Basically, I think Eon got it absolutely right with the ending that they went with for OHMSS.
I couldn't agree more. Most things we discuss on CBn are subjective. I would submit this is one of the few that isn't...
Posted 12 December 2008 - 01:28 PM
Basically, I think Eon got it absolutely right with the ending that they went with for OHMSS.
Posted 12 December 2008 - 01:42 PM
But this does prompt a question, which I'd be grateful if doublenoughtspy or someone could answer:
Was there ever any serious consideration of using a different ending for OHMSS? For example, Bond and Tracy not actually get hitched, Bond pursuing Blofeld and Bunt after Tracy's death and getting his revenge before the closing credits? Or something else?
Posted 12 December 2008 - 03:57 PM
Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:21 PM
That's what irks me, though; Bond has suffered a personal loss before, that being the loss of Vesper, which is completely ignored in the subsequent books.I really think the moment OHMSS was picked up by EON the end was already decided upon. A different ending would haven been possible. But entirely pointless. Likewise I cannot see CR ever being adapted without Vesper's death. These moments for both characters are crucial. It's a stage where these characters are objects of their fate and, through their connection to Bond, of Bond's fate. These are moments that defy a 00-license, a bullet, a Whisky or Vodka. Bond is a victim here and has to deal with it. In one of Bond's strongest moments of inner life Fleming writes:
"M looked sharply at Bond. 'How's your coefficient of toughness, James? You haven't got to the dangerous age yet.'
Bond didn't like personal questions. He didn't know what to answer, or what the truth was. He had not got a wife or children - had never suffered the tragedy of a personal loss. He had not had to stand up to blindness or a mortal disease. He had absolutely no idea how he would face these things that needed so much more toughness than he had ever had to show. He said hesitantly 'I suppose I can stand most things if I have to...'
For Your Eyes Only, Ian Fleming 1960, p.41 - 42, Berkley paperback edition 1982
And Fleming realized he could give Bond a whole new dimension if he made him face such a tragedy. The pattern of genre, the formula are broken up. Bond isn't safe any longer, cannot count on being spared the drama real life sneaks up with on ordinary people so often. Previously it were only the others that got killed, maimed, beaten. Now it's Bond's turn and that's what keeps him a cut above many of his fellow literary spies.
To forego this chance to extent the hero's suffering into our own world, and thus his relevance for all of us, would have been utter lunacy.
Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:26 PM
That's what irks me, though; Bond has suffered a personal loss before, that being the loss of Vesper, which is completely ignored in the subsequent books.I really think the moment OHMSS was picked up by EON the end was already decided upon. A different ending would haven been possible. But entirely pointless. Likewise I cannot see CR ever being adapted without Vesper's death. These moments for both characters are crucial. It's a stage where these characters are objects of their fate and, through their connection to Bond, of Bond's fate. These are moments that defy a 00-license, a bullet, a Whisky or Vodka. Bond is a victim here and has to deal with it. In one of Bond's strongest moments of inner life Fleming writes:
"M looked sharply at Bond. 'How's your coefficient of toughness, James? You haven't got to the dangerous age yet.'
Bond didn't like personal questions. He didn't know what to answer, or what the truth was. He had not got a wife or children - had never suffered the tragedy of a personal loss. He had not had to stand up to blindness or a mortal disease. He had absolutely no idea how he would face these things that needed so much more toughness than he had ever had to show. He said hesitantly 'I suppose I can stand most things if I have to...'
For Your Eyes Only, Ian Fleming 1960, p.41 - 42, Berkley paperback edition 1982
And Fleming realized he could give Bond a whole new dimension if he made him face such a tragedy. The pattern of genre, the formula are broken up. Bond isn't safe any longer, cannot count on being spared the drama real life sneaks up with on ordinary people so often. Previously it were only the others that got killed, maimed, beaten. Now it's Bond's turn and that's what keeps him a cut above many of his fellow literary spies.
To forego this chance to extent the hero's suffering into our own world, and thus his relevance for all of us, would have been utter lunacy.
Posted 12 December 2008 - 04:33 PM
Not to get off the OHMSS track, but (point well taken), if this personal loss adds that extra dimension to Bond's character (per Fleming), then CR added that touch to Craig's Bond early on.
Posted 12 December 2008 - 05:10 PM
has[/i] suffered a personal loss before, that being the loss of Vesper, which is completely ignored in the subsequent books.
Actually, it's not. Read or re-read Fleming's OHMSS...
Posted 12 December 2008 - 08:26 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe it was considered to have On Her Majesty’s Secret Service end with Bond and Tracy's wedding, and have her killed during the pre-titles sequence of the following film. Not sure why it was dismissed, but I believe it's discussed during the documentary on the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service DVD.Was there ever any serious consideration of using a different ending for OHMSS? For example, Bond and Tracy not actually get hitched, Bond pursuing Blofeld and Bunt after Tracy's death and getting his revenge before the closing credits? Or something else?
Posted 12 December 2008 - 08:51 PM
Sure. But, IMO, the film had already lost what made that ending work in Fleming's novel. So my idea has more to do with making the most of what the film already is, rather than describing my ideal OHMSS adaptation. My ideal OHMSS adaptation would certainly have that ending, but it also would have earned it.Well, I don't like the idea of that. Surely it would have been a huge blow against the film's (generally impressive) fidelity to Fleming?
It is in the novel, but I don't think it is in the film. Tracy's death, rather than the point of the film, feels like an afterthought, largely because OHMSS doesn't seem like a film that's centered on its characters. If OHMSS had been about Bond, as the past two Craig films have been, then I'd buy it. But I don't think Bond feels like the center of the flick.And the whole point about OHMSS is not that Bond marries Tracy, but that she dies.
I don't really think it's that crazy. It's been talked about by others, long before this thread.I think your idea for Tracy's death to be carried over to the PTS of the next flick is as revisionist, as crazy and as Tamahori-esque as anything I've ever suggested on CBn!
The happy ending, with Tracy's death as the PTS of the following film, was in consideration during the production of OHMSS. Any plans for that, however, were effectively squelched when Laz decided he wasn't going to be returning before shooting was completed.Was there ever any serious consideration of using a different ending for OHMSS? For example, Bond and Tracy not actually get hitched, Bond pursuing Blofeld and Bunt after Tracy's death and getting his revenge before the closing credits? Or something else?
Posted 12 December 2008 - 11:16 PM
I don't really think it's that crazy. It's been talked about by others, long before this thread. ... The happy ending, with Tracy's death as the PTS of the following film, was in consideration during the production of OHMSS.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 12:49 AM
This isn't even fit to be in that category, though. It's not at all a zany idea. Using the end of OHMSS as the PTS of the next film is a pretty natural idea, I daresay, and it's not at all surprising that they considered doing it (whether it's the right idea is an entirely different question). I think it would actually be the expected route for a late 1960s EON-produced adaptation of OHMSS. After all, when introducing a new Bond, who wants to close his first film with a miserable punch in the gut, especially when your franchise has been known for grandiose entertainment?I don't really think it's that crazy. It's been talked about by others, long before this thread. ... The happy ending, with Tracy's death as the PTS of the following film, was in consideration during the production of OHMSS.
Okay, but, as you know, plenty of things have been seriously considered by Eon over the decades: making Dr. No a monkey, all those zillions of ideas for THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, making James Brolin Bond, Tamahori's planned codename theory and Connery cameo, doing a Jinx spinoff, and so on and so on.
There's a reason all those ideas were dropped: they were crazy.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 06:30 AM
That's the way I've heard/read about it. I'm not sure how seriously EON were considering moving the death scene to the next film's PTS, but it was definitely an option. With Lazenby quitting, they were forced to keep the death scene as the finale. Fortunately, they wound up with the correct ending.The happy ending, with Tracy's death as the PTS of the following film, was in consideration during the production of OHMSS. Any plans for that, however, were effectively squelched when Laz decided he wasn't going to be returning before shooting was completed.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 06:48 AM
I agree as well. Moving Tracy's death to the PTS of the next film would have been anti-climactic and greatly taken away the scene's emotional impact on the audience. Similarly, without the death scene, On Her Majesty's Secret Service would likely be considered only a good film rather than the great film it is today. That's because that little extra something would have been missing that we all know should be there, looming like a large elephant in the room. Omitting Tracy's death scene at the end of OHMSS would forever nag Bond fans with thoughts of "what if?"Precisely.With her death, presumably, opening the next film?With the current film we have, I think Tracy's death would have been best left out of the flick, allowing it to be the generally well-crafted piece of entertainment it is, without that drag of an ending.
Well, I don't like the idea of that. Surely it would have been a huge blow against the film's (generally impressive) fidelity to Fleming?
And the whole point about OHMSS is not that Bond marries Tracy, but that she dies.
Given that Laz had already publicly left the Bond role before OHMSS premiered (unless I'm mistaken), DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (or BOND 7) would have had to open with John Gavin or Sean Connery or someone replacing Laz for the PTS in which Tracy got killed. Most awkward.
Either that, or Bond would have remained a married man in the one-film Laz alternate universe. Again, most awkward.
Basically, I think Eon got it absolutely right with the ending that they went with for OHMSS.
I think your idea for Tracy's death to be carried over to the PTS of the next flick is as revisionist, as crazy and as Tamahori-esque as anything I've ever suggested on CBn!
I absolutely agree with Loomis. Even non-fans would have known (or would have been informed by reviewers) that Tracy died shortly after the wedding. Leaving the couple married, with the murder impending, would have given OHMSS an unfinished feel and diminished its emotional impact. It was much more emotionally satisfying to experience Bond's tragedy at the end of OHMSS, being left to wonder how it would affect him and how he'd take his revenge in the next film, than to await the next film knowing that the murder was still to come.
If the filmmakers had wished to start the next film with a big emotional whallop, they could have shown a shattered Bond emerging from the Aston Martin spattered with his wife's blood. They could have shown a funeral scene. They could have had a PTS of him bungling a mission because of intrusive memories of Tracy's death. They could, as in the novel of YOLT, have shown him "going slowly to pieces."
I cannot fathom what possible advantage would have been gained by carrying Tracy's murder over to the start of the next film. To end the story with a happy ending would have fatally wounded "On Her Majesty's Secret Service."
Posted 13 December 2008 - 01:11 PM
This isn't even fit to be in that category, though. It's not at all a zany idea. Using the end of OHMSS as the PTS of the next film is a pretty natural idea, I daresay, and it's not at all surprising that they considered doing it (whether it's the right idea is an entirely different question). I think it would actually be the expected route for a late 1960s EON-produced adaptation of OHMSS. After all, when introducing a new Bond, who wants to close his first film with a miserable punch in the gut, especially when your franchise has been known for grandiose entertainment?I don't really think it's that crazy. It's been talked about by others, long before this thread. ... The happy ending, with Tracy's death as the PTS of the following film, was in consideration during the production of OHMSS.
Okay, but, as you know, plenty of things have been seriously considered by Eon over the decades: making Dr. No a monkey, all those zillions of ideas for THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, making James Brolin Bond, Tamahori's planned codename theory and Connery cameo, doing a Jinx spinoff, and so on and so on.
There's a reason all those ideas were dropped: they were crazy.
Anyway, I reiterate my stance: ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE is a terrific Bond film in most respects, simply suffering from inconsistency. The final scene, in and of itself, is a perfect one, and one of the most deeply affecting scenes in the Bond canon. It just demanded a different film to truly work.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 05:31 PM
Not really, but I've said that they might have done that because it would have made the OHMSS that they shot - in and of itself - a stronger flick. I'm not really thinking about BOND 7 too much.However, leaving that aside, do you honestly believe it would have worked better as the PTS of BOND 7? I don't.
I think it's easier. Especially since the scene, when detached from the original story like that, wouldn't quite feel like the downer it did at the end of OHMSS. I've actually seen mock-ups for the end of OHMSS as a PTS, and I kind of liked it. It wouldn't have pleased the fans, I daresay, and certainly wouldn't have given the moment the emotional due it deserves, but I think it would have been fine with the general public.Who wants to open a Bond film (regardless of whether it's someone's first, and in any case a 007 actor who's on his second flick is still to some extent on probation with audiences) with a miserable punch in the gut, especially when your franchise has been known for grandiose entertainment?
Well, strictly speaking, I never formulated my thoughts that way. I've stated is that the ending in the EON adaptation of OHMSS feels detached from the rest of the film, almost like a last-minute afterthought. So, that led to my thought that maybe if they'd held the ending over to the next flick, the film wouldn't have that problem. So, really, I see the core flaw as failing to make Bond's character development the center of the film, and then the PTS suggestion as a last-ditch attempt to make the film they made work on its own merits.However, I do not believe that those flaws include the decision not to hold the tragic ending over to the PTS of the next flick.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 06:07 PM
Not really, but I've said that they might have done that because it would have made the OHMSS that they shot - in and of itself - a stronger flick. I'm not really thinking about BOND 7 too much.However, leaving that aside, do you honestly believe it would have worked better as the PTS of BOND 7? I don't.
If Laz had continued on, and they'd still kept OHMSS' ending with OHMSS, I think it would have been wise to open BOND 7 with a repeat of that final scene.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 06:17 PM
Well, sure. And that's why the PTS thing came up, which would be a compromise that wouldn't necessarily do justice to Fleming's ending, but just might produce a more consistent OHMSS and a fairly decent BOND 7.Ah, but here's the thing: you'd have to. Some kind of resolution would be necessary, nay, demanded.
Sure. But, again, I've seen mock-ups of the final scenes of OHMSS as a pre-title sequence, and it worked so brilliantly that for a Laz-starring revenge-driven BOND 7 I wouldn't have wanted to see anything else.Dude, it ain't HALLOWEEN II. QUANTUM OF SOLACE got away very nicely without a repeat of the closing scenes of CASINO ROYALE.If Laz had continued on, and they'd still kept OHMSS' ending with OHMSS, I think it would have been wise to open BOND 7 with a repeat of that final scene.
Posted 13 December 2008 - 06:33 PM
I don't think the film does a good job dealing with Tracy as a suicidal individual with real problems (it's talked about in the first part of the film, but never with the necessary weight, and it's soon forgotten afterwards).
Sure. But, again, I've seen mock-ups of the final scenes of OHMSS as a pre-title sequence, and it worked so brilliantly that for a Laz-starring revenge-driven BOND 7 I wouldn't have wanted to see anything else.
Edited by DR76, 13 December 2008 - 06:35 PM.