56 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Anyone have anything they're just gutted never happened in the Bond films? Anything from the Bond production that you would've changed? 50 Years of History to play with, what would you change?

 

1. George Lazenby in Diamonds Are Forever. I get that Lazenby was apparently a nightmare to work with, but if he didn't ruin his opportunities and was accepted by the public, then this would've been a done deal. He's not a great actor by all means, but a follow up to On Her Majesty's Secret Service, directed by Peter Hunt, with Telly Savalas going head to head with Bond once more. In a revenge thriller? It's a better imagining of Diamonds Are Forever than say, an unkept Bond chilling out in a bath in Vegas and catching a show or something? I think I could overlook his acting one more time if the film was made with the same kind of attention that Lazenby's only outing turned out to be. 
2. Pink Floyd doing a Bond theme. In the 70's. 
3. Moonraker. Jaws. 
4. For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View To A Kill could've been interesting with a fresh style. Whilst I really do appreciate John Glen, I felt that Bond during the 80's was just too comfortable with itself. Imagine if 80's Bond was more glamorous? Better filmed? Richer in quality? It would've been a nice decade for some fresh blood to the series. Stanley Kubrick? David Lynch? If we had a Lynch film, the chances are we could've had a lovely soundtrack by Angelo Badlamenti. Also, if Dalton was brought in around 1983, well, it would've shaken things up a little. 
5. The doomed 1993 Bond film. The Dalton film that never was. It's always such a shame it didn't get off the ground. 
6. Tomorrow Never Lies
7. Poor Brozzas films are just plagued with their problems, aren't they? Everything is just off with them. Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day could've all had much more accomplished directors. AND screenwriters. Roger Spottiswood and Michael Apted? Hmmm. 
8. Vesper Lynd. I mentioned this over in the 'Favorite Daniel Craig Movie' Thread. I find Eva Green rather appalling as an actress. I felt Bonds loss, but I never felt anything for Vesper. She was just there, and a bit boring. A better actress playing Vesper would've complimented the film greatly.  
9. Quantum of Solace. The writers strike is the main problem all of this kicked off. If only the release was pushed back from November 2008, to November 2009 then yes, it would suck that we would've had to wait 3 years for the Casino Royale follow up, but at the same time. I'm confident we would've had a much less rushed, and a far more better paced film that what we ended up with. 

Edited by DamnCoffee, 17 October 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[Call Billy Bob]

A REAL ending for Blofeld - something more dignified than being dropped down a smokestack...

[FlemingBond]

well as far as not feeling anything for Vesper.....it's pretty much like that in the novel. Why is Bond in love with this woman who is crying all the time?!

 

On my list

1. Diamonds are Forever bad follow up to OHMSS

2. License to Kill poor marketing, and even though the title song is good, a hard 80's heavy metal track might have caught the attention of the public better at the time.

3. No good sendoff for Brosnan after bringing the series back to life.

[Grard Bond]

1. Not using Blofeld's garden of death for YOLT. It could have been so great!

2. The end duel in the swamp between Bond and Scaramanga in Golden Gun instead of the "Luna park"-like fun house.

Edited by Grard Bond, 16 October 2014 - 10:46 PM.

[Bond of Steele]

1.  Not filming OHMSS right after Goldfinger.  I think this would have kept the series a bit more based for a while longer.  This would have ensured the films followed in chronological order, ie Thunderball next, followed by YOLT.  

2.  Not having Connery for OHMSS.  

3.  Cubby & Harry having their falling out.  DAF and TMWTGG both suffered in quality IMO as the two drifted apart.  

4.  Not having Blofeld in TSWLM.

5.  Not settling with McClory and having a definitive end to the Blofeld/Spectre story.  

6.  Not having Pierce for TLD.  Hey, Tim was still good, but I think the series would have performed better at the box office, due in part to Pierce's success in the US beforehand.

7.  The Squandering of the Quantum group.  Things were good until after Tosca.

[tdalton]

1.  Not filming the Blofeld trilogy in order, and with the same actor.  Connery starring in Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and a faithful You Only Live Twice, with the same actor portraying Blofeld throughout, would have been fantastic.  Instead, we get no satisfying conclusion to the Blofeld character and SPECTRE organizations, and the film that could have been the best film in the entire franchise by a wide margin, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, is brought down a bit by a poor performance from the lead actor and some horrific editing.

 

2.  Only having two Dalton films.  Either he should have taken over around the time of For Your Eyes Only or he should have gotten to continue on into the 1990s.  Either way, it's a terrible shame that there's only two films starring the best of the Bonds.  Still, they're both top 5 Bond films in my book, but the tenure is still a massive missed opportunity due to its brevity.

 

3.  Not having an immediate follow-up to Quantum of Solace.  QOS did a great job of being both the "revenge" thriller many wanted (even though, in the end, it's really not a revenge film at all) as well as setting up the Quantum organization.  Then they squander all of that with the four year hiatus and the disappointing standalone "adventure" that is Skyfall.

[Walecs]

I'm pretty sure someone will resurrect this thread and will add "not having Quantum return in Bond 24", but I hope I'm wrong and we will see a conclusion to the Quantum storyline.

[plankattack]

I tend to side with the idea that the 80s-90s era could have been done better. I do feel Sir Rog was kept at least 2 films longer than necessary, and that TD/whoever (insert Lewis Collins, Sam Neill, James Brolin etc fantasy here) should have been given a shot for the lion's share of the 80s and the start of the decade that follows.

 

As it is we're left with a series of films that are like of alike, and an uncommitted and unconvincing attempt to shift tones at the end of "old" EON. I tend to admire TLD rather than love it - it suffers from 2nd-half pacing that seems to affect so many of Bonds 6 through 16 - so while the lead is terrific, that film, and the unfortunately uneven film that follows, both obviously come from the same creative place.

 

The idea (attributed to MGW) that they considered doing a 20 years before Hollywood's time reboot (imagine how much street cred the franchise would have earned in cinematic history if they'd pulled that trigger so far ahead of the curve) is my "franchise's biggest missed opportunity" - publicly re-booting the lead character in '87 would have reset Bond as the premier film series, in the same way that in the 60s it established itself as the benchmark and inspiration for all others.

 

As it is, I've had the nagging sense since '95 that we're the best of the followers (True Lies, Batman Begins), rather than the leader. Doesn't matter, not when we love the films as much as we do, but wouldn't it be nice to say that Bond is still the first and the best? 

[Hansen]

1.  Not filming the Blofeld trilogy in order, and with the same actor.  Connery starring in Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and a faithful You Only Live Twice, with the same actor portraying Blofeld throughout, would have been fantastic.  Instead, we get no satisfying conclusion to the Blofeld character and SPECTRE organizations, and the film that could have been the best film in the entire franchise by a wide margin, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, is brought down a bit by a poor performance from the lead actor and some horrific editing.

 

2.  Only having two Dalton films.  Either he should have taken over around the time of For Your Eyes Only or he should have gotten to continue on into the 1990s.  Either way, it's a terrible shame that there's only two films starring the best of the Bonds.  Still, they're both top 5 Bond films in my book, but the tenure is still a massive missed opportunity due to its brevity.

 

3.  Not having an immediate follow-up to Quantum of Solace.  QOS did a great job of being both the "revenge" thriller many wanted (even though, in the end, it's really not a revenge film at all) as well as setting up the Quantum organization.  Then they squander all of that with the four year hiatus and the disappointing standalone "adventure" that is Skyfall.

Fully agree on the above.

I will add :

- Not having a decent exit for Pierce

- The bridge game in MR never adpated

- Same for the swim expedition at night in LALD

- Never having a correct Leiter

[DamnCoffee]

I agree. Pierce Brosnan not having one last chance as Bond was a massive blow. Pierce was a good enough Bond in his own right, it was the writing that was the problem. I always consider Everything or Nothing to be his swang-song really, it's a solid Bond outing and the last thing Pierce did with the series. Still a shame though, A 2004 Pierce film would've been nice to see. It always intrigues me with how they would've tackled it after the infamous '40th Disaster'

[Simon]

An overall missed opportunity would have been to have Pierce Brosnan better served by;

 

1. Decent writing

2. Thumping direction

3. A Directorial eye towards a good film as opposed to a Marketing eye to cover every goddamn demographic known to man, which lead to silly jokes right along side to 'Acted Drama'.

 

As an aside, everyone harps on about the 3rd film Brilliance.  For my part, I prefer the mix up of the second film problems that perhaps inadvertantly deliver an edgier film.  I prefer;

 

FRWL for its spy motif

Gg for its slapdash approach but sprightly allure

LTK for some 'ahead of its time' hardness

TND for, again, a sprightly allure and a straight spy story that was lite on the 'it's personal' approach.

QoS for a Bond that, surely no one can deny, is utterly hard and business-like.  Even M was more, 'He's my agent and I trust him', than 'Wot's going on - report.'

 

When people write in threads asking what one asks of the next Bond incarnation, my response is, 'Their second film.'

 

(This might be a thread in its own right)

[Odd Jobbies]

1.  Not filming the Blofeld trilogy in order, and with the same actor.  Connery starring in Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and a faithful You Only Live Twice, with the same actor portraying Blofeld throughout, would have been fantastic

Spoilers ahead.....

 

IMHO it's still not too late for this. I'd love to see Craig go out shooting this trilogy back-to-back. An amnesiac Craig misguidedly sailing off to mother Russia at the end, thinking he's going home.

 

The M assassination extended prologue in MWTGG would be a nice way to introduce a new Bond; having to relearn his identity after being brain washed (perhaps even plastic surgery, explaining his change in appearance, though not his rejuvenation  Great vehicle though, now they've used up the reboot approach, to have a new Bond reintroduce the motifs.

[Guy Haines]

I have posted something along these lines already, but;

 

Not having Moonraker filmed during the Connery era or earlier during the Moore period. We might then have got a film closer to the novel, particularly if filmed mid 1960s. It could have been filmed with Sir Hugo Drax privately financing a UK space programme, whilst secretly aiming the space rocket Moonraker on London, as per the book. It would have been topical - the "space race" was at its peak mid 60s - and relevant, as memories of the Second World War were still fresh.

 

As for what has already been posted above, there's much I agree with, particularly regarding TSWLM (Curt Jurgens did a decent job as Stromberg, but it really should have been Blofeld, and I'd like to suggest an actor who could have done it - Michael Lonsdale. His Drax was suave, sinister and witty.)

 

I too think Pierce Brosnan deserved one more outing as Bond. And much as I think that Skyfall was a really great Bond film, it's a pity the Quantum story arc wasn't satisfactorily concluded with a third consecutive movie. It left QoS like the middle part of a trilogy that never was.

[Walecs]

Not starting the movie series with LALD, and then following the books' order.

 

 

15 terrible mistakes which ruined James Bond

Edited by Walecs, 18 October 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[dtuba]

1. More Dalton films.

2. More Dalton films.

3. More Dalton films.

[Guy Haines]

Agreed, although I'd have had Timothy Dalton working with a production team more in tune with his take on Bond. Very good as TLD and LTK were, there always seemed to me a tension between Dalton's back to basics approach and that of a team which had had several very successful years making movies to suit Roger Moore's Bond. It would have been interesting to have seen Dalton in a film like CR 2006, in which many of the tried and tested rules of making Bond films were torn out of the rule book.

[dtuba]

It's a damn shame we never had a Dalton Bond directed by Terence Young.

 

Now, as soon as someone invents a time machine...

[Guy Haines]

Yes, that would be interesting. I think the series changed direction not so much when Daniel Craig took over as when Timothy Dalton did. Granted he lasted only two movies, because of the six year hiatus, and reputedly because the studio didn't want him back, but when Pierce Brosnan took over there was no great shift back to the films as made before Dalton. Brosnan had a lighter touch, but he too took his cue from his interpretation of the Bond of Ian Fleming's books, imho. There was a drastic change in 2006 with Daniel Craig and Casino Royale - "reboot" and so on - but the change of direction began years before, I think.

[sharpshooter]

I agree. Pierce Brosnan not having one last chance as Bond was a massive blow. Pierce was a good enough Bond in his own right, it was the writing that was the problem. I always consider Everything or Nothing to be his swang-song really, it's a solid Bond outing and the last thing Pierce did with the series. Still a shame though, A 2004 Pierce film would've been nice to see. It always intrigues me with how they would've tackled it after the infamous '40th Disaster'

I agree as well. I'm sure they could have squeezed one more film from Pierce in 2004 without impacting on the Craig era. I make no secret I like the guy, and even if I prefer others in the role. He will always be 'my' Bond - the one I grew up with. But anyway, what is done is done. I also consider Everything or Nothing his swansong. An original plot, an original song and score plus his full likeness and voice. Videogame or not, it's not a bad way to go out.

[Vauxhall]

I've posted this in similar discussions over the years, but I stand by my usual answer...

A faithful film adaptation of the novel YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

[Dan Gale]

Some more Fleming would be nice.
I want to see Daniel Craig Vs. The Giant Squid.

[univex]

1. More Dalton films.

2. More Dalton films.

3. More Dalton films.

 

 

I've posted this in similar discussions over the years, but I stand by my usual answer...

A faithful film adaptation of the novel YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

 

 

Some more Fleming would be nice.
I want to see Daniel Craig Vs. The Giant Squid.

 

These ^^^

[tdalton]

I'd definitely agree with those as well.  There's probably not much that can be done about there being more Dalton films (although one can always still hold out a tiny bit of hope ), but I think that, at some point, we'll see something that will be, at the very least, a somewhat faithful adaptation of You Only Live Twice.

[Guy Haines]

There's no reason why a story based on the novel of YOLT couldn't be made now. I'd guess it wouldn't be called "You Only Live Twice" - the film makers don't seem inclined to remakes, unless you count CR 2006. But the basic story could be there, with the reintroduction of Tiger Tanaka and the introduction of "Dikko" Henderson (Wonder who would get to play him?)

 

Bond hasn't been to Japan for close to forty years. By contrast, counting the new movie he will have been back to Italy seven times come 2015.

 

As for a title - well, if it can't be YOLT, how about "Shatterhand"?

[Mr_Wint]

What a pity we never got to see a 50-year old Dalton have a fight with a female robot. (#irony)

[Guy Haines]

Mr Haines command of maths is a bit out. It is fairly close to fifty years since Bond last went to Japan, rather than forty. Apologies, but it doesn't weaken my argument. Strengthens it, if anything, I think!

[Vauxhall]

There's no reason why a story based on the novel of YOLT couldn't be made now. I'd guess it wouldn't be called "You Only Live Twice" - the film makers don't seem inclined to remakes, unless you count CR 2006. But the basic story could be there, with the reintroduction of Tiger Tanaka and the introduction of "Dikko" Henderson (Wonder who would get to play him?)

 

Bond hasn't been to Japan for close to forty years. By contrast, counting the new movie he will have been back to Italy seven times come 2015.

 

As for a title - well, if it can't be YOLT, how about "Shatterhand"?

 

I still cling on to the faint aspiration that Craig's final Bond film will be exactly that - a movie titled SHATTERHAND, based upon the novel YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE.

 

(Inevitable obvious casting, including Ken Watanabe as Tanaka, Eric Bana as Henderson, and Christoph Waltz as Shatterhand. Maybe...)

[Call Billy Bob]

Ken Watanabe as Tanaka, Eric Bana as Henderson, and Christoph Waltz as Shatterhand. Maybe...

 

My money - take it please

[Agent 76]

There's no reason why a story based on the novel of YOLT couldn't be made now. I'd guess it wouldn't be called "You Only Live Twice" - the film makers don't seem inclined to remakes, unless you count CR 2006. But the basic story could be there, with the reintroduction of Tiger Tanaka and the introduction of "Dikko" Henderson (Wonder who would get to play him?)

 

Bond hasn't been to Japan for close to forty years. By contrast, counting the new movie he will have been back to Italy seven times come 2015.

 

As for a title - well, if it can't be YOLT, how about "Shatterhand"?

That sounds really interesting.

 

Talking about missed oportunities, well:

 

not having one more bond movie with Dalton in the 90's;

 

Pierce as Bond in a movie directed by John McTiernan;

 

Diamonds are Forever with Lazenby ;

[seawolfnyy]

As for a title - well, if it can't be YOLT, how about "Shatterhand"?

We'll find out in 2017/18.

 

I guess I'll add my thoughts to this:

 

1. The novel's cliffhanger ending for From Russia with Love.

2. Poor timing and casting choices for On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

3. Diamonds are Forever; this one was a train wreck from the get go. Even without Lazenby, Connery should never have been brought back on. He had no interest and he phones it in the whole time. On top of that, the script is terrible. There's no mention of Tracy and rather than be depressed and angry, Bond just looks bored.

4. A conclusion for the Blofeld arc.

5. Not casting Claudia Cardinale as a Bond girl.

6. Frank Sinatra never singing a Bond theme.

7. Moonraker. This should have been made pre-Star Wars. We would've gotten a more faithful adaptation and I agree with Mr. Haines, that it would've been perfect in the 60s.

8. Not replacing Moore after For Your Eyes Only.

9. A View to a Kill

10. Poor marketing for Licence to Kill....and Dalton's hair.

11. Dalton's 3rd film

12. Moonraker again (My bad, Die Another Day)

13. A 5th Brosnan film.

14. Not delaying Quantum of Solace until 2009.

15. A Bond film in 2010