20 replies to this topic

[Spikey]

Hey folks,

I just watched OHMSS again, and aside from wondering *yet again* what might have been for the Bond franchise (I know it's useless but you just can't help it), I both noticed some choppy editing in places and also read there's 30 minutes of cuts! So much for no 'deleted scenes' on the UE DVD.

So, I'm curious to know a few things- while Bond fans don't have ESP, many have resources and contacts in the Bond fold. And many spend plenty of time researching this stuff

First- what scenes were lost.

I know of the following already (and people are welcome to elaborate about these too):

- Bond pursuing Sir Hillary's assistant who turns out to be a Blofeld spy from the College of Arms, until his death under a train (how can this be more violent than the 'Merry Xmas' death?)
- Piz Gloria's destruction, the inside (ice cavern/labs/etc)
- Bond buying Tracy the ring, and you can see a reflection of Irma Bunt (apparently it's possibly considered either a myth or proposed but not filmed?- either way, holy hell, I want to see this scene if it exists- apparently it's in the cut US TV version)


I'm guessing a lot of the 30 cut minutes were fight scene excerpts, going on the cut/paste of most fist-fights in the movie (you know, how after a punch is thrown or connects, it cuts to the next bit of the fight scene, or them falling, or something).

Anyway- I know there are Bond fans here that know a hell of a lot more than me about OHMSS- I'm eager just to hear anything cool about the picture, or cut scenes, except the Lazenby controversy, or Lazenby/Rigg, or any of that stuff.
30 minutes is a hell of a lot of stuff for a film like OHMSS!


Also- what about OHMSS's order- why did they make YOLT before it and DAF after it (aside from weather)? It makes little sense to me, even with the Lazenby/Connery saga- why have a series reboot after OHMSS' events and then use Blofeld. Charles Gray isn't Blofeld by any stretch of the imagination. I just don't get how 'low budget' OHMSS managed to be great and DAF was loony as far as "a reboot but then some continuity" goes.

Couple more things I read off the web- confirm/deny anyone?

- OHMSS was supposed to be the last Bond film (I guess they changed this for the reboot?)
- Tracy's murder was supposed to be the opening scene of Diamonds Are Forever (really?)

Plastic surgery opening- anyone know more about this early draft of the OHMSS script?


Finally- why did Pleasence then Savalas leave? Much press is given to Connery-Lazenby-Connery but little to other actors leaving. Ilse Steppat's reason is fairly obvious but that's pretty lame, they could have replaced her surely.

Also, while I have people's attention- anyone know if Blofeld was planned for later films, other than TSWLM? (I know of FYEO but that seems more like a middle finger to McClory than anything).

Thoughts/knowledge welcome! Thanks for (skim) reading all this

Regards,
- Spike

Edited by Spikey, 20 May 2008 - 09:49 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

Hi Spikey,

Wow, you have a lot of questions. I'll try to answer most of them.

The cut scenes - the College of Arms chase was very elaborate but did not get beyond storyboarding and a rehersal. They realized it was too much screen time and expense to kill off a minor character.

Yes there are some ice cavern/lab explosion stuff shown in the trailer that isn't in the final cut.

Re: The ring buying/Irma Bunt scene. There is only a single person that ever supposedly saw this version at a theatre in Connecticut. It is NOT in any televised version. There is another thread about this somewhere - the fact that there is only a single source makes it a little suspect, but the person in question isn't a liar - I know him and he doesn't make things up.

Re: 30 minutes - I think your assumptions are correct - longer fight scenes, longer establishing shots, more skiing, more shots of the Piz Gloria girls, more of the car race on ice, etc.

Re: the order. Various reasons - one of them was Bond's soaring popularity in Japan. Eon felt they needed to strike while the iron is hot and so Thunderball actually premiered in Japan with the notice that the next one would be YOLT and filmed in that country.

Re: Ending with just the wedding and having DAF start with Tracy's death. While it sounds good, and Peter Hunt mentions it in later interviews - the OHMSS shooting script always had her death. Pre-publicity implied that the wedding wouldn't end happily.

Re: Pleasance. Peter Hunt didn't want him for OHMSS - he had to edit around Pleasance's walking in YOLT, he said that he "waddled" rather than walked. Obviously that would not have worked for a very physical OHMSS.

Eon has often promised actors that they'll be in multiple films and it doesn't work out. Rik Van Nutter was apparently promised a number of Bond films but obviously that didn't happen. Same with Michael Madsen. I'm not saying that Eon broke their contracts - it could be that these actors made claims that weren't true too.

Re: Blofeld in other films - besides TSWLM, he was also supposed to explicity be in FYEO, mentioning that it had been 10 years since their last meeting. But you are right, it was more a cameo than him being the main vilain.

[Major Tallon]

It seems to me that there's a bit of a rough cut between Bond's arrival at Piz Gloria, with his being effectively ordered to see Dr. Van Damm, and his being escorted to his room. I've always wondered if there was a scene lost there.

[doublenoughtspy]

I've wondered the same thing - but it isn't in the shooting script - nor in any of the 20,000 offical contact sheet photographs that I've looked through.

[MajorB]

As far as the order of films goes, I know they originally planned for OHMSS to follow TB. Among other things, Connery mentions it in his '65 Playboy interview. I don't remember what it was about the weather and the schedule that made this impossible, in the producers' view, but I've always had the impression that if they'd felt they could have done OHMSS next, they would have. I could be wrong, but I suspect that, while Bond's popularity in Japan was a reason why they went with TB after scrapping OHMSS, it probably wasn't why they switched films in the first place.

No disagreement here, just clarification. And if my memory turns out to be wrong (I can't dig into my print archives just now to confirm), then I'll retire quietly to my corner.

[blueman]

OHMSS was first planned to be after GF (Catherine Deneuve was rumored to be under consideration for the part of Tracy Draco, and supposedly there are end title rejects stating Bond will return in OMHSS at the end of GF!). But McClory's planned indie production of TB got in the way, EON and McClory came to an agreement, and so TB followed GF.

Then post-TB, Swiss locations weren't up to snuff (poor snow years back-to-back?), and YOLT quickly became the next planned and filmed Bond film (all the other spy films coming out also factored in, EON felt they had to out-do everybody apparently).

So as I understand it, Cubby and Harry wanted to do OMHSS right after GF, and supposedly follow that with YOLT. Woulda coulda shoulda... imagine Connery post OMHSS in '66, wanting EON to do a faithful YOLT film (or at least try), keep his interest in it. The direction EON went after GF, cuz of McClory looking to bandwagon on Bond, really defined the direction of the series and cemented the bigger-is-better mindset at EON. Not sure it would've happened quite like it did had the first five films ended with a Fleming-based OHMSS/YOLT in '65/'67, even if Connery had still walked away then. What-ifs galore.

Edited by blueman, 24 May 2008 - 02:29 AM.

[Spikey]

Hey all and sundry,

Thanks for the replies.

My crazy list of questions was due to me watching OHMSS again (a special version mentioned elsewhere on the CBN forums) and while I love Peter Hunt's directing style, sometimes it's a bit choppy and I wonder- was there a scene cut there?

Hi Spikey,

Wow, you have a lot of questions. I'll try to answer most of them.

The cut scenes - the College of Arms chase was very elaborate but did not get beyond storyboarding and a rehersal. They realized it was too much screen time and expense to kill off a minor character.

After watching OHMSS, one does tend to become a bit passionate about the films again

Re: The ring buying/Irma Bunt scene. There is only a single person that ever supposedly saw this version at a theatre in Connecticut. It is NOT in any televised version. There is another thread about this somewhere - the fact that there is only a single source makes it a little suspect, but the person in question isn't a liar - I know him and he doesn't make things up.

Interesting. I heard somewhere (on the Wiki I think- which could be unreliable) it aired on US TV, the cut version with the ring deal. But I guess it's a rumour/legend that's not easily traceable.

Re: 30 minutes - I think your assumptions are correct - longer fight scenes, longer establishing shots, more skiing, more shots of the Piz Gloria girls, more of the car race on ice, etc.

All I can say is- thank God those 30 minutes were cut The movie would have been very tedious. There was one or two places in the movie where I wondered about cut scenes ,though- just hard to remember where exactly. I think one was around Bond's hotel room early in the movie.

Re: the order. Various reasons - one of them was Bond's soaring popularity in Japan. Eon felt they needed to strike while the iron is hot and so Thunderball actually premiered in Japan with the notice that the next one would be YOLT and filmed in that country.

I mean, I understand why they did YOLT, and why they did the order they did. I just don't understand why DAF is a "reboot" yet tries to keep going.

Re: Ending with just the wedding and having DAF start with Tracy's death. While it sounds good, and Peter Hunt mentions it in later interviews - the OHMSS shooting script always had her death. Pre-publicity implied that the wedding wouldn't end happily.

Really? Not having been around in '69, or not knowing as much about OHMSS as I'd like, I wasn't aware of that. I've only seen the silly trailers, with the "diferent" tag. How damn lame can you get.

Interesting though. I have to say OHMSS is perfect as it is.

Re: Pleasance. Peter Hunt didn't want him for OHMSS - he had to edit around Pleasance's walking in YOLT, he said that he "waddled" rather than walked. Obviously that would not have worked for a very physical OHMSS.

I'm not disappointed Pleasance didn't return, he was OK in YOLT but nothing like Savalas, who I felt captured the Fleming Blofeld 100%- the quiet menace, eg "I mean what I say- and I'll do what I claim".

Eon has often promised actors that they'll be in multiple films and it doesn't work out. Rik Van Nutter was apparently promised a number of Bond films but obviously that didn't happen. Same with Michael Madsen. I'm not saying that Eon broke their contracts - it could be that these actors made claims that weren't true too.

Yeah, I know. Eunice Gayson for example/

Re: Blofeld in other films - besides TSWLM, he was also supposed to explicity be in FYEO, mentioning that it had been 10 years since their last meeting. But you are right, it was more a cameo than him being the main vilain.

I'm just surprised they didn't try and bring him back every other year, you know





Blueman:

OHMSS was first planned to be after GF (Catherine Deneuve was rumored to be under consideration for the part of Tracy Draco, and supposedly there are end title rejects stating Bond will return in OMHSS at the end of GF!). But McClory's planned indie production of TB got in the way, EON and McClory came to an agreement, and so TB followed GF.

She was also going to be Tiffany Case or another Bond girl, wasn't she?

And- was McClory going to release TB as a rival movie if EON released OHMSS or a non-TB movie, or..?

Then post-TB, Swiss locations weren't up to snuff (poor snow years back-to-back?), and YOLT quickly became the next planned and filmed Bond film (all the other spy films coming out also factored in, EON felt they had to out-do everybody apparently).

I think that's funny given the avalanche story in OHMSS's production.

Yeah, YOLT was an awful, overblown affair. Fleming must've been rolling in his grave. At least he didn't have to se the 70's Bond's though.

So as I understand it, Cubby and Harry wanted to do OMHSS right after GF, and supposedly follow that with YOLT. Woulda coulda shoulda... imagine Connery post OMHSS in '66, wanting EON to do a faithful YOLT film (or at least try), keep his interest in it. The direction EON went after GF, cuz of McClory looking to bandwagon on Bond, really defined the direction of the series and cemented the bigger-is-better mindset at EON. Not sure it would've happened quite like it did had the first five films ended with a Fleming-based OHMSS/YOLT in '65/'67, even if Connery had still walked away then. What-ifs galore.

Heh, indeed! I can't really respond to that paragraph, although I did like that TB went before OHMSS- it really sets up SPECTRE and Blofeld's character.

I don't know- Connery kind of ends at TB for me, his roles in YOLT and DAF aren't exactly comparable to TB/GF/FRWL/even DN. Who knows what he would have been like. I do think he would have been much better in a more true YOLT, he would have been much more suited to it than Lazenby. Learning the culture, drinking, smoking, all that stuff- not "I like sake".

You're right about bigger-is-better- all the Bond films with the big budgets (pretty much) have been the worst films. FYEO, OHMSS, GF, TB, etc are star movies and weren't done on the same scale as much worse movies- YOLT, MR, Brosnan years, etc.

Anyway. Too much what-ifing, I have to do something else today!

- Spike

[Peckinpah1976]

RE YOLT; yes it's a waste of one of Flemings very best books, no it doesn't work narratively speaking and much of the acting is perfunctory to say the least. Yet it's one of the very greatest experiences of the entire series (especially if you're lucky enough to see it on the big screen); the location work, luminous photography, set and costume design and John Barry's score all combine to make something that's truly intoxicating and beautiful IMO (much like Japan itself infact).

Edited by Peckinpah1976, 26 May 2008 - 06:30 PM.

[Spikey]

You know, I used to really like YOLT- before I'd read YOLT the book, and before I appreciated OHMSS a bit better. But now I can't bear it- I like lots of what's in there, but after reading the literary YOLT, and the clever descriptions of Japanese culture from Tanaka, the back-and-forths between Bond and Henderson and Tanaka, and the amazing descriptions of Shatterhand's garden, not to mention the suspense when Bond is at the "Castle of Death" (just in the courtyard- not even the Castle!)- when you compare that to the crude portrayal of Japanese culture, the lame bad guys like Helga and Osato and various 'minions', the sheer lack of suspense in the Japanese scenes and the almost anti-climactic volcano stuff at the end, you can only wonder what might have been.

I honestly think YOLT is probably the worst butchering of a Fleming book, well, maybe MR is, but YOLT is up there.

You're right- there is a lot of neon lights and cool scenes. It's a fun movie. But there was so much I liked about the book, so muc hthat drew me in- and YOLT you just feel has nothing under its' flashy lights and massage parlours and ninja fights. Although I adore the Kobe Docks scene.

Anyway. I think that's what bugs me- you have the excellent GF and TB, followed up by YOLT, which doesn't feel like it fits, and then you have OHMSS and DAF to follow- moviegoers who weren't Bond experts might have been wondering what was going on. Not to mention the LALD reboot with Moore after all that! Shame, given what might have been with the original source material. But we know that already, I just had to say it

I wonder if Daniel Craig's Bond will ever meet other Fleming baddies other than Le Chiffre, perhaps even Blofeld..

- Spike

Edited by Spikey, 26 May 2008 - 09:26 PM.

[blueman]

I'd be happy if they put the Castle of Death in a Craig-Bond film somewhere, and toss in the giant squid from DN as well!

[Peckinpah1976]

The trouble with the novel of YOLT is that until the last twenty or so pages there isn't a great deal that could be easily translated to the screen in Bond-movie terms; no sex, no violence, no gambling. Left with just the books location and a few character names, the film was really a first attempt at writing an original screenplay and under such circumstances getting someone as wildly imaginative but undisciplined as Roald Dahl to do the job wasn't the best of ideas, though to be fair EON had already shot themselves in the foot by making a sequel novel before it's predecessor, thus invalidating much of the plot anyway. It's no wonder it's as chaotic as it is. It's still beautiful to look at though; too bad that this was Freddie Youngs' only contribution to the series.

[MHazard]

The resurrection and redemption of Bond. That's the YOLT that should have been made-after OHMSS

[Peckinpah1976]

I agree that's how it should have been made; my point is that the film as it stands isn't a complete wash-out due to it's technical brilliance.

[MHazard]

I agree that YOLT the movie has many guilty pleasure moments (the fake death in the bed for example) and the soundtrack and cinematography is marevelous. I would regard it as one of the best of the second tier Bond movies (i.e. those with little resemblance to the novels, which, unfortunately is most of them). Nonetheless, as a huge fan of Fleming's novels it's frustrating that having filmed it they prevented the filming of a more faithful adaptation of the novel. I had thought you were suggesting that the novel couldn't have been filmed and I disagree with that although perhaps there would have been some concern with the lack of physical action until the end. Still I think this could have been remedied while perserving the important core of the novel. But, it appears we may actually be in agreement. In any case, one of my fantasies: "Bond wife has been murdered; his spirit is shattered; find out how he gains revenge and redemption. Daniel Craig is James Bond 007 in Dr. Shatterhand". This will unfortunately never happen-how do you flashback to a George Lazenby movie most people have never seen and sadly don't seem to like (and I love OHMSS)?

[Spikey]

Well the point is, we're in a series reboot- to have Blofeld we'd have to revisit TB, OHMSS, YOLT, etc. Craig's Bond so far hasn't come across SMERSH or SPECTRE, and since they're kind of 1950/60's concepts, it seems unlikely they'll be reborn.

Although one of MY fantasies would be to se a Daniel Craig Fleming novel translated to film, like some SMESH/SPECTRE ones. But they'd be hard to translate to today's "Brosnan-esque" flashy, gimmicky film style.



Agreed with everything else everyone else said.

- Spike

[dchantry]

Sorry for such a delayed response.
Regarding the scene with Bond and Tracey in the wedding ring shop. I don't know how much was actually filmed, but I have 2 original 1969 press stills that I've picked up over years showing Lazenby and Rigg in a shop with an assistant picking out the ring so I guess it was filmed in some part.

[Jeff007]

Sorry for such a delayed response.
Regarding the scene with Bond and Tracey in the wedding ring shop. I don't know how much was actually filmed, but I have 2 original 1969 press stills that I've picked up over years showing Lazenby and Rigg in a shop with an assistant picking out the ring so I guess it was filmed in some part.

Anyway you can post those pictures, dchantry?

[Shaun Forever]

Sorry for such a delayed response.
Regarding the scene with Bond and Tracey in the wedding ring shop. I don't know how much was actually filmed, but I have 2 original 1969 press stills that I've picked up over years showing Lazenby and Rigg in a shop with an assistant picking out the ring so I guess it was filmed in some part.

We must see this, can it be done?

[00Jaws]

Sorry for such a delayed response.
Regarding the scene with Bond and Tracey in the wedding ring shop. I don't know how much was actually filmed, but I have 2 original 1969 press stills that I've picked up over years showing Lazenby and Rigg in a shop with an assistant picking out the ring so I guess it was filmed in some part.

You made me also curious

[Shaun Forever]

Well.......

[DR76]

Then post-TB, Swiss locations weren't up to snuff (poor snow years back-to-back?), and YOLT quickly became the next planned and filmed Bond film (all the other spy films coming out also factored in, EON felt they had to out-do everybody apparently).

Why couldn't they have selected another Bond title, instead of YOLT in 1966/67? Were EON Productions that eager to cash in on the franchise's popularity in Japan? Not a wise thing to do.