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
But yes at least I see that
And so my gist was not actually that Connery ever had the chance to play the role admirably and would've but that,
-- which is to say in an idealized situation (i.e. before the issues of shooting schedules, salary, fame, focus on the tech) -- a happy Connery working with Hunt would've pulled off the film very well.
Thank you for the information on the shooting schedule. That it was 11 months is probably something I've heard but never committed to memory. Good shout on the particular quality which that length produced.
You and I have broached Laz doing DAF -- and the likelihood of its being a lighter film -- before, in this very thread actually. It's a related question we could ask, if we're talking about which possibility (Sean in Laz's OHMSS or Laz in Sean's DAF) had less complexities standing in front of it, and I think that was the latter, all things considered. Insightful point on how having Laz instead of Connery could've inherently boosted the quality due to the shooting schedule. Hadn't thought of that before.
The other problem I have with Connery in the OHMSS role is how he would've approached the Sir Hilary Bray role. We all know that Connery is lousy at doing accents, so the thought of him attempting to do a posh Etonian one as Sir Hilary Bray could've been a car crash waiting to happen. Unless, of course, they completely abandoned that part of the script and simply allowed Connery to not try and emulate Sir Hilary Bray.
The talk of Connery making OHMSS after GF, or even TB, is also an interesting one. Reading Charles Helfenstein's excellent book on the making of OHMSS, it's quite apparent that had OHMSS been made after GF, it would not have bared much of a similarity to Fleming's original novel as did the '68 production. For one thing, there was the inclusion of a submersible Aston Martin DB5 in the original script. Just how that would've worked out I shudder to think. Fortunately, Peter Hunt tossed that idea out when he took over the reigns and the idea was held over for TSWLM. All in all, we got the stripped-back but sumptuous-looking OHMSS film that we all love to this day as a result of Connery leaving.
I would take it even one step further: as I think Dalton worked best with the 'lighter' for-Moore-meant script of TLD then the Dalton-oriented LTK. His darkness worked well with a lighter script, wth a darker one it just became a bit too much. So he'd vé worked wonders with AVTAK, landing all the sillyness in a realistic sauce.
Reposted for truth. I don't know if it has the best plot in the series, but certainly one of the best: Bond playing a morally righteous Iago to Sanchez's villainous Othello, driving him to tear his own organization apart from within.
Agreed with you both. And yet, the film sadly remains one of the tragic underdogs of the series.
Helfenstein's book is one I've yet to pick up but have long meant to. I know it's very well regarded and a 'classic' in Bond study circles. I only recently read about the extravagance in those early Maibaum drafts. 3D television, Blofeld being Goldfinger's brother. I'm assuming Maibaum was asked to incorporate this sort of stuff, based on the direction the films took? Did Hunt work on the script himself at all?
Perhaps this: I don't care that much for the wah-wah trumpets in the OHMSS theme. A bit too flamboyant for me.
Edit: Now I'm curious about how the melody would sound with regular trumpets.
If you do, you will be shot! ;)
Wow really ?
That's what makes It for me.
So it is controversial, ha!
But I don't know, for some reason I prefer the beginning of the song, when the horns are playing the tune. And in fact I even prefer the '72 orchestral arrangement to the original recording.
Me, too with a few exceptions. Unless it's someone like Christopher Lee, I also prefer experienced actors, who, though respected aren't exactly household names: Gert Frobe, Adolfo Celi, etc. Same with the Bond girls.
That's generally what happens. Except to a degree for Roger Moore.
@ToTheRight it could be argued that Lee was a "lesser" celebrity.
And often they get a big name because he's a big name and no other reason. That's how you get Kevin Costner to play Robin Hood or Benedict Cumberbatch to play a whitewashed Khan.
When I said the best man for the job, I meant a whole perfect casting choice that wouldn't pose trouble to the production and marketing of the franchise. Not just being good at the job the person's given like acting for the main part. They need someone they (producers) can control, regardless of their celebrity status. Someone who wouldn't go rogue and act like a prima donna. That applies to every key member to the production team, from the cast to the crew, from the actor to the director.
Ugh Kevin Costner was such a bad Robin Hood. And Khan in Into Darkness was so embarrassing - to me, worse than Waltz Blofeld.
This is really what it comes down to.
We've had big names play enormously successful villains: Christopher Lee, Christopher Walken, Javier Bardem.
And relative unknowns play excellent villains: Sean Bean, Sophie Marceau, Mads Mikkelson.
I will say I find it more exciting though when an actor I don't know from anywhere else comes along and delivers an outstanding performance. In a sense, it makes the villain that much more real, that much more effective. The actor truly becomes the villain for me, as opposed to my thinking, "Well, Javier Bardem certainly looks different with bleached hair and false teeth."
Walken saves the movie for me. Of course I'm biased, because he is arguably my favorite actor.
But both movies were better made and more fun than Spectre.
For me a good baddie should not be a big name but a really fleshed out and believable written part. Waltz was written as a character he had played before and he played it as such, so it felt that QT's characters came over for a Bond visit only written by a far more mediocre writer.
Drax form the MR movie was a better written and conceived character than Waltz Blofeld in Spectre.
I think Guy Hamilton was the weakest director that did multiple Bonds. He didn't have much of a distinct visual style, didn't photograph the locations particularly well(Phuket aside). Goldfinger is the only particularly good Bond film he oversaw. And I find even that overrated.