriptions of Burgess's script I can definitely see elements of NTTD - lots of contrasting shifts in tone, quite an outlandish and apocalyptic plot done 'straight', a sort of 'anything goes' feel to it that brings the cinematic Bond to its natural extreme (one can argue).
I actually don't know if the script is still around, or if it's even a script in the form we'd consider finished (it may well be drafts alongside a treatment or two, some not completed, some lost etc, which I suspect is the case with many of these 'unused Bond scripts', Boyle's Bond 25 included) That said some of the general ideas are pretty interesting. The idea for CHAOS (the weird rich people anarchist group), the idea of implanting acupuncture patients in a clinic with bombs (very OHMSS), getting world leaders/important figures to do 'embarrassing' things with the threat of terrorist acts (ok, maybe getting the Pope to whitewash the Sistine Chapel or having the President strip on live TV is a bit silly, but having a public figure reveal compromising information or something isn't a bad alternative).
Another missed opportunity from Burgess's script - I think we can agree it's a tragedy we didn't see Moore's Bond drown a henchman in a pot of soup and then add soy sauce afterwards.
First time I’m hearing of this tidbit and I’m disappointed that didn’t make its way into any of Moore’s films. At least we have that bit from ‘The Wild Geese’ where Moore forces a man to eat a brick of Cocaine at gun point.
I think it's even meant to be the very first time we see Bond in that script (it's part of the PTS - the concept I think was Bond in Singapore tracking down Chinese gangsters or something. Bond gets shot in the shoulder and is left for dead).
Honestly, there's some wild stuff in there that I've read about when it comes to this script. There's a Bond girl who is the daughter of the main villain (reminds me a bit of Madeline Swan) who is also the former lover of 009 and believes she has a rash on her face (which is physiological/not there). Bond proceeds to cures this with acupuncture and 'turn' the girl. I guess that's not much more than two or three steps away from Anya when you think about it (ie. a character who is technically 'the enemy' who ends up working with Bond, someone who has a past tragedy in their lives which connects with Bond etc.)
I do love that no one's quite sure if this was a genuine effort or not on Burgess' part (he didn't seem to like the Bond films all that much but loved the novels). I like to think it's just what he saw as the Bond movie formula taken to its extreme.
I think a missed opportunity is not seeing these scripts in greater detail. Burgess one sounds interesting, I believe Landis wrote a treatment? I find it interesting that Broccoli was testing the waters, but then returned to a rather safe place with Spy.
I don't think there are many missed opportunities in this film. Though I would love to have the mystery of why or how Max Kalba's secretary seemingly dies for a stranger. Never understood whether it was Moore using her as a shield or whether she dives into the line of fire. If it was Moore using her, pretty heartless thing and one that Connery's Bond did albeit with Fiona a true villain, in this case it's a civilian.
Anya Amasova is a missed opportunity for me.
Basically Burgess wrote a proto TDK without the Joker. Kind of fitting as Ledger's Joker was partially influenced by Alex.
Lets move on to a movie based on science-fact as Bond went into the deepest space. A snappy script with a villain prone to monologues and cucumber sandwiches. We have a returning henchman in the form of Jaws. Instead of working with a Russian agent, Bond works with an American agent. We have globetrotting movie with California, Italy, Brazil and out of space as our locations.
But was there missed opportunities in this film? Much of the book wasn't adapted for the film outside of Drax. Should more from the book been in the movie?
Did the film get too big and outlandish? Or with Spy did the filmmakers do the smart thing and grow bigger and bolder.
As always remember this is missed opportunities and not a critique of the film. Is there a story thread not followed up on? A poorly drawn character? A scene that should have been extended or a sequence that needed more fleshing out?
What were the missed opportunities of Moonraker?
It wouldn't worked back in 1977 after the spectacle which was TSWLM, in terms of box office, it's a bit too small scale, and the location was just set entirely in England.
1979, I mean.
Fair enough, but I also prefer Lonsdale's version of Hugo Drax compared to the book (not his plot , but his character, the behavior, attitude, and the personality), the same for Holly Goodhead to Gala Brand, but maybe they could've done the book but still keeping such characters.
But I just liked the film versions of the main villain and the Bond Girl, I've felt they have more personalities, and competent.
I liked Longsdale, but I miss the brutish villains such as Hugo Drax was in the novel and I think Gala Brand is so far one of the big missed opportunities of the whole franchise. That said I'm not certain she would have worked as a character with Moore as Bond, especially at this point in the series, regardless of the approach they had decided to take with MR. But making the plot a full recycling of the precious film was a gigantic mistake.
That's said, they don't have much personalities compared to their movie counterparts, I didn't know Gala Brand so much as I do with Holly Goodhead, and she's not as tough as Holly though, but I liked Gala, but Holly is better, aside from being a policewoman, there's nothing I knew from her, and her banter with Bond comes off as abrasive and a bit dry, it's not as playful as Holly does with Bond.
The banter of Bond and the Bond Girl would be better in the next book, Diamonds Are Forever, with Tiffany Case and Bond.
Gala felt shallow as a character.
And although I really love Londsdale, the Drax of the book is an incredible character and personality! He's an obnoxious, cheating ogre, physically repulsive, a narcissist and a psychopath with a plan of pure and utter evil and vengeance. To say that Drax doesn't have much of a personality compared to the film Drax is stretching it just a little, no?
I cannot add anything from what you said regarding Drax and Brand. What Holly Goodhead had going for her was a name.
For both TSWLM and MR, I think the main missed opportunity was making them bigger copies of YOLT. Same plot, mutatis mutandis. TSWLM could get away with it being a decade away from the previous one, but MR not so much. Either way, both could have remained big, exotic and outlandish with different villain's schemes.