›

The James Bond Questions Thread

1…123124126128129…210

Comments

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I have this on file,i think its the salt mine that was going to be used :

    DAF-script-1.jpg?resize=660%2C333
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Why was Blofeld's "demise" left so ambiguous in DAF? Always seemed sloppy to me.

    Because I believe Cubby wanted to bring Blofeld back in future movies. As evidence with TSWLM. Blofeld was the original villain scripted in but they changed it to Stromberg after legal problems with Kevin Mclory.

    I am not a fan of TSWLM but it would have been a better send off for Blofeld. Anthony Burgess in his script had imagine for the villain "a gross Orson Welles in a wheelchair". Imagine Blofeld like this for his last showdown.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I might've asked this before and missed the answer, but how do they know Bond made it at the end of TND if the ship searching for them has no clue if they're alive or not?
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,171
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I might've asked this before and missed the answer, but how do they know Bond made it at the end of TND if the ship searching for them has no clue if they're alive or not?

    There is no way they can know. Not only that Bond survived, but that Carver went down with the ship. There's nothing to suggest either as far as what the Royal Navy know.
    I can't see any reason why they couldn't leave it as Bond missing. Carvers whereabouts unknown, presumed dead.
    The audience knows. Exactly how long were Bond and Wai Lin prepared to float around on the debris? Makes no sense, sloppy ending for me.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I might've asked this before and missed the answer, but how do they know Bond made it at the end of TND if the ship searching for them has no clue if they're alive or not?

    I understand they called in case they were alive.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,989
    Ludovico wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Why was Blofeld's "demise" left so ambiguous in DAF? Always seemed sloppy to me.

    Because I believe Cubby wanted to bring Blofeld back in future movies. As evidence with TSWLM. Blofeld was the original villain scripted in but they changed it to Stromberg after legal problems with Kevin Mclory.

    I am not a fan of TSWLM but it would have been a better send off for Blofeld. Anthony Burgess in his script had imagine for the villain "a gross Orson Welles in a wheelchair". Imagine Blofeld like this for his last showdown.

    It would of been great, hell you could say the same with Moonraker. Drax's plan sounds a lot like a plan Blofeld would do.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    Because it's recycled from YOLT.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I might've asked this before and missed the answer, but how do they know Bond made it at the end of TND if the ship searching for them has no clue if they're alive or not?

    I understand they called in case they were alive.

    The ship? Yes, but it's said to M that "Carver went down with the ship. Seems that Bond made it." There's no way they could know either of these things, while subsequently being unaware of Bond's fate.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,989
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because it's recycled from YOLT.
    I rather take the Moonraker plot over the YOLT plot.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because it's recycled from YOLT.
    I rather take the Moonraker plot over the YOLT plot.

    I have a soft spot for YOLT. Aki is underrated in the Bond canon.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I love YOLT, it always surprises me when I realize just how few people seem to care for it.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,296
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I love YOLT, it always surprises me when I realize just how few people seem to care for it.

    I love it too, however it ranks around the middle of my list
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because it's recycled from YOLT.
    I rather take the Moonraker plot over the YOLT plot.

    I'll second that.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Because it's recycled from YOLT.
    I rather take the Moonraker plot over the YOLT plot.

    I'll second that.
    Thirded.
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I love YOLT, it always surprises me when I realize just how few people seem to care for it.

    If there's a movie I forget about entirely, it's YOLT. Falls in the not-that-bad, not-that-great category. Connery's boredom with the role becomes noticeable.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    YOLT is #18 on my list only atm....
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,989
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I love YOLT, it always surprises me when I realize just how few people seem to care for it.

    Once i read the book the movie became a really bad taste in my mouth
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I love YOLT, it always surprises me when I realize just how few people seem to care for it.

    Once i read the book the movie became a really bad taste in my mouth

    Agreed...at least there is still good material to be used from the book,as from DAF and TMWTGG.
    They need to start using some of it !!

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    The thing regarding YOLT is that why would you need a children's book writer to pen a Bond film? The plot wasn't even consistent and the film isn't even attractive. The same can be said to Connery who really screwed himself over and destroyed what could've been of him as a more action man Cary Grant during the sixties and onward. That's why YOLT and DAF as films are down the bottom of my list.
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,296
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The thing regarding YOLT is that why would you need a children's book writer to pen a Bond film? The plot wasn't even consistent and the film isn't even attractive. The same can be said to Connery who really screwed himself over and destroyed what could've been of him as a more action man Cary Grant during the sixties and onward. That's why YOLT and DAF as films are down the bottom of my list.

    I don't really think it helps that they filmed the books all out of early. What really should've followed Thunderball was OHMSS. Connery was not happy with the direction the films were taking, he was quite interested in going back to the style of Dr. No and FRWL, and allowing more character development. That wasn't what YOLT offered. Despite being a good movie in my opinion, and one of the most memorable in the whole series, it felt too much like it was becoming parody, not to mention the stresses of filming in Japan must've pissed Connery as well. I love the OHMSS we have now, but to see Connery in OHMSS followed by YOLT would've been amazing.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    For me, YOLT is too sluggish and I find the plot to be a retread weak of Thunderball's. Though instead of warheads it's space capsules. Blofeld was wasted. The Bond turning Japanese and Ninja training sections of the film could have been removed to give Blofeld more much needed screen time and allow him to become more of a menacing figure rather than the slightly irritated man we see at the end of the film. In the right mindset I can enjoy it. It has one of Barry's best scores but compared to Connery's original 4 films and what came after it, YOLT is near the bottom for me.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    Posts: 3,157
    The only reason YOLT is higher than NSNA in my ranking is Barry's score. That said, it's still #24 for me.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, Bond disguised as a Japanese fisherman from a certain village was one of the few things taken from the novel itself. So, no surprise they kept it there. Connery's performance and the atmosphere of the film themselves alongside the plot are what it has struck the film down to the ground. But, at least we didn't have YOLT made in the godawful seventies and eighties.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,361
    Perhaps but in the film itself it was useless. He becomes Japanese, goes with Kissy and they talk to like 2 people while he's in disguised the whole time. It was pointless. It would have been better if they were observing the island, watch someone go into the cave, the boat comes out and they find the person dead. Then that's when the go and investigate.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    007ClassicBondFan wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    The thing regarding YOLT is that why would you need a children's book writer to pen a Bond film? The plot wasn't even consistent and the film isn't even attractive. The same can be said to Connery who really screwed himself over and destroyed what could've been of him as a more action man Cary Grant during the sixties and onward. That's why YOLT and DAF as films are down the bottom of my list.

    I don't really think it helps that they filmed the books all out of early. What really should've followed Thunderball was OHMSS. Connery was not happy with the direction the films were taking, he was quite interested in going back to the style of Dr. No and FRWL, and allowing more character development. That wasn't what YOLT offered. Despite being a good movie in my opinion, and one of the most memorable in the whole series, it felt too much like it was becoming parody, not to mention the stresses of filming in Japan must've pissed Connery as well. I love the OHMSS we have now, but to see Connery in OHMSS followed by YOLT would've been amazing.

    Eon didn't want OHMSS to follow TB, as they saw it as "TB on skis." But to pick YOLT and upend the series order was really strange.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    edited February 2017 Posts: 15,423
    Imagine had they done Moonraker with Sean Connery. And I'm talking about the novel's storyline.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,393
    I read somewhere that Eon didn't get the Moonraker rights until 1969.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Moonraker wasn't among the screen rights formed in 1961? I thought Casino Royale was the only book they didn't have the rights to. One learns something new every day.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    I think Eon bought back the rights to Moonraker at around the same time as they got the rights to the other Bond films in 1961, though I could be wrong. That's what I've always read, anyway.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Moonraker was acquired with the others. They considered filming it in 1969, that and TMWTGG, but OHMSS it was.
Sign In or Register to comment.