10 replies to this topic

[General Koskov]

When Eon decided to do YOLT rather than OHMSS, what the hell were they thinking? I mean, were they all so fundamentally retarded that no one realised YOLT would make a better film after OHMSS?
Even DAF could have made up for this if parts of YOLT were used, but they weren't.

I've heard this subject talked of before, but no one seems to be very angry that YOLT was done before OHMSS--and I am angry. I know they wanted Bond to die, marry, talk to a short bald man, and everything else in Connery's last film, but the marrying and bald man are in OHMSS, too, and what a better last film than a cliff-hanger which allows a 'bored of gadget-laden films' Connery to act up a storm? In fact, the whole fake marriage smacks of 'we were going to do OHMSS, but oh well, screw Fleming's ideas'.

PS. I am not wishing for Connnery in OHMSS, though. I love Lazenby's performance.

[Daltonitus]

They should have gotten Moore to do DAF and not wasted money begging Connery to come back.
Plus DAF should have featured some kinda revenge motive that at least gave some nod towards the last film.
I think they didn't know what they were doing then, that was their first mistake, asking Moore to do AVTAK will their next and not making 100 Dalton films will always be their biggest mistake

[Red Grant]

The simple answer as to why the order of films was changed was down to the weather! I know the narrative of the storylines is totally screwed up by this but OHMSS was postponed more than once due to meteorological factors and this was obviously more important to EON than something as inconsequential as a narrative progression from film to film!

[Simon]

........and following this thought, since they had by this time started to wildy add to or change the Fleming source, a literary narrative is easily written over.

[Dr Noah]

.".......and following this thought, since they had by this time started to wildy add to or change the Fleming source, a literary narrative is easily written over."

Not really, the only movie which departs from Fleming in the '60s is YOLT. The reason being that the source novel wasn't all that cinematic.

[Turn]

This sort of makes you wonder why they picked that title at all. Since Dr. No and FRWL had SPECTRE involved, why not go ahead with another title if they sort of knew they would be doing Bond vs. Blofeld in the future. If YOLT was so unadaptable, why use it at all at that time?

If they wanted to stay in the gadget-laden era begun by Thunderball, why not just adapt Moonraker? That would have given them all the space-age stuff they needed.

[rafterman]

well of course they had to change YOLT when they picked it, otherwise it makes no sense! as it's my favorite of Fleming novels, I'll defend it, Roald Dahl may not have thought it was cinematic, but I sure do and not adapting it straight was a big screw up for the series, interestingly it's my least favorite Bond film...

[SirMiles83]

I like YOLT, the film, a lot, and I love YOLT, the novel. They should have translated the novel into film though. Blofeld disguised as Dr. Shatterhand living in big house surrounded by a garden of death is a lot better than a hollowed out mountain. I also agree with everyone above that YOLT should have been made after OHMSS.

[Mr. Kidd]

switching the order of the Bond films as they relate to the novels is simply maddening and offensive to the sensabilities of us Bond fans. It is almost unfathomable to think that they merely decided to toss continuity
to the four winds. Even in time, these bothersome aspects of the series continue to stir ire in us fans!(SEE this thread and others!)

[Kara Milovy]

For OHMSS, weather was not a minor consideration. The plot, if they were to be true to the book (which is what you all are arguing FOR) includes skiing and bobsledding and an avalanche. In actuality, it was a combination of weather and Connery's demands. If you read the famous 1965 Playboy interview, you'll find that he was insisting that he get more time off and lighten the shooting schedule.

YOLT could not have been adapted to the screen without considerable changes. The first two thirds of the book is a travelogue of Japan, completely without action of any kind. It details Bond's depression over Tracy's death and his visits to various doctors for help. Then he goes to Japan and it's talk, talk, talk -- about the culture, about the food, about geishas and prostitutes, about the honor of suicide, and about the poisonous qualities of various plants.

We are nearly to the end when Bond breaks into Shatterhand's castle, and then, after brief action, kills Blofeld.

Then there is Bond's amnesia, his kidnapping by Kissy Suzuki, and his final wandering off, memoryless, towards Russia.

Clearly, almost none of this could be filmed, even if Shatterhand's Garden of Death was retained.

No, the real mistake was simply in adapting OHMSS in such a clumsy fashion. There was absolutely nothing to prevent a smart scriptwriter from having Bond meet Blofeld only at the point when he is already found out.

[JackChase007]

Well, personally, I look at it his way - Connery gave probably his WORST performance in YOLT. Had they done OHMSS instead, they would have had the worst Bond performance on their hands, so it probably wouldn't be the classic that it's known as today...