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
If Connery just accepted the offer back in 1967, Charles Feldman offered him the role and promised to do a serious adaptation, but then Connery rejected asking for more money and the rest is history.
I don't think so, he's offered a big money in DAF And his performance there was a lot left to be desired.
Though, in the situation back in 1967, it's reasonable, and because of that, the film suffered with Niven in the role :))
With Connery in the role, I'm not sure it would have been the same as the CR'67 that we've got.
Feldman promised to do a serious adaptation and faithful to the novel as long as it's Connery who would be playing Bond, he's even considering Elizabeth Taylor for the role of Vesper Lynd.
But when Connery rejected because he's asking for a paycheck, that's when it all changed and it became the Parody/Satire CR'67 that we've got.
So definitely, no explosions at the end.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ThatTallGinger/status/1577691790135771144/photo/1
Nice artworks! Thanks!
I still would have loved Majesty's in 1967, YOLT in 1969 and Diamonds in 1971 with Connery leaving afterward.
My opinion of NTTD has somewhat changed in the last year. Liked the film, hated the ending to loved the film to be accepting of the ending. I think personally, I wouldn't be chomping at the bits for a new film so soon if Bond could have rolled into the sunset with a much happier ending. An ending where everyone wins and no one had to die. I just don't think it was justified to kill both Bond and Felix. I mean Felix could have been there I the finale guns blazing with Bond. I just I still don't see the need to kill off major characters in a franchise and history in which none of them were ever killed. I understand it was the producers and Craig's decision prior to any of this that's what was going to happen, but I still felt it unnecessary. I'm a strong Craig fan and I highly enjoy all of his Bond films. But I find myself questioning his decision making when looking at the history of the franchise with no other iterations of the character being killed off as why he felt he needed to do it.
No, I would have loved him (Connery) to do Casino Royale in 1967 instead of the satire driven parody that we've got with Niven, then have Connery stepped down from the role, no returning back.
Have Casino Royale 1967 as Connery's final Bond film, more faithful to the source material.
Then the rest would still be the same, except that Lazenby would continue in Diamonds Are Forever.
I want avoid Brigitte Bardot from being cast as Bond Girl (Tracy), or in any other Bond Girl roles, and I'm happy that she wasn't cast in any Bond Girl roles, especially Tracy.
I mean obviously I wasn't around in the 60s and perhaps Connerys star power would have been good enough to draw the fans but I'm just going off of how we saw the franchise start with a low-key detective thriller in DN to hollowed out volcano lairs in YOLT. Maybe they could have made CR work in the 60s but I would have preferred a more faithful adaptation of the Blofeld trilogy in novel order.
If the character hadn't been in that book, he might have been passed over in the Bond formula or used as a one-off (or two-off, like Mathis).
To be fair, it went from hollowed out islands with nuclear reactors to hollowed out volcano bases. YOLT is obviously nuts, but DN stops being 'low-key' after about an hour.
True, the crab key dragon, anyone? 😅
I'd say it started with Home Video being more widespread and then the internet turbocharged it.
I don't recall the exact quote, but didn't Peter Hunt always say something along the lines of his job being to get the viewer from the start of the film to the end of it without questioning the logic and if they do that after they left the theatre, it doesn't much matter to him? Meaning, they themselves didn't all that much care about plot holes let alone continuity across multiple films.
I don't think a 60s Casino Royale would have been all that similar to the book, tbh.
To get back in track with NTTD: I am just more and more convinced that NTTD is actually two films, one of which I like a lot and one of which I don't really care for. And the one I don't really care for happens to be most of the things that carry over from SP. Fruit of the poisoned tree, or something.
One of the reasons I defended the ending when the film first came out was the obvious construction of it. How the film snookers Bond into a situation he can't get out of and goes quite a long way to point out possible outs and then shut them off (albeit sometimes in a blin-and-you'll-miss-it way). Part of that is that they use a previous Bond girl, so he isn't giving up everything for someone we first met 2 hours ago. I think that's smart. At the same time, I just don't like their love story in SP. It's better in NTTD, but it's still not quite there and I bump on that more and more.
PS: is this where I go to watch flame wars again, now the the Bond actor thread is closed?
CR'67: Mata Bond
NTTD - Mathilde
CR'67: Explosion at the end
NTTD - Explosion at the end
CR'67: Many Bonds
NTTD - Two 007s
CR'67: Bond was pulled out of retirement to work on a mission
NTTD - Bond was pulled out of retirement for one last mission.
Don't forget James Bond in heaven.
Oh, come on, people... Those things really have no connection at all. While I enjoy digging up all kinds of coincidences generally.
This is how I feel when people compare Skyfall to Home Alone.
Those connections to CR67 did make me laugh though.
'James Bond has retired, still in his 50s, after an unhappy love affair, to an idyllic home. He is approached to come back to work- he’s initially reluctant but then agrees. The villains make an attempt to kill him early in the story while he’s in his car, but he survives.
The main actress is also the female lead in an earlier Bond movie and there is some dubiety as to her character's loyalty. His old number, 007, is given to a younger agent. He finds out more about M than he has known before. Miss Moneypenny is of course invaluable to him and his work.
Important to the plot is that he has a daughter he's never seen by the lady in the unhappy love affair mentioned above. They meet, and begin to make up for lost time in their relationship.
The traditional main villain is killed well before the end of the story, a younger villain who had arranged this taking his place and who has a plan to kill major parts of the population of the world by some sort of vague scientific method. This villain kidnaps Bond’s daughter, obliging him to trail the villain to his base (full of tunnels and strange rooms) where they face each other for the first time in the movie followed by a lot of fighting, inc. Bond with a machine gun at some point.
Bond dies when the villain's lair explodes at the end of the story, other major characters also die during the film, though the world is saved.
A well-known beautiful love song (not the title song) is prominent in the score, both vocally and instrumentally. The film has a long and troubled production, with at least one major director starting but not finishing the job. More writers than usual (some have worked on Bond films before, some haven’t) including a young recently acclaimed comedy writer are involved with the script, which takes only a little of Fleming as inspiration.
Sound like any recent film we’ve all seen? Of course it does, but it also refers to a Bond film over 50 years ago. It is, of course, "Casino Royale"... the 1967 version.'
Y'know, when they put it like that... ;)
If you saw NTTD, you basically have seen CR67.