33 replies to this topic

[Solex Agitator]

I cannot seem to recall at this moment but...

Why did Peter Hunt not direct another Bond film? The OHMSS DVD commentary track beautifully reveals his great care, love, and flair for Bond storytelling. It is curious and ultimately sad that he did not direct another film.

[MarcAngeDraco]

I seem to recall reading that he wanted to pursue directing outside of the 'Bond' world.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Wasn't he approached for both TSWLM and FYEO?

[Royal Dalton]

He was up for directing another one, but the timing was always wrong.

[Mr. Blofeld]

He was up for directing another one, but the timing was always wrong.

Indeed; in 1976, he was working on Gold, but wasn't he free in '81?

[MHazard]

You sure he wasn't rejected because he made a "serious" Bond movie that was perceived as not that successful and the producers made a decision to go in the exact opposite direction (e.g. DAF, MR, TMWGG, etc.). I love OHMSS precisely because it lacks metal toothed villains, giant lasers, Bond going up the side of a building in his tuxedo, midget sidekicks, and (sorry folks) Roger Moore and because it was a recognizable adaptation of Fleming's novel. The only Bond movie that would have been appropriate for him to direct since OHMSS would be CR (now there's a thought). By the way, not to be morbid but is Hunt still alive?

[Major Tallon]

Sorry, but Peter Hunt died on August 14, 2002.

[HH007]

Sorry, but Peter Hunt died on August 14, 2002.

I'm sad to hear that. And it is unfortunate that he never directed another Bond film, because OHMSS was one of the best.

[Royal Dalton]

He was up for directing another one, but the timing was always wrong.

Indeed; in 1976, he was working on Gold, but wasn't he free in '81?

As I understand it, he was prepping a film with Carlo Ponti when he was approached to direct The Spy Who Loved Me. Gold was a bit earlier than that (1974).

He was making Death Hunt when For Your Eyes Only came up.

He was also offered Never Say Never Again, but he turned it down out of loyalty to Broccoli. Although, he later directed a film called Hyper Sapien for the same production company.

You sure he wasn't rejected because he made a "serious" Bond movie that was perceived as not that successful and the producers made a decision to go in the exact opposite direction (e.g. DAF, MR, TMWGG, etc.).

More than likely, as far as Diamonds Are Forever is concerned. But he was approached for other Bond films later on.

[Mr. Blofeld]

My mistake; he was shooting Shout at the Devil in 1976.

[Double-0-Seven]

I've always thought it was unfortunate that he never worked on another Bond film after On Her Majesty's Secret Service. He really did an excellent job with the film.

[DamnCoffee]

In my opinion Diamonds Are Forever would've been one of the best James Bond movies ever, if Peter Hunt took the reigns as Director and Lazenby was the main star.

[Peckinpah1976]

Although now regarded as a classic Bond movie; the stench of failure clung to OHMSS for years afterwords so I doubt they'd have asked him back again, especially as he was also instrumental in getting Lazenby the part (which can't have helped his position at all). To be brutally honest though, his post-Bond work displayed little of the flair he did on OHMSS, so he may not of been the asset to the series people think.

[RazorBlade]

If only he could have directed FYEO.

[blackjack60]

[quote name='Peckinpah1976' post='830299' date='29 January 2008 - 12:10']To be brutally honest though, his post-Bond work displayed little of the flair he did on OHMSS, so he may not of been the asset to the series people think.[/quote]

Doubtful: both of his Roger Moore films (Gold and Shout at the Devil) are good, well-regarded movies, and more enjoyable than most of Moore's 007 work. One needs to pay attention to the circumstances of Hunt's post-007 career: he was a journeyman director with limited funds and limited creative control, who usually had to take what he could get. Hence films such as his Asassination, Hyper Sapien: People from Another Star, The Wild Geese II, The Beasts Are on the Streets, and Gulliver's Travels.Even among so many obvious assignments, some films, such as Eyes of a Witness, The Last Days of Pompeii, and Death Hunt, have scored good reviews. Peter Hunt's post-Bond career wasn't much worse than the pre and post-Bond career of Terence Young, another essential asset to the series. Anything after OHMSS would have to be an anti-climax: on OHMSS he had control over the cast and crew, having helped select the actors and technicians; he was given a large amount of freedom by the producers, and even better, given an extremely large and sufficient budget; and he had the benefit of a terrific source novel and an excellent script adaptation by a seasoned scriptwriter. He had almost none of these during his post-Bond trek through the wilderness. Lastly, any consideration of Hunt's worth to the series has to take into account Hunt's gifts as an editor. Everyone who worked on the series during its early years can attest to this--it isn't in doubt. And Hunt's departure from the Bond series was noticeable in the later films. As Pauline Kael wrote, post-Hunt:

[quote]Diamonds Are Forever starts with a full head of steam, and one expects a luxuriant, mock-sadistic good time. But a few minutes later Sean Connery, as Bond, and a villain are in a tiny elevator, lunging at each other and pounding at each other with excruciatingly amplified blows; the sequence goes on and on, and the movie loses its insolent cool. The Bond pictures depend on the comic p

[Turn]

[quote name='blackjack60' post='831284' date='31 January 2008 - 01:43'][quote name='Peckinpah1976' post='830299' date='29 January 2008 - 12:10']To be brutally honest though, his post-Bond work displayed little of the flair he did on OHMSS, so he may not of been the asset to the series people think.[/quote]

Doubtful: both of his Roger Moore films (Gold and Shout at the Devil) are good, well-regarded movies, and more enjoyable than most of Moore's 007 work. One needs to pay attention to the circumstances of Hunt's post-007 career: he was a journeyman director with limited funds and limited creative control, who usually had to take what he could get. Hence films such as his Asassination, Hyper Sapien: People from Another Star, The Wild Geese II, The Beasts Are on the Streets, and Gulliver's Travels.Even among so many obvious assignments, some films, such as Eyes of a Witness, The Last Days of Pompeii, and Death Hunt, have scored good reviews. Peter Hunt's post-Bond career wasn't much worse than the pre and post-Bond career of Terence Young, another essential asset to the series. Anything after OHMSS would have to be an anti-climax: on OHMSS he had control over the cast and crew, having helped select the actors and technicians; he was given a large amount of freedom by the producers, and even better, given an extremely large and sufficient budget; and he had the benefit of a terrific source novel and an excellent script adaptation by a seasoned scriptwriter. He had almost none of these during his post-Bond trek through the wilderness. Lastly, any consideration of Hunt's worth to the series has to take into account Hunt's gifts as an editor. Everyone who worked on the series during its early years can attest to this--it isn't in doubt. And Hunt's departure from the Bond series was noticeable in the later films. As Pauline Kael wrote, post-Hunt:

[quote]Diamonds Are Forever starts with a full head of steam, and one expects a luxuriant, mock-sadistic good time. But a few minutes later Sean Connery, as Bond, and a villain are in a tiny elevator, lunging at each other and pounding at each other with excruciatingly amplified blows; the sequence goes on and on, and the movie loses its insolent cool. The Bond pictures depend on the comic p

[blackjack60]

[quote name='Turn' post='831318' date='30 January 2008 - 18:45']Interesting Pauline Kael made that observation. Normally I don't really take her as seriously as some people do. After all, she once observed Connery's best Bond performance was in YOLT! [/quote]

Her comments might startle Bond fans, but they're interesting. Here's her take on Connery in YOLT:

[quote]Sean Connery's James Bond isn't the sleek, greasy-lipped dummy of the earlier films; playing the super-hero as a paunchy, rather bemused spectator, Connery gives him more character than he's ever had before. This casual, human Bond is rather tender in his sex relationships-one might almost call them love relationships this time.[/quote]

And her take on Connery in DAF:
[quote]He no longer wears the waxy deadpan of a sex-fantasy stud dummy; over the years
he has turned the robot-matin

[David Schofield]

On the success of Bond directors outside the franchise, its extremely unfair to associate Lewis Gilbert with the lack of success of the others; Alfie (okay, pre YOLT), Educating Rita and Shirley Valentine were all financially successful, award winning fair.

Conversely, it seemed routine among older Bond fans to deify Terence Young; okay, he made Connery-Bond (and after his departure with Thunderball Connery never had disciplined dedication to Bond), but that's about it.

With Hunt, its a great shame he never directed again, particularly a straight sequel. Though how he'd go without a pure Fleming source and perhaps less dedictation (after the rough treatment of OHMSS both internally by EON and externally by the press and public) would have been fascinating.

[FlemingBond]

I can't believe it's already been 5 years since Mr. Hunt died. He was such a delightful man in interviews. They considered him, and Terrence Young for FYEO.

[Peckinpah1976]

To be brutally honest though, his post-Bond work displayed little of the flair he did on OHMSS, so he may not of been the asset to the series people think.

Doubtful: both of his Roger Moore films (Gold and Shout at the Devil) are good, well-regarded movies

.

Subjectively speaking, you may think those are "good" films but they're certainly not by any stretch of the imagination "well regarded"........

[Revelator]

Subjectively speaking, you may think those are "good" films but they're certainly not by any stretch of the imagination "well regarded"........

Sorry about your imagination then. Neither film is of course regarded as a masterpiece, but neither are regarded as dogs either. Roger Ebert's three star review of Shout at the Devil ("a big, dumb, silly movie that's impossible to dislike") is a fair example of its critical reception (Variety's review was on the same lines: "A nice sprawling, basic, gutsy and unsophisticated film, which displays its reported $7 million budget on nearly every frame").

[dodge]

[quote name='Turn' post='831318' date='31 January 2008 - 02:45'][quote name='blackjack60' post='831284' date='31 January 2008 - 01:43'][quote name='Peckinpah1976' post='830299' date='29 January 2008 - 12:10']To be brutally honest though, his post-Bond work displayed little of the flair he did on OHMSS, so he may not of been the asset to the series people think.[/quote]

Doubtful: both of his Roger Moore films (Gold and Shout at the Devil) are good, well-regarded movies, and more enjoyable than most of Moore's 007 work. One needs to pay attention to the circumstances of Hunt's post-007 career: he was a journeyman director with limited funds and limited creative control, who usually had to take what he could get. Hence films such as his Asassination, Hyper Sapien: People from Another Star, The Wild Geese II, The Beasts Are on the Streets, and Gulliver's Travels.Even among so many obvious assignments, some films, such as Eyes of a Witness, The Last Days of Pompeii, and Death Hunt, have scored good reviews. Peter Hunt's post-Bond career wasn't much worse than the pre and post-Bond career of Terence Young, another essential asset to the series. Anything after OHMSS would have to be an anti-climax: on OHMSS he had control over the cast and crew, having helped select the actors and technicians; he was given a large amount of freedom by the producers, and even better, given an extremely large and sufficient budget; and he had the benefit of a terrific source novel and an excellent script adaptation by a seasoned scriptwriter. He had almost none of these during his post-Bond trek through the wilderness. Lastly, any consideration of Hunt's worth to the series has to take into account Hunt's gifts as an editor. Everyone who worked on the series during its early years can attest to this--it isn't in doubt. And Hunt's departure from the Bond series was noticeable in the later films. As Pauline Kael wrote, post-Hunt:

[quote]Diamonds Are Forever starts with a full head of steam, and one expects a luxuriant, mock-sadistic good time. But a few minutes later Sean Connery, as Bond, and a villain are in a tiny elevator, lunging at each other and pounding at each other with excruciatingly amplified blows; the sequence goes on and on, and the movie loses its insolent cool. The Bond pictures depend on the comic p

[blackjack60]

Incidentally, to get back to the original question that kicked off this thread, here's an excerpt from a three-part interview with Hunt, conducted by Gary Giblin at http://www.secretintel.com:

Peter: Of course, if they'd have given me the next one to do, and we'd have had the boy [Lazenby], we could have started the next one [with Tracy's murder] and used that as a pretitle [sequence]. I designed it so you could have done that. If you look at the way it's shot, at the end of the wedding, I'm on a crane and I go right up over the top of the flowers and you see the car going away.

Gary: And that's where it could have ended.

Peter: Oh, beautifully. And happily, but the [producers] never thought of that and I certainly wasn't going to tell them. And I didn't know whether I was ever going to do the next one. Well, I didn't do another one for them, as you know, although they did ask me. Cubby asked me, twice.

Gary: The next one?

Peter: No, they asked me to do one with Roger. I was in Rome at the time. I was with Roger, funnily enough. I had just done two films with him [Gold and Shout at the Devil], two pretty good films with him. I was great friends with Roger. But I was at that time busy with [Italian producer Carlo] Ponti. We were planning a film which never got made. And I couldn't get away. Oh, I probably could have got away, but I thought, Oh, another big battle. Another big, big film.

Gary: Which one?

Peter: The one Lewis did.

Gary: The Spy Who Loved Me?

Peter: Yes, that's right. That's the one they asked me to do.

Gary: That was after Harry had left, and Guy Hamilton, and Cubby seems to have been starting all over in a way. And so he asked you then?

Peter: That's right. But I was in Rome at that time with Ponti, looking for locations or whatever. But it didn't happen, anyway. I can't remember what happened now, but something dreadful happened and we didn't make the picture.

[Solex Agitator]

Thank you for posting that, Blackjack60! A most interesting read. Imagine had the ending been the next pre-title....wow!

[Peckinpah1976]

Subjectively speaking, you may think those are "good" films but they're certainly not by any stretch of the imagination "well regarded"........

Sorry about your imagination then.

Oh sorry, did I disagree with you?

Neither film is of course regarded as a masterpiece, but neither are regarded as dogs either. Roger Ebert's three star review of Shout at the Devil ("a big, dumb, silly movie that's impossible to dislike") is a fair example of its critical reception (Variety's review was on the same lines: "A nice sprawling, basic, gutsy and unsophisticated film, which displays its reported $7 million budget on nearly every frame").

Sadly those two reviews are the exception rather than the rule; it did get plenty of negative reviews - compared to Gold though the response rapturous.....

[blackjack60]

Oh sorry, did I disagree with you?

You seem a little offended by my having disagreed with you.

Sadly those two reviews are the exception rather than the rule; it did get plenty of negative reviews - compared to Gold though the response rapturous.....

Forgive me for not finding this convincing--it's one thing to make an assertion, and another to back it up. In other words, I hope you're prepared to produce those negative reviews.

Edited by blackjack60, 07 February 2008 - 04:42 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

To be brutally honest though, his post-Bond work displayed little of the flair he did on OHMSS, so he may not of been the asset to the series people think.

And you can nominate someone who could take, say the script titled "Assasination", the actor named Charles Bronson - and come up with an Oscar winning tour-de-force?

Hunt played with the cards dealt to him.

Did he live up to or surpass the first film he directed? Sadly, no.

But when the only work you can get has the word Hypersapian in the title - you aren't exactly being given the Bond film playset that has the good script, great budget, intelligent producers, built in audience, etc. etc.

The same argument is used against Terence Young. What did he do outside Bond? people ask and hold their noses high.

I really don't care. He helped launch the most successful film series of all time and put an idelible stamp on it.

Van Gogh only sold a couple paintings - it doesn't mean the ones he didn't weren't spectacular.

I don't judge Peter Hunt's and OHMSS's artistic merit based on what happened after the film came out.

Hunt was offfered TSWLM, FYEO and NSNA but due to work comittments (the first two) and a sense of loyalty (NSNA) he did not direct any of them.

[DaveBond21]

It's a real shame because Hunt brought some very stylish and beautiful images to the screen with OHMSS. Look at the PTS for a start, and any scenes featuring skiing or snow.

Wonderful stuff.

[Odd Job]

[quote]Peter: Of course, if they'd have given me the next one to do, and we'd have had the boy [Lazenby], we could have started the next one [with Tracy's murder] and used that as a pretitle [sequence]. I designed it so you could have done that. If you look at the way it's shot, at the end of the wedding, I'm on a crane and I go right up over the top of the flowers and you see the car going away.

Gary: And that's where it could have ended.

Peter: Oh, beautifully. And happily, but the [producers] never thought of that and I certainly wasn't going to tell them. And I didn't know whether I was ever going to do the next one. Well, I didn't do another one for them, as you know, although they did ask me. Cubby asked me, twice.


Although I can understand Peter Hunt's reasoning behind ending OHMSS with Bond and Tracy leaving the wedding, I have to agree with the producer's decision to end it with Tracy's death, even though it meant ending the film on a tragic note (highly unusual for a Bond film). Ignoring for a moment the fact that by the time of the film's release, it was already known that Lazenby wouldn't be continuing, can you imagine the difficulties of promoting the next film (already announced as DAF). Would they have openly announced that the film would open with Tracy's murder, a reasonable assumption considering that anyone who had read the book knew of her fate.

If not, how would they deal with the fact that Bond was now married. They could hardly promote any new Bond girls if our hero is supposed to be happily married. Another factor is if the film opens with Tracy's murder, then it's difficult to see Bond hooking up with any other girl during the movie as that would make him look even more heartless, regardless of how much 'time' passes in the movie. If Tracy's death occurs at the end of OHMSS, then the audience who saw it in 1969 will be ready for Bond to move on in 1971, even if only a 'few months' have passed in Bond's world.

Having said all that, if Peter Hunt had got his way, and, providing George had returned, then at least we wouldn't have got a 'paunchy' Sir Sean (and I'm his biggest fan), in the worst hairpiece of his career, nor would we have gotten Charles Gray's extremely campy Blofeld. Darn! I think that I've just defeated my own argument (lol)!!

[tim partridge]

According to CFQ in 1986, Hunt was a replacement director on HYPERSAPIEN. Michael Wadleigh, (who directed the original WOODSTOCK documentary and WOLFEN), was the original director. Hunt was playing director for hire, it seems.