Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The weakness that becomes an asset
What were, in your opinion, the weakness of a particular Bond movie that on the long run became an asset to it? This could because it gives the movie some charm or whatever reason. A dodgy special effect, or a limited actor, or whatever...
I will give an example that always struck me: the low budget of Dr. No. It forced it to have a rushed ending, truncate a good part of the novel, but the movie would have been too long otherwise and I don't think they would have made a believable squid unless they had hired Ray Harryhausen. It also made them put the emphasis on suspense.
I will give an example that always struck me: the low budget of Dr. No. It forced it to have a rushed ending, truncate a good part of the novel, but the movie would have been too long otherwise and I don't think they would have made a believable squid unless they had hired Ray Harryhausen. It also made them put the emphasis on suspense.
^ 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
If some legal loophole or wad of cash had been found to force Sean to stay in for one more picture I can't help but feel his disenchantment could well have ruined the film.
You may not like Laz but I don't think there's anyone who could argue that the Sean of 1968 would have delivered a good performance at all.
Agreed. Plus, OHMSS is a unique story that benefits from Lazenby being a one-and-done Bond.
A close second is the loss of legal rights to CR until 2006. With any other actor playing Bond, it would have been a weaker film (and the studio may have added on a happy ending, for fear of another OHMSS box office disappointment).
:-??
I love that scene! Maud Adams' look of horror when she blows the doors off to reveal the bomb. Classic.
The great thing about the violence in LTK is that it is not overdone or used unnecessarily, which is the short fall of many action movies. Instead, the violence is expertly directed and very entertaining. I particularly like Milton Krest's demise, because it just shows you how brutal Sanchez can be. LTK makes it into my top 5, a suberb release.
It's defiantly on my top 5 or 6 too. Of all the Bond films LTK, maybe more than any other, has developed a bit of a cult following. Once considered one of the worst entries in the series, it's stock has gone up considerably in the near 25 years since its release.
I must agree with Wiz here. An OHMSS adaptation with Connery and probably Pleasence back as well would change the dynamics between Bond and Blofeld, too. Would be hard to disregard the previous film if that were the case, and the result would have been less faithful to Fleming, almost certainly. Sure, Lazenby was no Connery, but neither was Connery at that moment in time.
I also agree that Sean in OHMSS would have been worse than it turned out to be.
Without continuing essentially right where Casino Royale left off, we would not have gotten a Bond release in 2008, and likely not again until 2012 due to the MGM bankruptcy. A six year gap between Casino Royale and Craig's second film would have been detrimental to his tenure, and to the series as a whole. Who knows if he would have stayed on.
Following directly to Casino Royale's set up also made the 'writing' of the film much easier for the producers, director, and actors due to the writers strike. Being able to essentially just finish a story set up by somebody else meant the team didn't necessarily need writers to fulfill the plot.
While the resulting Quantum of Solace is pretty 50/50, if not 40/60 among fans, it's political themes (included thanks to Marc Forster) are still highly relevant six years later, it's action (while honestly a bit frantic for a Bond film) still holds up to those of rival franchises enough, and its emotional themes still carry on in Skyfall and Craig's future Bond films.
It's not a great Bond film, but its a mediocre outing by a mediocre team with mediocre reviews created under impossible circumstances. Ultimately: success.
In my book, at least.
I never thought about it like that but you are right.
It's a very under-appreciated film for many reasons, but keeping the brand alive is a reason we all can appreciate it for.
DAD did not force a reboot.That is a misconception.The film was a huge success.Brosnan was asked back for one more film after it but not long after, the rights to CR was secured and the producers decided to go and do that instead.
I also disagree about Sean in OHMSS would have resulted in a poorer film.I think the material and Hunts direction would have made Connery put a lot of effort into this one and it would have been a perfect conclusion to his run.
At one point, Judi was saying that it would be Casino Royale with Pierce; and I remember thinking, well Pierce cannot do that particular story really ... and it all changed. I am happy we got Craig and the CR we got, yes. But I will always wish that Pierce went out with a much better final film.
I think Sean in OHMSS would have been awesome. He could have upped his game, had passion for that particular story and worked well with that director and sublime supporting cast, yes. It is a shame that did not happen. Other things took over (lack of respect, money, how the producers treated him.)