92 replies to this topic

[Syndicate]

What was the story behind no Bond movie after LTK until 1995. I kept remembering or thinking I read some where or heard that it had to with the CEO of MGM/UA during the late 80s and early 90s. Anyone know anything or remember.

[Gabriel]

There is no point introducing a new actor to do more of the same. Even the Connery-honed Lazenby (the tailoring, the publicity and haircut) brought something different. Are you saying that Daniel Craig's era is continuing Pierce Brosnan's tonal and stylistic agenda...?

Again, I disagree. Apart from CR being overtly a reboot in an era where recasting Bond is commonplace, CR isn't that different from any of the past films. The formula that works with Bond is to make everything feel new, even when nothing changes. It would take very little rewriting for Pierce Brosnan to appear in Casino Royale!

And a MOONRAKER circa 1971 with Lazenby would have killed the franchise. It is not just about what actor is bringing what to the role of Bond...it is also about where the global audiences are at that time / where is the world right now? And MOONRAKER with Lazenby was not where Eon, Bond or the audiences were in the early 1970's.

Erm . . . no. I was talking about a potential 'Moonraker'-type film in 1969 (perfect for the year of the lunar landing n'est-pas?) and OHMSS in 1971. For the first recasting of an iconic character, it would have made more sense in retrospect to put him in familiar surroundings doing familiar stuff, establishing him in Bond's world, then launching in a fresh direction for a sequel. A film that emphasises from its opening 'This never happened to the other fella!' remark that this is an new actor, and even has the familiar cast harping on about the new actor, then telling an utterly atypical story actually badly undermines what is one of my favourite Bond movies.

That is why the Craig films have been markedly different all round to the Brosnan entries. The frameworks change so Bond does to. When he doesn't then that is the beginning of the end. Making adapations of this or that book is not the point. The films must tailor themselves to be slightly ahead of the curve of what is doing the rounds.

I can't see what curve many of the films have been ahead of, to be honest. Since the end of the 60s, Bond films have generally been stylistically reactive. You Only Live Twice is closer to 1966's season three of Man From UNCLE, Live and Let Die to 1971's Shaft and its Blaxploitation stablemates, Moonraker to 1977's Star Wars, Licence to Kill to 1985-90's Miami Vice, Casino Royale and QoS to the 2002 and 2004 Bourne films. If anything, Bond films are usually about two years behind the times.

Certainly, as I say, the films don't really change that much from actor to actor: something they learnt from overselling the 'newness' of Lazenby. As David Arnold commented years ago: if you introduce a new Bond, you surround him with as much familiar stuff as you can.

Edited by Gabriel, 10 November 2009 - 02:02 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

I could and would argue against most things you have said here Gabriel - but time and inclination is working against me. Though your views of a potential MOONRAKER circa 1969 is foolhardy as why would YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE be followed with another space driven story and - as I have tried to suggest - that is not where the cinema audiences or even the world were at the time. And I really don't think YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was reacting to some random series of THE MAN FROM UNCLE. Bond doesn't imitate its imitators.

And no - Brosnan could not have done CASINO ROYALE, with or without a newly qualified 007 motif. ROYALE was never going to be a Bond film for an existing actor. Structurally (if nothing else)- ROYALE could have had serious flaws if it was an Autumnal Brosnan pining after a younger LYND. The Brosnan efforts were not structured in the way ROYALE was tonally, narratively and in terms of its characterisation. And ROYALE had to be a new beginning as - like it or not - it is the FIRST Bond novel with a cache and narrative launching pad you cannot just drop into Brosnan's fifth outing.

[Gabriel]

I could and would argue against most things you have said here Gabriel - but time and inclination is working against me.

Dude, you're taking this way too seriously! Chill out! It's just chat and we're all friends here!

Though your views of a potential MOONRAKER circa 1969 is foolhardy as why would YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE be followed with another space driven story and - as I have tried to suggest - that is not where the cinema audiences or even the world were at the time.

I said a closer adaptation of Moonraker, the novel, not the movie (which was a remake of the TSWLM movie anyway)! The novel has card games in a casino, a secret base and a nuclear threat: classic Bond stuff.

And I really don't think YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE was reacting to some random series of THE MAN FROM UNCLE. Bond doesn't imitate its imitators.

Well you could've fooled me! Bond films haven't set the agenda in over 40 years! YOLT simply cashes in on Bond's popularity in Japan and throws in a lot of elements you'd expect from popular shows of the era, notably Batman and The Man From UNCLE. Actually it is reminiscent of a number of the Godzilla movies of the 1960s too!

And no - Brosnan could not have done CASINO ROYALE, with or without a newly qualified 007 motif. ROYALE was never going to be a Bond film for an existing actor. Structurally (if nothing else)- ROYALE could have had serious flaws if it was an Autumnal Brosnan pining after a younger LYND.

Not really. There's very little that Brozzer couldn't have handled in that film. Beyond a couple of references to Bond's new qualification as a 00- Agent, Casino Royale is really a typical Bond film that is very convincing at seeming to be something new. That's the biggest joke about the craignotbond crowd: they're complaining that Bond has changed and it really hasn't much at all!

The Brosnan efforts were not structured in the way ROYALE was tonally, narratively and in terms of its characterisation.

You're giving a good film way too much credit! But for Daniel Craig's and Eva Green's excellent performances, we could have been watching Pierce Brosnan and Teri Hatcher!

And ROYALE had to be a new beginning as - like it or not - it is the FIRST Bond novel

So what? Live and Let Die is the second book and it's the eighth film. Dr No is the sixth book and the sequel to From Russia With Love, tying up the cliffhanger from the previous novel, yet it's the source material for a great first film. Indeed, Thunderball was meant to be the first film and the original screenplay was adapted into the eighth novel. The Casino Royale novel at no times says that Bond has just qualified as a 00-. That's an invention of the Casino Royale film. In the book, it's simply another adventure for a guy who's well versed in his job! Indeed had Batman not Begun again so successfully, chances are Casino Royale would indeed have bee Brozzer's swansong!

There isn't a book or film that has to be anything!

Edited by Gabriel, 10 November 2009 - 04:34 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

That's about the size of it.

Although, I think once they'd got hold of the rights to Casino Royale, it was always destined to be the next actor's first film.

[jaguar007]

If I am correct, I think Gabriel's point about Laz doing something like Moonraker as opposed to OHMSS has more to do with the tone of the story than the space stuff. I think one reason Laz got dumped on for so many years is because Bond fell in love, got married and had the downbeat ending. This was quite a bit different than what movie audiences were used to from the first five films. I agree that Laz may have fared less criticism had his first movie had a more traditional ending.


As far as Brosnan doing CR, it could have been done, but there would have to be many script changes. With Brosnan I also think the overall tone of the movie would have changed (even with a similar script). Brosnan does best playing it light and does not have the dramatic gravitas that Craig does. I can't see Brosnan pulling off the torture scene as we got it.

[Royal Dalton]

I can't see Brosnan pulling off the torture scene as we got it.

Why not, Jag? He could have done his 'pain' face again. It would have been great!

[jaguar007]

I can't see Brosnan pulling off the torture scene as we got it.

Why not, Jag? He could have done his 'pain' face again. It would have been great!

or is that is angry face? or his struggling face? Oh wait, they are all the same face.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I can't see Brosnan pulling off the torture scene as we got it.

Why not, Jag? He could have done his 'pain' face again. It would have been great!

I would have loved to see Roger do that scene. His eyebrows would have worked overtime everytime the rope hit his you-know-what.

[Gabriel]

I would have loved to see Roger do that scene. His eyebrows would have worked overtime everytime the rope hit his you-know-what.

Imagine Kenneth Williams playing the role in the torture scene: 'Ohhhh! Matron!!!'

[MR. Steves]

Casino Royale-The New One is my number one pick.
Bond Needed something new and this film delivered quite well.

[CasinoKiller]

-Live and Let Die
-The Living Daylights
-Goldeneye
-Casino Royale

Coincidentially, the debuts of the last 4 Bond actors!

Which goes on to show that its actually the change of era which 'saves' the franchise

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Casino Royale-The New One is my number one pick.
Bond Needed something new and this film delivered quite well.

Casino Royale was vıagra for a tired old franchise. Hopefully Bond 23 can be of the same quality.

[Safari Suit]

I wouldn't call CR a saviour, more like damage control.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

These films really did a lot for refreshing the franchise. And yes they all feature a new actor taking over as James Bond.

Goldeneye (after the 5? year break and everything)

Live and Let Die (Even though I like OHMSS this film gave the franchise a new Bond and new energy if you will)

The Living Daylights (Again a new direction and energy after the Roger Moore years)

Casino Royale

Out of these the only movie that I would say really actually 'saved' the franchise in my opinion was Goldeneye.

[00Twelve]

I wouldn't call CR a saviour, more like damage control.

Agreed-- though it wound up giving the series more than just a shot in the arm; more like a whole transfusion.

[DaveBond21]

Many saw Skyfall as a return to form, after an average QOS.

 

Not my opinion - just the opinion of many casual Bond fans.

[Call Billy Bob]

Many saw Skyfall as a return to form, after an average QOS.

 

Not my opinion - just the opinion of many casual Bond fans.

I thought Skyfall was just that and I in no way consider myself a casual Bond fan.

[The Shark]

 

Many saw Skyfall as a return to form, after an average QOS.

 

Not my opinion - just the opinion of many casual Bond fans.

 

I thought Skyfall was just that and I in no way consider myself a casual Bond fan.

 

Same, though replace average with awful.

[Guy Haines]

DAF - Connery's return. Much as it grieves me, because OHMSS is a favourite of mine (The first one I saw) but audiences were not quite ready for a Bond other than Connery in 1969. Roger Moore, on the other hand, had been in the frame for Bond for years, and so my next choice would be;

 

LALD - which proved a new Bond, but played by a well known actor, different in approach to the role, could take the series forward

 

TSWLM - proved the breakup of the Saltzman/Broccoli partnership didn't mean the end of the series

 

FYEO - a good rather than great Bond film which brought 007 back down to Earth (Literally, after MR!)

 

TLD - I think this film started the trend which culminated in the type of Bond film we now have.

 

GE - After six years away from audiences, if this film hadn't succeeded it could have been curtains for Bond on screen

 

CR - Reinvented James Bond for the 21st century.

[seawolfnyy]

DAF - Connery's return. Much as it grieves me, because OHMSS is a favourite of mine (The first one I saw) but audiences were not quite ready for a Bond other than Connery in 1969. Roger Moore, on the other hand, had been in the frame for Bond for years, and so my next choice would be;

 

LALD - which proved a new Bond, but played by a well known actor, different in approach to the role, could take the series forward

 

TSWLM - proved the breakup of the Saltzman/Broccoli partnership didn't mean the end of the series

 

FYEO - a good rather than great Bond film which brought 007 back down to Earth (Literally, after MR!)

 

TLD - I think this film started the trend which culminated in the type of Bond film we now have.

 

GE - After six years away from audiences, if this film hadn't succeeded it could have been curtains for Bond on screen

 

CR - Reinvented James Bond for the 21st century.

Agree with DAF, LALD, TSWLM, GE and CR. I would also add Skyfall for being the first film following the MGM bankruptcy and being a change of pace from Quantum of Solace. I disagree with FYEO as up until that point Moonraker was the highest grossing film in the franchise and I think the late 70s/early 80s were a different time. I also don´t think TLD saved the franchise as Dalton wasn´t particularly popular at the time as evidenced by LTK´s cold reception. He certainly was ahead of his time and is held in far higher esteem now, but not in 1987.

[hilly]

Diamonds Are Forever.

As others have said, great as OHMSS was/is, I don't think the series would have lasted more than another couple of films, if the producers had stuck with this style. Connery's return, the lighter tone and emphasis on humour provided a new direction and paved the way for Roger Moore

 

The Spy Who Loved Me- The extra year between films paid off. It unwittingly built up audience anticipation and reminded people just what they were missing. Also, on UK tv, Bond films started being shown in 1975, allowing some younger viewers (such as me) to discover Bond, so there was a newer audience ready for a Bond film. And the whole film exudes a confidence that had been missing for a while

 

Goldeneye- A lot of people thought that Bond was dead in the water. This film had a Bond that seemed to be genuinely enjoying himself, a new style and attitude, but, at the same time, the same Bond "gloss"

 

Casino Royale- Much as I hate the term "franchise re-boot", the decision to start again was a good one- and I love the fact that the producers kept Judi Dench, just to show that, yes,  they were starting again but on their own terms, and 2 fingers to anyone who doesn't like it! That level of uncompromising defiance hadn't been seen since Dr No and From Russia With Love.

[glidrose]

CR'67 - proof you didn't need Connery to market a Bond film

OHMSS

TMWTGG

AVTAK

LTK

DAD

 

[DamnCoffee]

1. Live and Let Die - From what I understand it, Lazenby wasn't really a hit, and after Connery's bollocks performance in Diamonds Are Forever, everyone felt Bond had run it's course. Live and Let Die marks the introduction of the longest serving Bond actor to date. Roger Moore did carry Bond all the way through the 70's and early 80's. 
2. The Spy Who Loved Me - A big year for Bond, and probably the most impressive Bond film since OHMSS in terms of extravagant locations and  brilliant sets. Also, that films marked the first Bond film where Albert R Broccoli produced it solo. Harry Saltzman parted with Broccoli and if Spy wasn't as successful as it ended up being, Bond probably wouldn't still be around. For the Broccoli's that film that pretty much make or break. 
3. GoldenEye - The 6 year gap really did take it's toll on Bond fans from what I understand. It must've been a pretty anxious time for everyone. The uncertainty. Would Bond be still relevant after the Cold War? Yes. Because Sean Bean is up to no good.
4. Casino Royale - Bond was finally brought back down to earth. Craigs performance proved so many doubters wrong and the film itself, despite it's flaws, should be commended for returning to the roots of Bond, making it more in tone with Flemings incarnation, and kicking Bond off for a brand new era of action films.
5. Skyfall - Now, I wouldn't say this 'saved' the franchise as such, but the first Billion Bond is MASSIVE. Nominated for 5 Oscars. Best British Film at the BAFTAS. The 50th Anniversary was so special, and it reminded everyone to pay more attention to Bond in future, because Skyfall is a classic. The first true Bond classic in years. The Goldfinger of a new generation. 

[DaveBond21]

 

3. GoldenEye - The 6 year gap really did take it's toll on Bond fans from what I understand. It must've been a pretty anxious time for everyone. 

 

 

In 1993, I thought we'd seen the last Bond movie ever.

 

And I didn't give it much thought. But when they announced in 1994 that Pierce Brosnan was going to be the new 007, I was very excited that Bond was back!

[Guy Haines]

I have to admit that in the early nineties I too thought I'd probably seen my last Bond film with LTK. It was a very frustrating time to be a Bond fan.

 

Getting back to my suggestions, I'd argue that FYEO and TLD "saved" the series by grounding it. There was really no mileage to be made in following up MR with a kind of MR "the sequel" - of course in some ways MR revisited the themes of TSWLM, but with a villain obsessed with space rather than the sea. Had the film makers tried to make another TSWLM or MR what could they have done? Bond fighting space aliens? I doubt it would have worked.

 

TLD - in retrospect maybe Timothy Dalton wasn't as personally popular with audiences as other Bonds but his approach changed the series for the better, and his continued since then. I don't think Pierce Brosnan radically changed it when he took on the role - a lighter approach than Dalton's but still investing Bond with a depth of character. And Daniel Craig's take on Bond speaks for itself.

[SecretAgentFan]

DAF - Connery's return. Much as it grieves me, because OHMSS is a favourite of mine (The first one I saw) but audiences were not quite ready for a Bond other than Connery in 1969. Roger Moore, on the other hand, had been in the frame for Bond for years, and so my next choice would be;

 

LALD - which proved a new Bond, but played by a well known actor, different in approach to the role, could take the series forward

 

TSWLM - proved the breakup of the Saltzman/Broccoli partnership didn't mean the end of the series

 

FYEO - a good rather than great Bond film which brought 007 back down to Earth (Literally, after MR!)

 

TLD - I think this film started the trend which culminated in the type of Bond film we now have.

 

GE - After six years away from audiences, if this film hadn't succeeded it could have been curtains for Bond on screen

 

CR - Reinvented James Bond for the 21st century.

 

I agree with every choice but FYEO.  MOONRAKER was insanely successful.  People ADORED it at that time.  The franchise was not in need of saving at that time.

[Jim]

Agreed - For Your Eyes Only just opened the door to the corridor of uncertainty that was the 1980s when they had little or no vision about what they wanted to do with it, other than to do it quite cheaply. I'd suggest it was one of the more "damaging" films, if there is such a thing.

[New Digs]

3. GoldenEye - The 6 year gap really did take it's toll on Bond fans from what I understand. It must've been a pretty anxious time for everyone.

In 1993, I thought we'd seen the last Bond movie ever.

And I didn't give it much thought. But when they announced in 1994 that Pierce Brosnan was going to be the new 007, I was very excited that Bond was back!

We knew nothing, saw nothing. Bond really vanished as I remember it. Then came the news Broccoli was selling up. The only hope that Bond would return was from the Bond fan club in a short newsletter article entitled 'All parties consider James Bond's disappearance only temporary' in the early nineties. IIRC that came alongside the news Maibaum and Glen had departed the series.

[AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän]

TSWLM and GE are only ones which really brought the franchise back to the forefront.