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
I guess it depends on how different. Is this a page-one rewrite, to use Hollywood jargon, or to modify only a few details? With hindsight, I would have preferred that this installment was not made and that Brosnan concluded his run with another fourth movie. But, at the same time, without the excesses of Die Another Day, we would not have had Casino Royale.
If DAD had to happen, but that some modifications could be made, I would remove the character of Jinx from the story. In addition to being poorly written, she simply seems useless to the plot. From Cuba to Iceland, the movie would be the same without her. So, no Jinx, which would make Miranda Frost the main and only Bond Girl of the film. I think the story would also benefit from ending at the Ice Palace, without relocating the conclusion to the Korean peninsula.
As in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Bond would be stuck in the villain's lair and would have to act alone. One of the elements put forward through promotional materials and which seemed to me ultimately rather misused was the idea that Bond was facing a traitor and that he could trust no one. If Frost becomes the predominant female character and Bond has to stay with her longer in the same closed place, I think this narrative element would be better handle.
However, I don't think these points would have change much for the overall quality of the film. In addition to a complete rewrite of the script (a page-one rewrite), another director would have been needed - and another title, but this a more secondary issue. These are all the elements that allow me to think that another movie should have been made instead. This would have been necessary to better respond to the laudable intentions that initially guided DAD: the desire to deliver an anniversary installment for the saga that would question the fears of our time, following the premise of a rogue agent trying to undercover a mole within the MI6 after being captive in North Korea.
Having recently rewatch the movie, I started to think about some changes. My two main problems with this movie are on the one hand the overly convoluted plot, something that can be explained by the unnecessary mixing of two separate stories (the smuggling ring in India and the Cold War thriller), and on the other hand the regression of female characters (Octopussy and Magda) from criminals to dupes. It seems to me that the best way to solve these issues is to start from two assumptions: firstly forget about General Orlov and focus solely on the smuggling ring, secondly Octopussy becomes the antagonist, removing Kamal Khan, in order to flesh out the female characters. In addition to a more serious tone, I imagine that the cast would have been different.
I’d agree. The Brosnan era was the low point of the series. Despite being too overtly comedic in parts, the Moore era was highly entertaining and still contained Fleming elements.
I really love the bomb plot too: I think it's a really smart bit of plotting. Where the film falls down massively for me is Kamal Khan: we have no idea why he's doing what he's doing.
I like the idea of Octopussy as the villain, too. As long as she had Bond fooled for the majority of the film..
Apparently, early versions of the script written by George MacDonald Fraser suggested that Kamal had political ambitions. I may be over-analyzing, but I guess the idea was for him, in addition to enriching himself considerably, to be supported by Orlov if the later succeeded and came to power in the USSR.
Regarding Octopussy herself, although I agree that the couple she forms with Bond is the best of the Moore era, I ultimately think she would have benefited from another development, as the character is impoverished in the second part of the story and never regains the mystery that surrounded her before her introduction. Between her underused background and the fact that the movie is named after her, making her the main antagonist seemed natural to me and would have improved the movie.
Oh he'd be the new puppet Tzar or something? That would be rather cool, shame that didn't make it.
Yes that's true, once we find out who she is she doesn't really have a huge amount to do.
I'd have liked to have seen her show her might a bit more in the ending, a bit like how Draco comes in useful at the end of OHMSS by helping Bond to attack Piz Gloria. We get the circus girl raid on whichever-of-the-half-dozen-big-white-palaces-that-is at the end, but it's a bit weak and she ends up getting kidnapped for no apparent reason at the end.
Seriously: why does Kamal take her? Nothing he does makes sense! :)
Come to think of it, it's an ingenious masterplan, both realistic in terms of geopolitics, but very Bondian if the characters use high-tech to achieve it. It's a shame that he was not treated better and especially separated from the Octopussy movie, unless you give the role of Kamal to her. It could also have been an alternative take to TLD.
Ah I see. Yes it needed something more for Khan.
I love the plan to explode a bomb on an American airbase: it's so good (and scary) that Frederick Forsyth nicked it for The Fourth Protocol! :)
It actually makes sense to take her. Given Octopussy's vast network of associates, they'd come after her and it gives him the upper hand and to possibly force her hand to take some of these contacts to reestablish his power. Not sure she had any type of successor who was due to inherit what she had. This is where a good film novelization would've clarified this.
It felt easy to accept A View To A Kill the way it is when I first saw it released as a 14 year old. However in later years as an adult, it has crossed my mind how May Day changing sides comes rather too easily. She was a villainess through and through assisting Zorin's plans and murdering a couple of people along the way. Seriously would Bond really forgive her killing of Tibbet and Chuck Lee as quick and easy as that? Furthermore in the end, she basically turns on Zorin and helps Bond remove the bomb at the cost of her own life just because she's angry about being betrayed. In hindsight, this makes her sacrifice seem hardly noble and redeeming to my mind. If Zorin had shown true care for her, she would have fought tooth and nail to ensure his scheme was a success.
So my basic idea was this. Suppose Max's creator and father figure, Dr. Mortner was already long dead and Max wanted to concoct his crazy scheme against Silicon Valley because he wanted to accomplish something the old doc would be deeply proud of?
So what if it was May Day who assisted her boss and lover in the mass murder of everybody else and Scarpine was allowed to live for some reason and had the blimp ready and waiting for them? This would be sprung as a surprise on everybody, including Bond and Stacy while they are searching for where the bomb is. Perhaps neither Zorin or May Day are even aware of their presence assuming they've successfully fooled them of the mine's whereabouts. After the pair have finished machine gunning all the workers who have the misfortune not to drown in the flooded shafts, they high-five saying what an awesome team they are, hug and kiss briefly and make their way to join Scarpine.
Of course Bond and Tracy survive the flooding (it always happens in these movies) and the script-writers find a way for them to get the bomb safely out before it explodes. Zorin and May Day are furious and they somehow kidnap Stacey dragging her into the blimp with Bond grabbing the dangling rope. Then things progress the same way as the actual film with the exception of the further twist of Max being the one knocked out, May Day commands Scarpine to get out and get Bond. Then when Stacey knocks him out May Day grabs the axe in rage and chases her.
So the dangerous climactic fight actually takes place between Bond and May Day. Finally Zorin wakes up at the crucial moment as May Day is desperately trying to grab hold of Bond's leg to save herself. In the role played canonically by Dr. Mortner, he calls out to her. "MAY DAY! MAY DAY!" Upon hearing him, she gives out a mad laugh as she falls to her death. Max is grief-stricken and vows to kill Bond for killing his beloved henchwoman. Just like the film, he first empties his gun, then things play out the same way with the dynamite and Bond using the axe to free the blimp resulting in Max falling and the dynamite blowing him up along with Scarpine
This would certainly make the movie very different.
Thank you. :)
As a side note, this outcome would also make the scene in the blimp when the evil couple are looking out at the Golden Gate Bridge and say their exchange even more highlightly significant.
May Day: Wow. What a view.
Zorin: To a kill.
It doesn't really make much sense in a grammatical context, but after the first viewing, everybody would always think about the foreshadowing of the fate of the two villains in the end.
In my opinion after Live And Let Die, Felix Leiter is absent for too long. It makes Licence To Kill a little anti-climactic. Bond has barely had any contact with his old friend for more than ten years. His rogue mission to avenge his best friend's wife and the injury inflicted on him would be far more poignant with more interaction semi-regularly, just like the earlier series.
Hong Kong Police Lieuteant Hip is basically a Felix Leiter clone in The Man With The Golden Gun. I would re-write the script for Leiter instead. Perhaps have one of Felix's men who is Hong Kong arrest Bond when Gibson is shot by Scaramanga and in a unique twist have Felix present with M and company on the boat he is taken to.
Then re-write Chuck Lee as Felix for A View To A Kill, but don't have May Day kill him of course. Then he'd only be absent for four films inbetween and present in 9 out of 16 outings. This would make a far better balance.
Oh and one more thing by the way. Give him something deeply significant to do in The Living Daylights. Seriously Felix may as well have not even been in that movie with only two very brief casual cameos. Even when it first came out I remember thinking after so long he suddenly shows up in Bond's life again only so very fleetingly. That did not help the impact of Licence To Kill for me.
Indeed, I concur with everything you have said, but more particularly on this point. While I very much regret that David Hedison was not semi-regular during Moore's tenure, especially since as you have shown, it was not difficult to set up narratively speaking, not using Leiter in TLD either, when the character had been missing for a decade, is a big missed opportunity. It is also unfortunate that in two consecutive movies, Dalton had two different Leiters. Even though I much prefer Hedison to Terry and consider him a better actor, the obviousness would have been to call Terry back for TLK, at least to establish the relationship between Dalton's Bond and Leiter on something. Ideally, Hedison would have played Leiter in TLD.
Not that it needs to feel any more tragic of course, as Della's fate is horrible; but weirdly the film kind of encourages you to forget and concentrate on Felix instead. By the end he's chuckling away on the phone, presumably Bond and him get to have a good laugh about how they've both lost wives on their wedding day.
Whether they kept Hedison full time or stuck with the tradition of a new Leiter every time, I would not have minded. I was pretty used to the constant change of actor. I wonder why they chose to re-use Hedison in Licence To Kill though?
An interesting point is that the attack on Felix in Timothy Dalton's second Bond film is actually taken from the novel Live And Let Die. Ironically it seems as if fate was against Hedison'e portrayal of Leiter, after it looked like he fortunately dodged the traumatic experience. But destiny caught up with him.
The surest way to improving YOLT would have been for Lewis Gilbert to crack the bleedin' whip on the catatonic Seanery. But maybe Gilbert wasn't up to the job at that point in his career. If that was the case, a more experienced and demanding director would have been just the thing. Who that may have been in 1967, I haven't a clue.
The king of Bond films can scarcely be improved upon. However, there is one significant flaw: following Tracy's death and Bond's tearful final words we get a black screen with suitably mournful violin music. However, almost no sooner does the screen turn black than the viewer is jolted from grief by a jaunty blast of the Bond theme. Too soon. Way too soon. The violin music should have continued at least another 10 seconds to allow the viewer to process the film's heartrending conclusion. This musical error diminishes OHMSS' impact.
OHMSS - In a nutshell, I am one of the few who really dislike the film and cannot watch it with full pleasure.
I enjoy much about it - especially Diana Rigg, the cinematography, and I do find Telly to be a menacing enough Blofeld.
What bugs me somewhat is the ditzy plot of hypnotizing the women ("I like chicken") etc.
But - the huge jumbo elephant in the room, the one thing that means I will never like this movie as much as the rest of it deserves fond appreciation - is Lazenby as Bond.
I never, for one moment, bought him as James Bond. And for whatever reason, I actually disliked him from first time on the screen throughout the entire movie. I do not enjoy watching him as Bond at all. I find him fake, smug (not in a good way) and just plain irritating. So when I have the main character be someone I cannot tolerate (and there is no halfway point in this for me; I have tried) it does ruin the movie for me. OHMSS is dated in ways, but some things were just so good - especially Diana's Tracey. And the wonderful music. I wish I could enjoy it, but I dislike Laz deeply in this role, so I rarely ever watch this movie. So very thankful he never made another Bond film.
What would I change? Give me almost any other actor as Bond and I could really sit through and watch this movie over and over again. Who would I choose? Sean would be first choice; Roger 2nd. Third, as an outlier, would probably be Terence Stamp (I know he would not have done it; just saying, I could see him in the role).
So here is the one negative review with that huge change.
Everybody else here, carry on and enjoy OHMSS and make your smaller changes.
Cheers! B-)
However, no Lazenby means no Diana Rigg as she was cast to counterbalance the inexperience of the lead. As a fan of Lazenby, I would have been very disappointed to see someone else in the role for this movie, but it would have been a shame to not have Rigg as Tracy. So, even if Moore could have nailed the part, it's for the better I think he wasn't cast so soon.
I like DAF a great deal, but it cries out for an epic, typically Bondian action scene at the conclusion. Instead, what we get is a rather generic helicopter battle on a tiny oil rig. Now, I actually like the idea of a battle on an oil rig, but the rig is just too small to create a real sense gravitas. (Compare with the volcano battle in YOLT.) I'm not sure if an oil platform big enough to be suitable to the purpose even existed in 1971 (or now, for the matter of it), but if so, it should have been utilized.
The McGuffin in this one isn't big enough or grand enough for Bond. So some black gangsters want to take over the heroin market from the Mob. A bit of a yawner, really, and far too parochial. The plot of a Bond film should be of global import. LALD's wasn't. But what to do about it? The obvious answer would be that Kananga and Co. want the drug money in order to fund something truly nefarious. Maybe they wanted to create a private mercenary army in order to conquer an African country that is rich in uranium so as to build a nuke for some terroristic or other evil purpose.
Very simple. Excise the cringe-inducing bit where Lt. Hip's little nieces whip the hell out of an entire karate school and get rid of the slide whistle during the barrel roll car jump.
The biggest weakness is doubtless Barbara Bach. In terms of beauty she's badly shown up by Caroline Munro--such lovely lines--and in terms of acting/charisma she's bested by the little mullet Bond drops from the window of the Lotus. Lesley-Anne Down would have made for a much more interesting Anya.
Not much. It's already a polished film. It heavily follow the Bond formula and it's not the most original; but it does just about every aspect of the formula very well.
Bond dashes out of the room of the Chateau where Bouvar lies dead. He runs along a corridor but an alarm sounds- he stops to look out of a window and looks down at the entrance: the guards are closing the heavy gates which lead to the only bridge over the moat which surrounds the Chateau. Bond is trapped!
He presses a concealed button in a cufflink, and we cut to Mlle. La Porte in her car (perhaps a Ford Thunderbird or Aston DB5 Volante, maybe a Citroën DS Convertible) parked on the other side of the moat, where she receives Bond's signal when a bulb lights up on her dashboard. She starts the engine - we cut back to Bond's POV through the window as he watches her pull away, her car's convertible roof opening as it begins to move. But then there are shouts from the other end of the hallway and a shot is fired. Bond ducks and dashes through the nearest door.
We follow the team of baddies as they catch up and follow him through the door- we see a plaque next to the door saying 'TOURELLE (Turret)'. The door leads to a stone circular staircase leading up- we follow them as they charge up the stairs, guns in hand, when finally they reach the door at the top. They open the door just in time to see Bond, standing in the open air of the top of the turret in front of them, fastening the last catch on his jetpack (staying with the baddies means we don't have to watch him slowly put it on, as in the film!). He mashes the ignition button and his rockets fire- blasting the team of baddies back through the door and tumbling down the stairs. He takes to the air and we see his jetpack taking him easily up and over the moat, with shots being fired after him. Mlle. La Porte's car is driving away from the Chateau now, being pursued by a car full of baddies. Bond flies after her car and comes into land into the moving car (a stunt probably too dangerous to film: just shoot the car driving and the jetpack descending towards it, then do a closeup of Sean jumping in the back).
Bond lands with his feet on the back seat and sitting on the bootlid. He fires off his 'well-dressed man' quip, then realises they are being shot at from the car chasing them. He presses the quick release on his jetpack, and it falls from the back of the car into the road. As the chasing car swerves to avoid it, Bond pulls out his PPK and aims a shot at the jetpack- it explodes in a fireball and the chasing car swerves off the road down into a river. The splashing water covers the screen, and we cut to the titles.
So we get an actual reason to use the jetpack (he crosses a moat with it); we avoid having to watch him slowly putting it on whilst he's being shot at, and there's a bit more of an exciting chase and cool stunt action.