Controversial opinions about Bond films

1471472474476477707

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I'm actually very glad Dahl didn't write another Bond film. YOLT isn't exactly one of my favorites, if not the opposite of it.

    Seems like Mankiewics and Wood were both very influenced by Dahl s output.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm actually very glad Dahl didn't write another Bond film. YOLT isn't exactly one of my favorites, if not the opposite of it.
    Seems like Mankiewics and Wood were both very influenced by Dahl s output.
    Mankiewicz wrote great dialogues, but his scripts were very weak and dull. Still, better than Dahl.

    Wood, on the other hand, was far more brilliant than he was given credit for. Terrific screenplays, terrific novelizations.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I'm actually very glad Dahl didn't write another Bond film. YOLT isn't exactly one of my favorites, if not the opposite of it.
    Seems like Mankiewics and Wood were both very influenced by Dahl s output.
    Mankiewicz wrote great dialogues, but his scripts were very weak and dull. Still, better than Dahl.

    Wood, on the other hand, was far more brilliant than he was given credit for. Terrific screenplays, terrific novelizations.

    I will certainly give you the novelizations, although I haven t read his MR one, but TSWLM is the best non-Fleming I read by far.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'm actually very glad Dahl didn't write another Bond film. YOLT isn't exactly one of my favorites, if not the opposite of it.
    Seems like Mankiewics and Wood were both very influenced by Dahl s output.
    Mankiewicz wrote great dialogues, but his scripts were very weak and dull. Still, better than Dahl.

    Wood, on the other hand, was far more brilliant than he was given credit for. Terrific screenplays, terrific novelizations.

    I will certainly give you the novelizations, although I haven t read his MR one, but TSWLM is the best non-Fleming I read by far.
    The best thing about him is that he stayed very true to Fleming when he novelized his works. Could've fooled me had anyone told me those were Fleming books. At least TSWLM.
  • Posts: 1,917
    I don't know how much to blame Dahl for YOLT's shortcomings. It sounds like the producers instructed him what they wanted and another writer took a shot at it the screenplay, some of which was apparently used and he was told to incorporate.

    YOLT still has some of the least memorable dialogue and some unmemorable characters. It's the overall spectacle of it that carries it.

  • edited October 2018 Posts: 684
    The action sequences in TND would mop the floor with anything seen in both GE and TWINE.
    I think both the printing press fight and the fight in Wai Lin's base are among the series' worst fisticuffs. (Although on the whole I do like TND just a bit more than GE.) The rest of it is serviceable. The finale is mostly uninteresting but the climax works.

    Agreed about TWINE, though. The action there works least of all: there's no rhythm to the total idea of the action, the way tension and spectacle is dispensed. That's actually, for me, why the first half of DAD is effective: the action ebbs and flows very well, like there was some idea of how it might shape over the course of the film. But then we get to Iceland and the action veers back towards TWINE-ness.
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Roald Dahl should have written another Bond movie or even a book. He could have made it more colorful, something that modern Bond can lack in, in both literary and cinematic.
    @MaxCasino I think Dahl would've been excellent as a continuation author. He and Fleming got on well, had similar backgrounds, especially working in intelligence during the war. (He was also like Fleming a bit of a ladies man.) He was an excellent writer. I'm not sure he would ever have had an interest in writing anything like a Bond book, but I think he would've turned in something special. I wouldn't judge his potential against the evidence of YOLT. @BT3366 had it right above. He seems to have written it to Cubby/Harry's instruction, on top of which he just needed the money. He ended up calling his own script a load of BS.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,637
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Roald Dahl should have written another Bond movie or even a book. He could have made it more colorful, something that modern Bond can lack in, in both literary and cinematic.
    @MaxCasino I think Dahl would've been excellent as a continuation author. He and Fleming got on well, had similar backgrounds, especially working in intelligence during the war. (He was also like Fleming a bit of a ladies man.) He was an excellent writer. I'm not sure he would ever have had an interest in writing anything like a Bond book, but I think he would've turned in something special. I wouldn't judge his potential against the evidence of YOLT. @BT3366 had it right above. He seems to have written it to Cubby/Harry's instruction, on top of which he just needed the money. He ended up calling his own script a load of BS.[/quote]

    He wasn't fond of writing screenplays, sadly. Give him some careful freedom and we could have more colorful adventures.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Strog wrote: »
    @MaxCasino I think Dahl would've been excellent as a continuation author. He and Fleming got on well, had similar backgrounds, especially working in intelligence during the war. (He was also like Fleming a bit of a ladies man.) He was an excellent writer. I'm not sure he would ever have had an interest in writing anything like a Bond book, but I think he would've turned in something special. I wouldn't judge his potential against the evidence of YOLT. @BT3366 had it right above. He seems to have written it to Cubby/Harry's instruction, on top of which he just needed the money. He ended up calling his own script a load of BS.

    AFAK Dahl wasn't in intelligence, he flew a Hawker Hurricane from Malta against the Jerry's. After that he was send home because of the headaches he had as a result of crashing a Gloster Gladiator or Hurricane in the Egyptian desert (this was before beeing stationed in Malta).
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 684
    Strog wrote: »
    @MaxCasino I think Dahl would've been excellent as a continuation author. He and Fleming got on well, had similar backgrounds, especially working in intelligence during the war. (He was also like Fleming a bit of a ladies man.) He was an excellent writer. I'm not sure he would ever have had an interest in writing anything like a Bond book, but I think he would've turned in something special. I wouldn't judge his potential against the evidence of YOLT. @BT3366 had it right above. He seems to have written it to Cubby/Harry's instruction, on top of which he just needed the money. He ended up calling his own script a load of BS.

    AFAK Dahl wasn't in intelligence, he flew a Hawker Hurricane from Malta against the Jerry's. After that he was send home because of the headaches he had as a result of crashing a Gloster Gladiator or Hurricane in the Egyptian desert (this was before beeing stationed in Malta).
    It seem he was. From his wiki page:
    Dahl was promoted to flight lieutenant (war-substantive) in August 1942.[57] Later he worked with such other well-known British officers as Ian Fleming (who later published the popular James Bond series) and David Ogilvy, promoting Britain's interests and message in the U.S. and combating the "America First" movement.[54]

    This work introduced Dahl to espionage and the activities of the Canadian spymaster William Stephenson, known by the codename "Intrepid".[58] During the war, Dahl supplied intelligence from Washington to Prime Minister Winston Churchill. As Dahl later said: "My job was to try to help Winston to get on with FDR, and tell Winston what was in the old boy's mind."[56] Dahl also supplied intelligence to Stephenson and his organisation, known as British Security Coordination, which was part of MI6.[53]

    There's also a book, which I haven't read, called The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington. The blurb: "When Roald Dahl, a dashing young wounded RAF pilot, took up his post at the British Embassy in 1942, his assignment was to use his good looks, wit, and considerable charm to gain access to the most powerful figures in American political life. Better than any spy fiction, The Irregulars is a fascinating, lively account of deceit, double dealing, and moral ambiguity—all in the name of victory. Richly detailed and carefully researched, Conant’s masterful narrative is based on never-before-seen wartime letters, diaries, and interviews."

    This link possibly provides some of the details in that book:

    https://www.history.com/news/when-roald-dahl-spied-on-the-united-states
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    Strog wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    @MaxCasino I think Dahl would've been excellent as a continuation author. He and Fleming got on well, had similar backgrounds, especially working in intelligence during the war. (He was also like Fleming a bit of a ladies man.) He was an excellent writer. I'm not sure he would ever have had an interest in writing anything like a Bond book, but I think he would've turned in something special. I wouldn't judge his potential against the evidence of YOLT. @BT3366 had it right above. He seems to have written it to Cubby/Harry's instruction, on top of which he just needed the money. He ended up calling his own script a load of BS.

    AFAK Dahl wasn't in intelligence, he flew a Hawker Hurricane from Malta against the Jerry's. After that he was send home because of the headaches he had as a result of crashing a Gloster Gladiator or Hurricane in the Egyptian desert (this was before beeing stationed in Malta).
    It seem he might have been. From his wiki page:
    Dahl was promoted to flight lieutenant (war-substantive) in August 1942.[57] Later he worked with such other well-known British officers as Ian Fleming (who later published the popular James Bond series) and David Ogilvy, promoting Britain's interests and message in the U.S. and combating the "America First" movement.[54]

    This work introduced Dahl to espionage and the activities of the Canadian spymaster William Stephenson, known by the codename "Intrepid".[58] During the war, Dahl supplied intelligence from Washington to Prime Minister Winston Churchill. As Dahl later said: "My job was to try to help Winston to get on with FDR, and tell Winston what was in the old boy's mind."[56] Dahl also supplied intelligence to Stephenson and his organisation, known as British Security Coordination, which was part of MI6.[53]

    There's also a book, which I haven't read, called The Irregulars: Roald Dahl and the British Spy Ring in Wartime Washington. The blurb: "When Roald Dahl, a dashing young wounded RAF pilot, took up his post at the British Embassy in 1942, his assignment was to use his good looks, wit, and considerable charm to gain access to the most powerful figures in American political life. Better than any spy fiction, The Irregulars is a fascinating, lively account of deceit, double dealing, and moral ambiguity—all in the name of victory. Richly detailed and carefully researched, Conant’s masterful narrative is based on never-before-seen wartime letters, diaries, and interviews."

    This link possibly provides some of the details in that book:

    https://www.history.com/news/when-roald-dahl-spied-on-the-united-states

    Never too old to learn, and an interesting book to obtain to boot. Thank you for this, I didn't know.
  • Posts: 684
    @CommanderRoss sure no worries. I'm glad you mentioned it actually as I'd heard of that book long ago but forgot its existence till now. So it's going on my list too.
  • Posts: 15,125
    It seems to be controversial here: I generally think that Bond movies should rather be longer than shorter.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Ludovico wrote: »
    It seems to be controversial here: I generally think that Bond movies should rather be longer than shorter.

    Fine with me,i agree,as long as the quality matches the length.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    I'd rather they stick to a two-hour runtime.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 2018 Posts: 6,304
    I think the story needs to match the length. OHMSS, CR, and maybe SF justified their lengths; SP, not so much.

    This is part of an overall trend in the film industry toward longer movies. I don't know when I've seen so many 2:20 films that could have easily been trimmed by 20 minutes.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,266
    echo wrote: »
    I think the story needs to match the length. OHMSS, CR, and maybe SF justified their lengths; SP, not so much.

    This is part of an overall trend in the film industry toward longer movies. I don't know when I've seen so many 2:20 films that could have easily been trimmed by 20 minutes.

    Try Bollywood ;-)

    Agree on the story needing the length. Some very long movies pass by quickly as they're that good. SP isn't one of them. QoS sure could've used a few minutes more to flesh out the story more.
  • Posts: 17,757
    I find the two hour mark (give or take a few minutes) optimal for Bond. No need for more.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    edited October 2018 Posts: 984
    Probably not a controversial opinion. I rewatched OHMSS a couple of nights ago. It is almost a perfect film, absolutely tremendous. I also find myself warning to Lazenby with every viewing.

    Anyway, that was clearly not the controversial opinion. A lot of people on this board, as well as people elsewhere have stated it wouldhave been the perfect Bond film had Connery starred. I have to disagree. I don't think the persona Connery had built up until that point would have matched the Bond of OHMSS.

    I would take it a step further, in fact. If one was so inclined to replace Lazenby, I actually think Roger Moore would have suited the film far more then Sean.

    Despite being the most obvious playboy of the bunch, Sir Rog seemed to have more earnest and sensitive relationships with the majority of his Bond girls than Sean did. I think he also seemed to have more vulnerability than Connery, which would have suited the film down to the ground.

    Don't get me wrong, Connery is the ultimate Bond, but the long held opinion that he would have made OHMSS better than Lazenby, or any of the other Bond actor's is hugely missplaced, in my opinion.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Probably not a controversial opinion. I rewatched OHMSS a couple of nights ago. It is almost a perfect film, absolutely tremendous. I also find myself warning to Lazenby with every viewing.

    Anyway, that was clearly not the controversial opinion. A lot of people on this board, as well as people elsewhere have stated it wouldhave been the perfect Bond film had Connery starred. I have to disagree. I don't think the persona Connery had built up until that point would have matched the Bond of OHMSS.

    I would take it a step further, in fact. If one was so inclined to replace Lazenby, I actually think Roger Moore would have suited the film far more then Sean.

    Despite being the most obvious playboy of the bunch, Sir Rog seemed to have more earnest and sensitive relationships with the majority of his Bond girls than Sean did. I think he also seemed to have more vulnerability than Connery, which would have suited the film down to the ground.

    Don't get me wrong, Connery is the ultimate Bond, but the long held opinion that he would have made OHMSS better than Lazenby, or any of the other Bond actor's is hugely missplaced, in my opinion.

    I totally agree,and have always been of the opinion that OHMSS would not have worked with Connery.

    I think Lazenby did a cracking job.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    It would have worked in 67, if they had initially stuck with OHMSS as the followup to TB. I think Sean would have pulled it off if he was given the same. Besides the issues with money and the producers, if they threw the script and the same money he was given for DAF to do OHMSS whether in 67 or 69, then I can see him going all out for it.

    Personally I feel thats where they screwed things up in the 60s. Now I love OHMSS and I dont mind GL in the role, but to have the whole Blofeld trilogy done in the same order as the books with Sean doing all 3 from 65-69 is the biggest what-if missed opportunity in the series.

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    If he'd have played it the way played bored out of his life like in YOLT and DAF, I wouldn't have expected any success. I'm also among those who thinks Connery couldn't have pulled off Lazenby's part. His interpretation would've been very different.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited October 2018 Posts: 4,589
    If he'd have played it the way played bored out of his life like in YOLT and DAF, I wouldn't have expected any success. I'm also among those who thinks Connery couldn't have pulled off Lazenby's part. His interpretation would've been very different.

    I dont think he would have. From my understanding he wanted to do one in the scope of OHMSS.

    From imdb. Take it as you wish

    Sean Connery later said that he would have preferred to do a Bond film like this one, as opposed to You Only Live Twice (1967).
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,589
    If he'd have played it the way played bored out of his life like in YOLT and DAF, I wouldn't have expected any success. I'm also among those who thinks Connery couldn't have pulled off Lazenby's part. His interpretation would've been very different.

    I dont think he would have. From my understanding he wanted to do one in the scope of OHMSS.

    From imdb. Take it as you wish

    Sean Connery later said that he would have preferred to do a Bond film like this one, as opposed to You Only Live Twice (1967).

    But then again he was offered a million and declined.

    Still should have been in 1967. Perhaps he wouldn't have been so pissy about things if he knew what the final product would be. Or we would have had a hollowed out volcano in the Swiss Alps?
  • edited October 2018 Posts: 7,507
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Probably not a controversial opinion. I rewatched OHMSS a couple of nights ago. It is almost a perfect film, absolutely tremendous. I also find myself warning to Lazenby with every viewing.

    Anyway, that was clearly not the controversial opinion. A lot of people on this board, as well as people elsewhere have stated it wouldhave been the perfect Bond film had Connery starred. I have to disagree. I don't think the persona Connery had built up until that point would have matched the Bond of OHMSS.

    I would take it a step further, in fact. If one was so inclined to replace Lazenby, I actually think Roger Moore would have suited the film far more then Sean.

    Despite being the most obvious playboy of the bunch, Sir Rog seemed to have more earnest and sensitive relationships with the majority of his Bond girls than Sean did. I think he also seemed to have more vulnerability than Connery, which would have suited the film down to the ground.

    Don't get me wrong, Connery is the ultimate Bond, but the long held opinion that he would have made OHMSS better than Lazenby, or any of the other Bond actor's is hugely missplaced, in my opinion.


    I have always thought OHMSS was tailor made for Dalton. Perhaps not a coincidence that he was indeed at some point intended for the role.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    jobo wrote: »
    I have always thought OHMSS was tailor made for Dalton.

    Me too - I've always wished he could have had a crack at either OHMSS or Casino Royale. A story done close to the source material, with emotional depth.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Oh yeah, Dalton would be great in OHMSS too. The reason I specifically mentioned Connery and Moore is that they where the far more likely candidates, taking age into account.

    I know Dalton was linked in some fashion to OHMSS, but he would have been 20ish at the time.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Connery has played some roles in which a tough, confident facade reveals a certain underlying vulnerability. I think he could've pulled off OHMSS quite well, but it would've made for a different film. I couldn't tell whether it would've been better or worse. The unusual, more personal nature of the story would've been emphasized more strongly had Connery stayed on. With Lazenby --an actor with his own personality and style, different from Connery's-- OHMSS feels like a soft reboot, so the story of Bond falling for Tracy doesn't feel so unusual in a film in which there are other prominent changes.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2018 Posts: 23,883
    @Roadphill, I agree with you that Moore probably would have been better suited to an OHMSS type film, because of the vulnerability which you mentioned. That could have been due to his age or his style.

    I think a Connery OHMSS would have been very different to what we got. Having said that, I have enough respect for him to think that he could have pulled it off. It would have given him an opportunity to show a 'trajectory' in his characterization, which he perhaps didn't get a chance to do. A mellowing on account of love could have been interesting to see.
    --

    I have mentioned this before, but I believe these sort of 'romance' style Bond films are best left to 'one off Bond actors' like Lazenby. The reason I say this is because I think they leave such an indelible impact that they could potentially influence and cloud a tenure or our perceptions of it. I think one of the reasons OHMSS is so respected is because we see it as Lazenby's Bond film. Could we readily have seen him as a 'bullet-proof' or more insouciant Bond had he continued in the role? I wonder. Perhaps not.

    Looking at it another way, would a Connery OHMSS (close to end of his run) have changed our judgment and perceptions of his entire tenure?
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Roadphill, I agree with you that Moore probably would have been better suited to an OHMSS type film, because of the vulnerability which you mentioned. That could have been due to his age or his style.

    I think a Connery OHMSS would have been very different to what we got. Having said that, I have enough respect for him to think that he could have pulled it off. It would have given him an opportunity to show a 'trajectory' in his characterization, which he perhaps didn't get a chance to do. A mellowing on account of love could have been interesting to see.
    --

    I have mentioned this before, but I believe these sort of 'romance' style Bond films are best left to 'one off Bond actors' like Lazenby. The reason I say this is because I think they leave such an indelible impact that they could potentially influence and cloud a tenure or our perceptions of it. I think one of the reasons OHMSS is so respected is because we see it as Lazenby's Bond film. Could we readily have seen him as a 'bullet-proof' or more insouciant Bond had he continued in the role? I wonder. Perhaps not.

    Looking at it another way, would a Connery OHMSS (close to end of his run) have changed our judgment and perceptions of his entire tenure?

    Interesting observation. I never thought of it that way.

    Had Lazenby had a longer run as Bond, it probably would have been tough for him to shake off OHMSS in terms of changing up his portrayal.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Very similar imo to Craig never being able to shake off CR,and all his other films being judged against it.

    Puts him in nearly an impossible situation.
Sign In or Register to comment.