Jump to content


This is a read only archive of the old forums
The new CBn forums are located at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/

 
Photo

What's with Lewis Gilbert


5 replies to this topic

#1 brendan007

brendan007

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1512 posts
  • Location:Gold Coast, Australia

Posted 04 April 2002 - 02:03 PM

I watched the making of You Only Live Twice on dvd not long ago and was confused by something. They were originally going to shoot On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Thunderball but changed this because Lewis Gilbert specifically wanted to shoot YOLT. So why did he make the movie completely different to the book. He could have filmed any book and then OHMSS and YOLT would have appeared in the correct order.

#2 rafterman

rafterman

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1963 posts
  • Location:Republic of Korea, south of the Axis of Evil

Posted 05 April 2002 - 04:00 AM

I love this book and yet everyone always claimed that it couldn't be filmed as is, couldn't find a castle....it was just a travel logue....well the problem is that the book's a sequal to OHMSS and doesn't work being first....my annoyance is with screenwriter Dahl who just disses Fleming's book when talking about writing the screenplay...as if the screenplay's that good

#3 General Koskov

General Koskov

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1862 posts

Posted 04 April 2002 - 10:57 PM

If you want to find out a lot about YOLT and OHMSS (amongst other things) read the three-part interview with Peter Hunt at: http://www.secretint...1.01/02_secret/

The helicopter chase was envisioned by Hunt after they were searching a volcanic area for a castle by helicopter and realised that it would make beautiful scenery.

#4 templer

templer

    Cadet

  • Crew
  • 6 posts

Posted 05 April 2002 - 04:22 AM

Ha ha ha yyou guy's are crazy!Don't you realise that by shooting YOLT we came to discover the villians lair concept in Bond movies which was never used to that scale.Sadly this is a very promising future that the Current Producers don't seem to care about I mean think of TWINE ended in submarine duel something I would normally expect from any standard action film.Goldeneye was good but not very creative and TND was the only thing that came to the glory of SWLM('77)

I want to see a good villians lair,I did not read any spoilers for DAD cos I want to be suprised this time,ok.

Also the producers should have learnt to wait a bit more before they decided to do OHMSS for the simple reason that Roger Moore could have been cast had he been told.This was a mistake made by MGM aswell as EON to rush OHMSS.

Remember it was Lewis Gilbert who again saved the Bond franchise by bringing in Ken Adam to do the sets for SWLM(77) and Moonraker(79).You need to have have a lager than life atmosphere,but not a battle in space that was silly.

#5 mccartney007

mccartney007

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3406 posts
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 04 April 2002 - 04:52 PM

Had you watched the DVD carefully you would have found the answer to your question. Upon scouting Japan the filmmakers discovered that there was no castle like the one Fleming had described in the novel. Therefore, they decided they would have to write an original story.

Although, thinking about it now, the spent the money to build a hollowed out volcano but they couldn't afford to build a castle?

#6 Blue Eyes

Blue Eyes

    Commander RNR

  • Veterans Reserve
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9976 posts
  • Location:Australia

Posted 05 April 2002 - 02:22 AM

mccartney007 (04 Apr, 2002 05:52 p.m.):
Although, thinking about it now, the spent the money to build a hollowed out volcano but they couldn't afford to build a castle?


That's something that always puzzled me as well. While today the castle would be created using CGI effects, in the 60's such things didn't exist. However, scale models and matte paintings did. That's what really confuses me. It was technically possible to create the castle, yet the didn't.