I had to answer “No”, in all honesty. Neither film is a favorite, but TB has it all over NSNA in terms of cinematography, music, underwater sequences and even – despite being almost 20 years older – special effects. Connery is younger and at the height of his powers in the '65 film. As kooky-fun as Fatima Blush can be, she’s nowhere near as alluring as Fiona Volpe, and frankly Claudine Auger is worth about 10 Kim Bassingers. In terms of scale and spectacle, TB makes NSNA look like a Flex Tape infomercial.
The only thing that gave me pause was Brandauer’s wonderful turn as Largo, but for all his charms, he comes off as a freelance psychotic rather than a threatening cog in the scary machine that is SPECTRE. Adolfo Celi may be less charismatic, but it’s compensated for by TB’s superior presentation of SPECTRE as a global super-threat. Which is to say, in NSNA the enemy is a creepy/fun individual, whereas in TB the enemy is a massive organization of which Largo is just one facet, and that tips it for me.
The advantage NSNA had in 1983 was that it was contemporary and faster-paced, plus the tremendous “water cooler buzz” surrounding Connery’s return. I find all of that carries less and less weight with every year that’s passed since.
Was tempted to go with Yes (in order not to appear too grumpy all the time towards NSNA) and mention “Your brother’s dead. Keep dancing.”, but then again, that’s just a quote and not really an “aspect”.
Someone mentioned the motorbike scenes above? Really? Could have been great, if one could tell if this is Sean Connery (or his stuntman) on the bike, or David Prowse wearing his Darth Vader helmet…
Sorry, NSNA, you almost had me there. Close, but no cigar.
I know Celi’s eyepatch is often cited as a weak attempt to add some exotic “toughness” to an otherwise bland character, but every time I think of Brandauer, I picture him with that sweater tied around his neck like he’s on his way to a tennis match or his Brit Lit class, and the eyepatch starts looking a lot better.
Plus, let’s face it, a showdown over Baccarat is more impressive than one over Galaga.
Without a doubt it’s the man who never jokes about his work–the inimitable Desmond Llewelyn. Added bonus points for being such a great ambassador for the James Bond series. Simply put, nobody does (or did) it better than Llewelyn.
They’re all good but not among my top favorites. My pick for the best of these goes to Thunderball, just edging past On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Gotta love Tom Jones.
Llewelyn is obviously the most iconic. But I don’t think I’d call him irreplaceable. Whishaw managed to make the role his own pretty effectively, to the point I was amazed how natural it all felt. Lee is M, but we’ve also had two solid replacements with Dench and Fiennes. It bodes well for the future knowing it can happen again.
The biggest missed opportunities in the Bond films. Some may just be rumours, some may have been closer than others to actually having happened, and one must not look at the series with regret given how massively successful it has been for its shareholders and product-placers. But which of the below, even if speculative and theoretical, seem like open goals missed?
You can pick up to 7, but obviously don’t have to.
I never shoot to miss
Connery OHMSS
OHMSS before YOLT
Filming all the books in the order of publication
More Lazenby
More Dalton
Brosnan from 1987
Brosnan in Casino Royale
Bond film in 2"007"
Keeping Saltzman involved, somehow
Recasting in 1981/1983
Consistent Blofeld actor 1967-1971
Dr No is a monkey
Bond goes shopping for socks
More time to develop Quantum of Solace
Something(s) else, which I will put in the thread below
Films being made for release every two years, especially in the Craig era.
Therefore: a tie to a studio which is not in constant financial turmoil, with EON enjoying a friendly and creative collaboration. Yes, I’m living in a world with unicorns.
“Dr. No is a monkey” would probably qualify as one of the weirdest ideas for a Bond film ever. (Although, these days, with Andy Serkis motion-capping that version of Dr. No, who knows?)
Of course, the shoes for the elephants that Saltzman ordered for DAF were a runner-up.
I voted for re-casting in 81/83, such my Lewis Collins crush. But I also believe in “more Dalton” so I am tempted to run off on my own and re-edit as “More Dalton from 81/83.” Would he have been too young? I don’t think so, though the potential for a reboot/reinvigoration might have been too much for EON to consider. That said, imagine a young Spielberg introducing a new Bond…
This list reminds me I’m generally okay with the way things have played out. It’s certainly fun to play “what if” with some of these scenarios, but on the whole things have worked out for the best.
I chose “OHMSS before YOLT” because that’s how it ought to have been, but realistically I have no idea how that would have worked. Would a 60s audience have been ready for a depressed and vengeance-fueled 007 in YOLT? Would Eon have had the nerve to jettison the gadgets and hijinks to do a faithful interpretation of Fleming? All doubtful.
Similarly, if Connery had been cast in OHMSS, I don’t think it would’ve been the film we know and love. Connery’s version of Bond was too established at that point, and that guy didn’t fall in love, propose marriage, cry, etc. As nutty as the “allergic to girls” disguise is for Laz, it would’ve been ludicrous with Connery. I’m convinced Eon would have continued with their “give the people what they want” formula and that film would’ve borne about as much resemblance to the source material as YOLT ended up doing.
I will confess, however, to being motivated by sentiment. I love FYEO and am quite fond of OP. Roger is my most beloved Bond, so it’s hard for me to vote for less of him. BUT…objectively, recasting in 1981 could’ve been a real game-changer. FYEO is pulling hard in the “back to basics” direction, tempered – some might say counteracted – by the presence of Roger. With a new guy in the role, introduced by that cemetery scene and then sent off in such a new direction, we might have got the template for a very different “80s Bond,” and been able to discuss with more clarity how each decade interpreted 007 differently.
Of course the “new Bond every decade” model could not have endured to the current era, since each actor deserves more than one film.
OHMSS - absolutely! I have never bought the notion that somehow it’s “better” with SC; not to be harsh on anyone who thinks so but DavidM rightly points out why OHMSS works so well. I can’t remember who (maybe Benson) referred to Laz as having a slightly “naive” face, but it’s that that makes the Bond of OHMSS work. The (overweight and bored) almost cynical Bond that SC had become would render OHMSS slightly ridiculous, and not just for the chickens.
FYEO - I love Sir Rog in the role. He brings a world-weariness that I completely buy, whether it’s “first dig two graves” or hamming up the Bibi stuff. Unlike OHMSS, I’m not saying that it wouldn’t work recasted, but I really enjoy Sir Rog throughout the film. It’s an interesting bookend to the TMWTGG Bond (poorly and lazily written - not executed I should be clear), that miles on the job have brought a maturity and world weariness to the character. Definitely a more believable, interesting and fleshed-out “older” Bond than the SC of NSNA.
