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
Things from Fleming:
1. Octopussy title and bases for back story
2. The Property of a Lady
3. Circus Meme
4. The bases of the clown scene from Fleming's notebook.
5. The line at the end of the backgammon where Khan tells Bond to "spend it in a hurry" from Hugo Drax in Moonraker after the bridge game.
good spade work. The first two are apparent but the next three were not as obvious.
As far as why they didn't recast the role for AVTAK, I guess the world may never know. I can understand where you're coming from in your views regarding OP but I personally disagree. I think that there is enough good to outweigh the bad. It was a great big spectacle of a film and would have been the perfect swan song for Rog. What did he accomplish by coming back for AVTAK?
Yes, well observed @Perdogg. I plan to rework an old article of mine called 'The Circus Connection of the James Bond Villains, Girls and Allies' for The Bondologist Blog at some point. It will cover this ground and more. Still, a very erudite post!
Roger was out and happy about it, it was Cubby who couldn't find (or didn't want to look for?) another actor, so he called up Rog and begged he to come back, why he said yes is because Cubby was a great friend of his and wanted to help him out of a tight spot, something you just know Cubby knew Roger would agree to, if only for one final time. Why the next film wasn't delayed a year to get another actor I don't know, it must have been MGM/UA putting pressure on for another one quickly as Octopussy was quite the hit.
It would have been interesting to see what Dalts could have done with FYEO and OP. We'll never know, but as it were, both movies worked out very well.
I do like Rog in OP. I think its one of his tougher outings.
The first draft of the screenplay had the pre-title sequence set in the Netherlands.
They want to be serious and realistic but they rely on cheap gags and are often camp and distracting. I think the big issue was Roger, his Bond was supposed to be more humorous and they tried to maintain that element whilst placing him in more Tim Dalton-esque films. The result was something rather messy. Also OP and AVTAK feel like the least necessary Bond films, they are just forgettable episodic movies.
It's always a mistake when the Bond films do become to episodic, as there needs to be some personal investment along the way for Bond otherwise he'd be a pretty boring chap. Which arguably he can be, especially when the villains and girls are given more development. I feel LALD and the last 2 Moore films fall into this trap.
And odd film to watch, unique in that while you're watching it you know there'll be another one along after, the main event ie Connery returning in NSNA, so you'll get double helpings!
I think NSNA did encourage OP to push the boat out a bit, and they were privvy to the script of the film so maybe put in stuff to wipe out NSNA's stuff ie the horseback ride to get onto the plane is better than the chase-around-the-houses B-movie effort of Connery's horse antics. The grit of OP, with the Cold War theme, is topical and more impressive than the hijacked here we go again nuclear weapons of NSNA, which would have no topical feel at all despite it being the year of Threads and The Day After, highly acclaimed nuclear peril TV dramas. Of course, we weren't to know about NSNA's failings while OP was on, though one suspected, due to the delayed release.
OP is OTT, I prefer the tone to FYEO cos I'm a Bond puritan; if you want it to be realistic, make it so, don't throw it away with silly jokes. On the downside, there is a heavy, ponderous vibe to OP, it drags a bit in India and Moore's manner seems a bit oily. He seemed better in AVTAK, which I prefer as it's a lighter, funner flick imo. But both films have dark moments of gravity that NSNA never got anywhere near, making the latter a bit of a joke, made for TV movie, almost a spoof film.
It's true the silly scenes in OP - Bond as a clown isn't silly, it's a tense moment but some can't get past the premise, the Tarzan yell, the innuendo, the final scene with Bond pretending to be in traction - let it down a fair bit, but there's plenty in there that's value for money and the West Germany scenes are tops. Some groundbreaking action scenes here.
Maud Adams (sorry!)
Orlov
Tarzan scream
The good:
Everything else (I appreciate the clown costume thing now that I'm older; it was a necessary disguise)
The perfect:
"You have a NAAAASTY habit... of surviving!"
I wonder if Cubby regretted it when he saw the box office intake? We know he wasn't happy with the business it did.
God only hopes they have the balls to move on from Craig, when he says enough's, enough.
One gets the sense that when Craig says he is finished there will be no changing his mind. Besides, I think that everyone learned their lesson about having a Bond actor stay around for too long. That's why Brosnan was not invited to return.
Indeed. I think you're spot on here. Craig is like Dalton too in that respect. Sometimes less is more, even with James Bond.
I agree, but this was John Glen's doing not Sir Rog's. I wonder if they thought this was going to be Sir Rog's swansong and sort of lost control over him.
Yes, it was thought to be Roger's last Bond until AVTAK was announced.
I think Cubby learned a hard lesson with how Sean got so pissed and always feeling he was underpaid. I recently watched the "Everything or Nothing, the Untold Story of 007".
In that documentary a UA exec explains how Cubby and Saltzman renegotiated their contract with UA giving themselves a larger piece of the pie but they refused to keep their star happy. Contracts are renegotiated all the time. But they did not want to give Sean any consideration. This made the Scotsman's blood boil.
In the future and with later Bond actors EON decided to take care of their star. Roger, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig were all well compensated, especially Brosnan. He was very popular at the time and Babs and MGM decided it was in their best interest to keep the star happy. They would not make the mistake Cubby and Saltzman had made with Sean back in the late sixties.
Yes, post-Moonraker in 1979 Roger Moore negotiated each of his three following James Bond films as separate films each. He refused to sign another multi-picture contract when this ran out with Moonraker. Cubby kept on sweetening the pot with each successive film in the years 1980-85 until it was clear that Moore was past his sell-by date as James Bond and he was replaced by Timothy Dalton.
An interesting way of putting it, plus it gave Roger Moore more Bond films than Sean Connery in the official Eon series at least.
Nobody around here could love Sir Sean's Bond any more than I do, but clearly you are in need of a reality check. Body comparisons aside, Moore did more serious acting in OP, while Sean went through the motions just as he did in 1971, especially because he was already covering territory he did in 1965. And most "ardent" fans know NSNA isn't anymore of a Bond movie than CR54 or CR67. Are we calling them real Bond movies too? Should we just call any movie with a character named James Bond a Bond movie? No, there is clear criteria for this, not an EON movie, not a Bond movie.
Well, I suppose starting off the day with a good, hearty belly laugh isn't the worst thing =))
Hear! Hear! I'm following with the rear guard buddy, tommy-gun in hand!
Whilst I agree with you slapping down senthilvel's Comnery fixated lunacy you let yourself down by employing exactly the same twisted logic that he does based on personal preference rather than any coherent argument.
There is absolutely no reason to state that something not made by EON can't be classed as a Bond film. Its just a coincidence that all 3 Bonds produced outside of the EON stable have been poor but its not the basis for a logical argument.
I would certainly class NSNA as a real Bond film and in fact legally it is as dear old Kevin had the rights to make it. CR67 is obviously a giant turd but CR54 for all its flaws (and they are many) is true to the novel on several occasions.
But at the end of the day they are all Bond films, shit Bond films yes but Bond films nonetheless. And lets not forget EON have made a few clunkers themselves. DAF and DAD are automatically better than NSNA are they merely thanks to the EON bells and whistles of gunbarrel and Bond theme?
Official.
All 23+ EoN Production Films.
Unofficial.
CR54/67.
Never Say Never Again.
All are Bond movies. But the Official are the ones to see.
Agreed. I really need to see the '54 CR. It'd easily top the other two.
:))
No Gunbarrell
No Bond Theme
I know that the producers could not use these two elements due to legal issues.
The high points of the film for me was Sean playing Bond as an aging and almost over the hill agent, Q branch being in a shytty basement with a bitter Q envious of the CIA's massive budgets...Klaus Maria Brandauer made a great villain, and of course Fatima Blush played by that hot Barbara Carrera.