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
As far as the script goes, it is basically a re make (and a bad one) of TSWLM
Great aerial stunt in the PTS (the only good thing about this film)
Jaws
Meglomanic who wants to destory the world
Bond girl with a "dirty" or sexual campy name
OTT gadgets
DN was a really great script, too. It got everything right. As did the FYEO one 95 percent of the time. Those are my additional embraces.
Edit: I still love MR and all other Moore films.
This aritcle is called "The Bond Too Big for 007" and other tales of James Bond scripts; by Bill Koenig. I found this to be quite interesting; I hope you all enjoy this. The following is about Moonraker, but this article also discusses Diamonds Are Forever.
I will only copy some info here, but please click on the link to read it all. :-B
This articles starts out with this:
The typical movie screenplay goes through multiple drafts before a final shooting script emerges. The same is true of James Bond screenplays. Throughout the past half-century, concepts, sequences, characters get thrashed out, elaborated or dropped.
When each new Bond screen adventure comes out, most fans get caught up in the final movie. Some collectors, though, pursue copies of scripts, including drafts that differ from the films themselves. Producer Albert R. Broccoli wanted 1979’s Moonraker to be spectacular. But while he had a big budget for the time (United Artists initially set the budget at $20 million, and it expanded to more than $30 million), an early draft was so sprawling, there probably was no way Broccoli was prepared to film it.
In other instances, such as 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever, earlier drafts had more material from their Ian Fleming source material than cinema audiences would see when the film version debuted. In other words, screenwriters such as Tom Mankiewicz really did read the books, even if critics of their work thought otherwise.
What follows is a look at a few draft screenplays.
Gary J. Firuta, a Bond collector, shared some of the draft screenplays he gathered over the years, which was a big help in preparing this story.
MOONRAKER
The early, undated draft, weighs in at 153 pages. The rule of thumb in the film industries is that each page of a script will be roughly a minute of screen time. Thus, this version would have been more than two-and-a-half hours had it been filmed. Christopher Wood’s name isn’t on the title page, but we’ll assume he’s responsible. Tom Mankiewicz had been involved in the treatment, or outline, stage but was, by all accounts, not involved in actual script drafts. Much of the script has sequences that match the completed film. But this version of Moonraker is bigger, much bigger and, in the end, too big for 007.
Bond takes his gondola into a boathouse. One of Drax’s men lobs what looks like a hand-grenade into it which is followed by the sound of a muffled explosion. At once, clouds of black smoke come pouring from the boathouse. Inside, Bond is apparently struggling with a bulky package rather like a parachute pack.
Drax’s men are poised outside the boathouse, ready for Bond to come out. Instead, the agent soars out at speed through the smoke, propelled by the jet-pack on his back.
Wait, it gets better...
Suddenly, a helicopter is chasing after Bond. 007 is manipulating his jet-pack expertly. The helicopter is twisting and turning to catching him, rather as a large bird does to a smaller one. A shot from the helicopter pierces the jet-pack and fuel begins to leak. Bond looks about him urgently for a means of escape. Bond dives, flying under a bridge while the helicopter tries to fly over it but instead flies straight into it and blows up dramatically.
Whew! And the script is just getting started.
Later, in Brazil, Bond and CIA agent Holly Goodhead agree to work together, much as in the final film. They escape from Jaws in a cable-car sequence, again much as the finished movie, but get captured by other Drax henchmen.
(This article next gives quotes from the script, new scenes, more action, different from the film, then wraps up this section with the following comments:)
Besides the additional action sequences, the script also has one other change of note. In Rio, Bond is assisted by a male agent, instead of a woman operative. That agent ends up being killed by Jaws (before he switches to Bond’s side in the space station) and ends up as a second “sacrificial lamb.” In the completed film, Jaws doesn’t actually kill anybody -- he tries a lot but is almost entirely a comic foil. When Jaws debuted in The Spy Who Loved Me, he provided both menace and comic relief. But you couldn’t totally laugh him off because we saw him kill somebody early in that 1977 film.
One suspects producer Broccoli felt if Jaws would convert to Bond’s side in Moonraker, it’d be better if there wasn’t that messy MI6 agent’s death to overlook. As in the finished film, the first “sacrificial lamb” in the Moonraker script is the woman pilot who helps Bond early in the film at Drax’s supposed California mansion. In the script, the character’s name is Trudi Parker. The name was changed when French actress Corinne Clery was hired for the role.
What to make of all this? Well, a film close to the 153-page script would have been a massive undertaking and presumably would have added substantially to the movie’s budget. The early script also has a “Best of Bond” feel to it, much like 2002’s Die Another Day. (Let’s take the jet-pack from Thunderball! Let’s do a new version of From Russia With Love’s briefcase!). Still, this Moonraker script does have an epic feel to it. It was so big, Broccoli & Co. carved out two sequences for later re-use (the keel hauling sequence would be used in For Your Eyes Only while a single mini-jet would be used in Octopussy’s pre-title sequence). If the script could be summarized in a word, it’d be ambitious. But even 007 couldn’t cash the checks needed to make a film based on the complete 153-page script.
* * * * * * *
I wish I could read several of the scripts in different stages, so I will try to find some more. Different drafts seem available for many, but most especially I wish more final shooting scripts were available.
Moonraker, for me, was "too big" with the final version, over the top, too much camp, etc. I cannot imagine it being more enjoyable if including even more of the above. Reading this article was interesting for sure. Hope you take a few moments to look through it, Originals and all readers of this thread. :-bd
It's hard to find much to say in favor of the four films you reference above. I'll praise TMWTGG for the creation of NickNack...TWINE for at least TRYING to create an original villain in Renard...DAD for getting Bond captured and held behind enemy lines for several months, a brilliant idea made even more torturous with the realization that Madonna provided the soundtrack for his imprisonment...and MR for...well.......for just being so over-the-top SILLY. (Actually, the scene with the dogs attacking Corinne is the one exception to this assessment. It's powerful and frightening and almost out of place in the light fluffy entertainment that is the rest of MR.)
I'll second the point made earlier by @Thunderfinger: the best Bond scripts start with a cracking story by Fleming, which the film-makers then refine to suit the needs of a film. With that in mind, I'd like to nominate Goldfinger as having one of the best scripts of any Bond movie. Not only do the changes made to the Fleming original improve the story substantially...but some of the dialogue in that film is among the most iconic lines in Bond history! Submitted for your approval: Bond: "An ejector seat? You're joking!" Q: "I NEVER joke about about my work, 007!" and Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?" Goldfinger: "NO, Mr. Bond -- I expect you to DIE!"
They just don't write 'em much better than that!
Goldfinger's script did improve upon the original story, in my opinion. It certainly has some iconic lines, scenes, and music. One I'd enjoy reading soon is For Your Eyes Only. I'll have to see where I can find it.
Meanwhile, we shall be changing topics tomorrow ... so any other comments and thoughts on Bond screenplays are very welcome. B-)
:))
Topic #8 is Bond Reboots :> (thanks to @OHMSS69 for this suggestion)
Let's take a look at times when Bond has, in some sense, been rebooted. Not meaning the timeline ... a reboot meaning a film that changes what had gone before, gives a fresh start to the series, goes in a different direction or style, one that seems to bring Bond back to earth after maybe some more outlandish films (example: FYEO after Moonraker) or takes us into a lighter territory after heavier films (example: Goldneye after LTK).
~ What are your opinions?
~ Which films do you consider to be reboots?
~ Were these changes good at that time, for the series?
~ How do you think Fleming would feel about the reboots?
All thoughts about reboots to be considered.
Let me tackle Ian Fleming first. I do not claim to be an expert on him. But I think that Fleming saw his creation take off and was pleased with that, and the man had the ability to see the full scope of things. Therefore, I have a feeling that he would not have particularly minded the changes in his character over time. What I mean is that I think he would have seen value in the continuation of the films, as their own entity, and that his main character of James Bond was valuable and definitely iconic. He would perhaps have flinched at some of the more over the top humor, I think. But I do not think he would have condemned the series as it changed, because ultimately that kept Bond alive and growing throught the decades. James Bond is a rare gift that he gave to the world and I think he was really beginning to realize that (its potential to last) when he died.
One of the most valuable reboots for me is For Your Eyes Only. I was definitely let down and disappointed in Moonraker. Some things really bugged me (Corrine's death, yes; but mostly the over the top humor). I was fairly grumpy leaving the theater, even though the locations in MR (and theme song) were splendid. As a longtime Bond fan, I did not want the series to continue on that path. I was downhearted. Then along came ... For Your Eyes Only.
For Your Eyes Only brought Bond back to earth with a solid story, some serious moments that added to the depth of the whole film, much more balanced humor, a great ally in Columbo, Moore at the very pinnacle of his portrayal as Bond - and it felt like Bond went back to his roots. Although lighter and far more modern in every aspect, it did feel like a throwback to From Russia With Love for me. I really enjoyed FYEO and it came at exactly the right time. It was so needed after Moonraker.
That was a very smart decision by the producers, to change the tone and style of the Bond films at that time.
Please chime in with any discussion of Bond reboots for this next week.
Cheers! :-bd
For me, I think FYEO is Fleming-esque. I'll try to write more this weekend about the reboots I feel were the strongest and if any went a bad direction. I have to leave for work soon, so carry on, chaps and ladies! :)>-
DAF- When Laz bailed after OHMSS, they secured Connery, and got the golden Goldfinger director to ensure a revitalising hit. Unfortunately, it was a Flint-like turn towards camp. A slight pause for the slightly more serious LALD, but this road paved with good intentions would eventually lead to MR. Now MR made a ton of cash, but EON sensed the franchise might die soon if it remained in the kiddie pool. So they threw it off into the deep end.
FYEO. Good move creatively, this new take with Glen at the helm was funny enough for the kids, yet serious enough for fans of old. But Rog wasn't getting any younger, and the eighties saw a spate of high-octane action films that were rapidly leaving EON's Bond entries in the dust. What to do? When in doubt, break Fleming out.
TLD- Fortunately, NBC had a leash on Brosnan, so that dog was out of the race & Dalton was able to breathe new creative, literary life into Bond. Still, Bond wasn't exactly raking in cash compared to other Hollywood 'splosionfests. A lighter tone (not quite a reboot IMO) & good old Broz brought the broader audience back to the theatres, but his last film, while making a boatload of coin, once again left EON in an awkward position- would Bond be stuck making OTT borderline Sci-Fi action entries?
CR- Reset pressed; Craig engaged. Blunt instrument time.
That's my story & I'm sticking to it.
I didn't think of DAF as a reboot; that is interesting to look at it that way.
As for FYEO, Moore was not past it, in my opinion, nor did he look too old. It had a good balance.
I did not think of TLD as a reboot; I'll give that some more thought. For me, yes a new Bond in the wonderful Timothy Dalton, and yes he brought more serious intensity to the scenes that required that, but it still looked a bit like a Moore film. It didn't feel like a huge reboot to me.
I'll check back in later; just on my lunch hour. Looking forward to more of everbody's thoughts on Bond reboots. B-)
If you want to go by a harder definition of 'reboot', then only CR really qualifies. There were threads of continuity up to & including the Brosnan years, however the case can be made for GE being a reboot of sorts, though personally I see it as a 'retooling'.
My pick for the first reboot would have to be OHMSS. We obviously had a new Bond for the first time. This was supposed to be the beginning of a new era and a seven film run for Lazenby. Also, ever since GF, the films kept getting bigger and bigger. This was an attempt to scale things back a bit and go back to the roots of Fleming.
After Lazenby left it was back to the drawing board. DAF really was a reboot in many ways. Even though Connery (and Hamilton) had returned this film was much closer in tone and style to what came after it than what came before. This was ushering in a new decade with a more humorous and/or campy approach.
TSWLM could be seen as a reboot in some ways. Harry was out and Cubby wanted Bond to return to the days of the spectacle driven, over the top adventures like YOLT. Naturally, Lewis Gilbert was brought back for the next two films.
It's clear that everyone views FYEO as a reboot. The beginning of the Glen era and the 80's. It provided us with a more grounded Bond film after the over the top and out of this world approach of the last two escapades. This was setting the table for the next reboot...
TLD could also be seen as a reboot for various reasons. We had a new Bond for the first time since 1973 and this one had a drastically different approach from his very popular predecessor. Dalton's age also helped lend itself to this feeling like a reboot. Connery and Moore were about the same age and you could (for the most part) envision Bond being the same person from 1962 to 1985. Now it was a whole new ballgame.
Out of all the non-reboots, GE feels the most like a reboot to me. Not only did we have a new Bond but we had a new... everything! All of the remnants of the classic era were swept away and we entered a new decade of Bond in the post Soviet Union world. Sometimes this feels like more of a reboot than CR does because I like to consider this the beginning of the Dench era.
CR is, of course, the only official reboot.
Interesting to think of DAF as a reboot. Since @chrisisall put it well in the context of a reboot, I thought about it a bit, and now you also bring up some good points, pachazo. I had not thought of DAF as a reboot until this week. It definitely went treading into the lighter, campier area for the first time and obviously the filmmakers wanted it to be far different from OHMSS. That makes LALD not such a huge departure then, doesn't it? I think Moore was smart to be his own Bond and not try to copy Connery, including the line about the martini. So perhaps DAF was more of a reboot than LALD, even though LALD gave us the new actor for Bond.
I do think of GE as a definite reboot - it changed the feel of Bond films and was a big and refreshing change, coming after LTK and a far too long wait. I, among thousand of fans, so wish we had a third from Dalton - it would not have been as dark or grim, and I think would perhaps have been great. I still feel he was a great Bond. However, I don't see him in Goldeneye. I love the Goldeneye we got, with Pierce. The beginning of the Dench era indeed. :) I love Judi's M and Goldneye has a lot going for it; her role in it being not a small contribution to the film's quality and success.
Hmmm. Out of all the reboots being considered, I rather feel like watching FYEO tonight. I thoroughly enjoy that one.
Who's next? Any thoughts on reboots are welcome - and perhaps you have an idea of one not yet discussed. Let us hear from you, fellow (and sister) Originals, seasoned agents, and all members. B-)
The first attempt at Reboot comes with OHMSS in 1969. By 1968 there were so many Bond imitators in the marketplace that EON feared they would run the risk of imitating the imitators. YOLT has many Matt Helm, Derek Flint, Honey West things about it. The decision was made to go back to the source novel and toss all the other formulaic things out the window (for the most part.)
Some originals have wanted to list DAF as a reboot, but I don't see it that way. Eon simply wanted to go back to what they thought the audience wanted while at the same time having fun with the James Bond image. If anything DAF set the stage for the opening salvos of the Moore years.
The approach to OTT got outrageous with MR (the way it got outlandish with YOLT) thus the decision to "reset" with FYEO in 1981. This Cold War thriller most definitely returned Bond to his true roots. A espionage adventure with the Cold War as a back drop.
Never saw TLD as a straight reboot either. Like DAF it was just a way to do some fine tuning and oil the machine.
The next and final reboot would have to be the fan favorite CR. Like MR and YOLT the franchise had managed to over inflate itself with horseshytt and despite having a highly popular actor in Pierce Brosnan, and the fact the film made so much bank, one would not fault Babs and MGW for sticking with the outrageous formula, but like Cubby and Salzman back in 1969, they showed some real gravitas and grew some brass balls, and hit the RESET button big time.
Well of course it did. That's why I see it as a reboot. DAF was a game changer. It helped to erase OHMSS from the GP's minds and paved the way for Roger Moore. Only Sean Connery could have accomplished this. I can see where you're coming from though and why you would have reservations about granting it reboot status.
Yes I believe that @chrisisall is spot on in this case. Obviously they had to do some retooling for Roger in LALD but everything was already set up for him in DAF. For all of it's faults DAF really was a stroke of genius. To let everyone say goodbye to the great Sean Connery while he paved the way for his successor. In some ways, perhaps we can say the same about Roger Moore in the Glen era. It all flows together.
Like a sailboat, that stays on course only by tacking back and forth, the Bond films have stayed valid, in my opinion, because they have changed - sometimes only in small ways, some in more obvious and bigger ways - and did not try to always repeat the exact same style as the previous films. If there were no changes, no "corrections" or "resets" then the series would have died out by now, I feel sure. 50 years of Dr. No? No, I don't think that would have worked to anyone's satisfaction. So we end up with some fan favorites (Goldeneye, For Your Eyes Only, Casino Royale) and some not so popular, to put it politely (Moonraker, DAF). Although both Moonraker and DAF have their fans, too.
I'm off to an early start this Monday. For most of you it is perhaps Sunday evening. Thanks for checking in. Please give us your thoughts about Bond reboots.
:>
The movie is a brilliant balance between fun, action and spectacle. And Roger made it look good. The more grim aspects of the Fleming world were not lost and still there like the gruesome demise in a phone booth, the butchering of sailors in the Pegasus while storming the control booth.
This time all the decisions were made by Broccoli who in my book was the more creative force behind the 007 franchise. And as it turned out after the lackluster LALD & TMWTGG we got a blockbuster movie that would continue for quite a few movies with the vision of Broccoli steering the ship while training Barbara & Wilson.
Sounds good to me... :P
Jk.
It was spectacular, fun, adventurous, beautifully filmed, and so much fun - without being over the top. Moore completely came into his own as Bond then. I agree that Broccoli's decisions were a departure for the series and came at the right time.
Dear @Thunderfinger, I could not even take 50 years of From Russia With Love, one of my favorites. byakt. ;)
By the way, are Goldfinger and Thunderball two of your favorites? Or were you just trying your best to combine the word "ball" with some other Bond words for your username but couldn't resist going with the hammer of the gods "thunder", which also goes with the Bond title, with Dan's little digit? Oh, I am putting way too much thought into this ... !
No, it's simply that Thunderpussy was already taken, y'see*. :P
* Famous member of AJB007 Forums.
No, it's simply that Thunderpussy was already taken, y'see*. :P
* Famous member of AJB007 Forums.[/quote]
Maybe you should introduce us?
Maybe you should introduce us?
[/quote]
I'll be only too glad to:
http://www.ajb007.co.uk/user/11197/
He's a big literary Bond fan over there. It'd be nice if he could join us here too.
The second sort of reboot came with GE, obviously. Female M, CGI opening titles, the electronics of Serra, the stark contrast between LTK's 80s mood and GE's mid 90s flavours, ... They kept traditional elements but the style had changed somewhat.
The third reboot, for me, is of course CR. I think enough has been said about that already in countless other threads. It's also the most genuine one since it doesn't carry over anything from the previous Bond films at all. This is Bond at the starting point of his career, a point where we'd never been unless one treats DN as more or less Bond's professional début.
I think such reboots - and let's leave the semantics out of this for a change - are a good thing. In fact I think they're needed. You can't keep working on the fumes of a fire long extinct. New fires have to be lit from time to time. An ideal place to do so would be when a new Bond actor is introduced. Doesn't always have to be as radical as in CR, but I still prefer something a bit more conspicuous than what they did with Moore in LALD. There, they wanted to almost blind us from the fact of a new actor, as they had tried in OHMSS as well but there at least we got the famous "other fellow" line.
Of course when you do reboot or partially reboot the series, don't do so by flushing the Bond formula down the toilet completely. Certain 'rules' are quite sacred I dare say. Like Bond's skin colour for example. And the Bond Theme can better stay in the mix too. You won't find any tune more awesome than that one anyway. CR was nothing if not a balancing act, trying to give us a new Bond but still retaining as much of the old Bond as possible. I think this is best reflected by Arnold ever so slightly hinting at the Bond Theme when Bond walks into the casino for the first time.
Would Fleming have liked it? I honestly don't know. But the man did occasionally consider finishing off his Bond series. I guess deep down he too must have discovered that sense of fatigue one gets from watching too much of the same thing. Still, minor "reboots" - and I agree that this time the term may be totally out of place - like FYEO, can be enough. FYEO effectively closed the books on the fantasy driven cartoonish Bonds of the second half of the 70s. Yet people still loved the Moore films after he'd gone into space.
So what I take from this is that Bond has earned some confidence from audiences. You give them DAD and then the next time you give them CR. In both cases, audiences come watch the film in large numbers. But I do believe that DAD 2 wouldn't have been a success. So a reboot once in a while, whether as small as FYEO or as huge as CR, cannot hurt. I admit though that in all of the above, I may have been using the word 'reboot' very loosely. ;-)
Yes, these "resets" or "reboots" are healthy; I think that is apparent. Two Moonrakers or DADs in a row, I shudder to think of that! Changes in tone, style, darn near everything were needed. FYEO and CR both gave us a fresh start with Bond and both were needed. Casino Royale is the most obviously reboot, but I didn't want to limit our discussion to that. So it is fun to look at the whole series and see where the filmmakers made deliberate changes, to be different from the previous Bond film that came directly before it (call it reboot or reset, never mind).
As for Bond 24, I am hoping for a slight change (lighter, have Bond enjoying life more, less angst, less major sorrow; and I hope a much better soundtrack) but with basically the Bond that we saw at the end of Skyfall. No big changes are necessary, in my opinion.