Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen

Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog

[Suche] [Administrator] [Hinweise zum Reader] [Startseite]

Miscellaneous / Verschiedenes » alt.fan.james-bond » Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen

Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227775]

So, 26 Februar 2006 01:43

Although the Connery Bonds had the best, or at least certainly the
better, of the Bond books to work with, there are three that I would've
like to have seen Connery do in the original run of the film series:
Casino Royale [what would've been the natural kickoff to the series],
Moonraker and OHMSS. Consequently, I'd've like to have seen Diamonds
Are Forever and You Only Live Twice dropped. There's some uncertainty
as to whether I'd go with Dr. No or Goldfinger to round out Connery's
new six. Dr. No is the better read as a book but Goldfinger turned out
to be the better movie. Forty-five years ago, simply on the basis of
what the books had to offer [and this is what it's really about and not
what the movies ended up being like], would I have picked DN or GF if I
were a producer of the film series? As tempted as I am to say GF
[which would be going more by the movie than the book], my more
practical-minded guess is probably DN, but I give myself the right to
change my mind should I ever reread both books to refresh my
perspective on them. So, in this perfect parallel universe, I would've
liked to have seen Connery's new six go, in chronological order, as:

Casino Royale
Moonraker
>From Russia with Love
Dr. No [or Goldfinger in another perfect parallel universe]
Thunderball
On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

This way, the first series would've also been perfectly bookended
between the girl Bond wanted to marry in the first film [CR], Vesper,
and the one he ultimately marries in what could've been Connery's last
film [OHMSS], Tracy, both of whom Bond loses to death. This would've
made the tragic aspect of Bond's tenuous hold on any true love in his
life perhaps that much more pronounced and poignant, and perhaps
further enhanced by it happening to the same actor playing 007 in those
six films. Ending Connery's run as Bond in the way OHMSS actually did
end would've been a classic finale to the first film series, and
probably also would've allowed for a better introduction of the second
Bond in the series, since the first series could've been viewed as
ending one phase or era of Bond's life, from which he emerges into a
new one - with a new face and all.

It just feels a bit out of whack in this imperfect inconsistent
universe when OHMSS has preceded CR and the same thing happens to two
different actors playing Bond. Kind of dilutes it all, I'd say.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227779 ]

So, 26 Februar 2006 03:00

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> It just feels a bit out of whack in this imperfect inconsistent
> universe when OHMSS has preceded CR and the same thing happens to two
> different actors playing Bond. Kind of dilutes it all, I'd say.

Some interesting and well-argued alternate history in the rest of the
post. However, in answer to this point alone, I would say that
Vesper's suicide is a very different loss from Tracy's murder, and
Bond's responses are markedly different. I wouldn't call the two
incidents 'the same thing' at all.

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227781 ]

So, 26 Februar 2006 03:22

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > It just feels a bit out of whack in this imperfect inconsistent
> > universe when OHMSS has preceded CR and the same thing happens to two
> > different actors playing Bond. Kind of dilutes it all, I'd say.
>
> Some interesting and well-argued alternate history in the rest of the
> post. However, in answer to this point alone, I would say that
> Vesper's suicide is a very different loss from Tracy's murder, and
> Bond's responses are markedly different. I wouldn't call the two
> incidents 'the same thing' at all.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

--- I'm not saying that the incidents are the same thing, as one can be
seen as shaping the man and the other as killing, perhaps once and for
all, the potential man [i.e. married] Bond could've become. I'm saying
that the events themselves are the same [the fact of wanting to marry
one and marrying the other but both ending up dead] that are played out
in this universe inconsistently [with two Bonds] and out of chronology,
whereas in the perfect parallel universe they could've been played out
consistently [with the same Bond] and chronologically with more effect,
certainly in terms of a beginning and ending for Connery as Bond and
Bond as one who begins the way he does and ends one phase of his life
the way he does. Call it killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227793 ]

So, 26 Februar 2006 14:43

jeffwahlman

No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227794 ]

So, 26 Februar 2006 15:22

jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
> No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
> connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
> came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.

--- Solid point. It looks like even I missed that connection.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227803 ]

So, 26 Februar 2006 22:55

ahindma612

SPOILER

Let's not get either our hopes up or get ahead of ourselves. I've seen
no mention anywhere that the finale of the book version of Casino
Royale will be the same as the film version. "The bitch is dead" line
is there but it could be buried in the film somewhere.

It took b*lls (besants?) by the makers of OHMSS to keep the ending the
same as the book. I'm not convinced that the Hollywood money machine is
prepared to take a chance on a Bond with a non-traditional film ending
yet. Nor am I convinced that Broccoli and Wilson have the power to give
us the ending as Fleming intended.

I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't think that even if OHMSS
were made today that we'd get the ending of the 1969 version.

The studios want "safe". Sadly this has little to do with what the
audience wants. A bad reaction from a test audience (who probably
aren't familiar with the books or why they were so successful) could
spell the end for our last chance at a Fleming style Bond.

WQ wrote:
> jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
> > connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
> > came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.
>
> --- Solid point. It looks like even I missed that connection.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227804 ]

So, 26 Februar 2006 23:19

ahindma612 [at] aol.com wrote:
> SPOILER
>
> Let's not get either our hopes up or get ahead of ourselves. I've seen
> no mention anywhere that the finale of the book version of Casino
> Royale will be the same as the film version. "The bitch is dead" line
> is there but it could be buried in the film somewhere.

--- This could be true. The line may be in there, but will it be
within the same context? I think they'd be foolish not to keep it
within the same context.

> It took b*lls (besants?) by the makers of OHMSS to keep the ending the
> same as the book. I'm not convinced that the Hollywood money machine is
> prepared to take a chance on a Bond with a non-traditional film ending
> yet. Nor am I convinced that Broccoli and Wilson have the power to give
> us the ending as Fleming intended.

--- I've had my doubts about Barb & Mike ever since they officially
took over a decade ago. I haven't been at all impressed with a lot of
the decisions made during Brosnan's tenure. So it's reasonable to
question their besants? (b*lls) when it comes to being true to the
ending of CR.

> I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't think that even if OHMSS
> were made today that we'd get the ending of the 1969 version.

--- I think we might've, but it probably would've been diluted by a
tag-on scene afterwards with Bond in bed yet again with another babe
drowning his sorrows - the equivalent of a happy ending for this
decade. Or maybe a final chase sequence after Blofeld and losing track
of him, setting everything up for the next film.

> The studios want "safe". Sadly this has little to do with what the
> audience wants. A bad reaction from a test audience (who probably
> aren't familiar with the books or why they were so successful) could
> spell the end for our last chance at a Fleming style Bond.

--- One could only keep one's fingers crossed at the film overcoming
the hurdle of all the odds against it.

> WQ wrote:
> > jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > > No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
> > > connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
> > > came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.
> >
> > --- Solid point. It looks like even I missed that connection.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227806 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 00:59

ahk

At 1:55pm -0800, 02/26/06, ahindma612 [at] aol.com wrote:

>I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't think that even if OHMSS
>were made today that we'd get the ending of the 1969 version.

You don't think a married Bond would have required a slight change of
formula that Hollywood wouldn't have gone for?

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227809 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 01:07

phil.gerrard1

ahindma612 [at] aol.com wrote:

> Let's not get either our hopes up or get ahead of ourselves. I've seen
> no mention anywhere that the finale of the book version of Casino
> Royale will be the same as the film version. "The bitch is dead" line
> is there but it could be buried in the film somewhere.

The two most important points are there, no doubt about it in my mind.
The script previews have all but spelled it out, and anybody who knows
the Fleming original would recognise the implications instantly. Stax
and the Latino Review are just trying to play things coyly for people
who've not read the book. References to Vesper's 'eventual fate' and
'Bond's infamous last line' can't be read in any other way IMHO, and if
those things had been altered there would have been some mention of
them in the script reviews.

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227810 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 01:35

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- I've had my doubts about Barb & Mike ever since they officially
> took over a decade ago. I haven't been at all impressed with a lot of
> the decisions made during Brosnan's tenure. So it's reasonable to
> question their besants? (b*lls) when it comes to being true to the
> ending of CR.

I'm skipping the 'IMHO's here, because I'd have to add one to every
sentence which follows:

WQ, did you never have your doubts about Cubby when he oversaw the
making of YOLT, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, or presided over the
single worst decade, film-for-film, in EON's forty-odd year history?
Isn't it also the case that there was some upturn when Michael Wilson
became more involved in the series? Judging by your previous posts,
you're prepared to cut FYEO and the Dalton films some slack. If Barb
and Mike are the villains here, and Cubby the saint, then that makes
the combo of GE, TND, TWINE, and DAD worse than LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM,
MR, FYEO, OP, and AVTAK. Are you really arguing that the current
regime is making significantly worse Bond movies than were made in the
'70s and much of of the '80s? I simply don't see that myself.

Again, WQ, I just want to ask what keeps you watching, what keeps you
interested, if you're so negative about all but two or three of the
Bond films which have been released since 1969. If I saw three Bond
films in a row which I hated, or lived through a decade of what I hope
to be seven-or-eight decade tlife without seeing a Bond film I enjoyed,
I'd give up and focus my interests elsewhere.

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227811 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 01:40

phil.gerrard1

Jeff wrote:

> No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
> connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
> came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.

A very good and true point, but since this order of events doesn't
invalidate OHMSS as a fine Bond movie, why should anybody assume in
advance that it will do the same for CR?

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227824 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 06:21

Draugnar

What you say may be true, but in "series" movies, they occasionally have a
downer ending. Revenge of the Sith has the hero turn into the villain
(although we already knew that going into it and knew he'd be redeemed
later) and the first LOTR movie had the fellowship broken, two of the group
kidnapped by orcs, and two others "dead" (although one would be "reborn").
The thing is, a literary translation of a well loved novel or a chapter in a
much greater story (and Fleming's 007 novels, while not Tolkien, are beloved
novels and the series sounds like it might be heading in a "chapter"
direction) can have a downer ending even today.

Draugnar

<ahindma612 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140990905.433200.300870 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> SPOILER
>
> Let's not get either our hopes up or get ahead of ourselves. I've seen
> no mention anywhere that the finale of the book version of Casino
> Royale will be the same as the film version. "The bitch is dead" line
> is there but it could be buried in the film somewhere.
>
> It took b*lls (besants?) by the makers of OHMSS to keep the ending the
> same as the book. I'm not convinced that the Hollywood money machine is
> prepared to take a chance on a Bond with a non-traditional film ending
> yet. Nor am I convinced that Broccoli and Wilson have the power to give
> us the ending as Fleming intended.
>
> I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't think that even if OHMSS
> were made today that we'd get the ending of the 1969 version.
>
> The studios want "safe". Sadly this has little to do with what the
> audience wants. A bad reaction from a test audience (who probably
> aren't familiar with the books or why they were so successful) could
> spell the end for our last chance at a Fleming style Bond.
>
>
> WQ wrote:
>> jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
>> > No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
>> > connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
>> > came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.
>>
>> --- Solid point. It looks like even I missed that connection.
>

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227832 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 09:34

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- I've had my doubts about Barb & Mike ever since they officially
> > took over a decade ago. I haven't been at all impressed with a lot of
> > the decisions made during Brosnan's tenure. So it's reasonable to
> > question their besants? (b*lls) when it comes to being true to the
> > ending of CR.
>
> I'm skipping the 'IMHO's here, because I'd have to add one to every
> sentence which follows:

--- In my case, you can skip all the IMHOs because it's only obvious
that that's what it always is for you. Never understood why people
even use it to begin with.

> WQ, did you never have your doubts about Cubby when he oversaw the
> making of YOLT, LALD, TMWTGG, MR, OP, AVTAK, or presided over the
> single worst decade, film-for-film, in EON's forty-odd year history?
> Isn't it also the case that there was some upturn when Michael Wilson
> became more involved in the series? Judging by your previous posts,
> you're prepared to cut FYEO and the Dalton films some slack. If Barb
> and Mike are the villains here, and Cubby the saint, then that makes
> the combo of GE, TND, TWINE, and DAD worse than LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM,
> MR, FYEO, OP, and AVTAK. Are you really arguing that the current
> regime is making significantly worse Bond movies than were made in the
> '70s and much of of the '80s? I simply don't see that myself.
>

--- Sure, I had my doubts about YOLT and definitely with DAF, but I was
able to forgive Broc & Saltz for those two because their track record
till then was such that they delivered the goods in a way that worked
for the series at that time. YOLT wasn't as bad as DAF, so I've always
considered that one as a minor slip-up which was made up for by OHMSS,
and YOLT also still ranks above any non-Connery Bond, so in that sense
it's still not that bad of a movie. But DAF really began to make me
wonder what the point of it was for them to shoot it the way they did.
It was the first Bond film that I couldn't quite relate to and
something went on with that one that made the series veer off course
and, for the most part, stay off course. I'd have to write an essay,
or maybe even thesis, to guess as to what it could've been, which I'm
not about to do, but my sense is that it was basically a confluence of
events: the producers having used most of the best material by 1971,
the box office stumbling of the series beginning with YOLT, the Bond
swan song for Connery [2 of them, with one-timer Lazenby sandwiched in
between], and the shift in decades, from the 60s to the 70s, which
resulted in a shift in mindset. Socially, politically, in the arts and
otherwise, the 70s took on a drabbier as well as grittier air.
However, contrary to the state of the 70s, the Bond films went the
comedic route as opposed to dark. Why? Who knows. They were pretty
well in tune with the state of the 60s, playing up the Cold War while
at the same time injecting a certain irreverance to it all. But they
started losing me with the 70s as they didn't quite seem to fit with
anything in that time that one could relate the Bonds to, or at least
anything interesting enough that was really worthy of a Bond movie.
Was this a case of poor decision-making or a sign of the times that had
already made Bond an anachronism a decade after he began? Hard to say.
I guess having lived through the 60s and 70s as a kid and beyond is
what makes me see both how Bond has worked and hasn't in ways that
those who hadn't grown up on him through those decades can't see
it. It's all in relation to and within the context of the times and
how the movies played off and reflected those times. It really was
never better captured than in the 60s.

As for whether the 70s/80s lot was better or not than the 90s/00s lot,
well, my own Bond Enjoyment Index thread proved that it was. Not by
much, but it still was. How do I arrive at that? The stories,
particularly between TSWLM and OP, were generally better constructed,
and that's where the 70s/80s group has the edge over the Brosnan era
films. Bottom line: it comes down to choice of writers. Broc & Saltz
were blessed to have Richard Maibaum most of the time, but Barb & Mike
can't seem to get it in their heads that Purvis & Wade stink as Bond
scribes, but they just keep hiring them. Is there some kind of
dyslexia involved here or what? I've ranted on before about what I
think of P&W and their convoluted scriptwriting style and don't feel
like getting into it again, but the fact that B&M keep giving them work
really is indicative of a regime that is making significantly worse
Bonds now than in the 70s/80s. Besides, the original vision is no
longer there in the form of Cubby. It's like when a TV series switches
producers in mid-stream. All of a sudden, maybe even without realizing
that a switch had been made, you feel like the show isn't quite the
same anymore. Same thing with Bond now. You can never replace the
original vision of anything. There could be rare instances when it
could be improved upon by someone perceptive and skilled enough to do
it, but usually the opposite is the case. As it is with B&M.

> Again, WQ, I just want to ask what keeps you watching, what keeps you
> interested, if you're so negative about all but two or three of the
> Bond films which have been released since 1969. If I saw three Bond
> films in a row which I hated, or lived through a decade of what I hope
> to be seven-or-eight decade tlife without seeing a Bond film I enjoyed,
> I'd give up and focus my interests elsewhere.

--- I keep hoping to be surprised in seeing a good one. To understand
what keeps me watching them, you'd have to understand the hold the
early films had on people in relation to what was going on at the time
culturally and otherwise. And when you're introduced to a new
phenomenon and they put out 4 solid films in a row, slip up on the 5th,
but snap back on the 6th, all within the same heady 60s decade, then
that's almost like becoming hooked on some kind of drugs. You want to
keep doing it in the hope that you hit that same kind of high again as
you did at the start. It doesn't work any other way if you weren't
there [the 60s] to begin with, and that's probably why you don't get
why I just keep watching them.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227838 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 13:06

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> YOLT wasn't as bad as DAF, so I've always
> considered that one as a minor slip-up which was made up for by OHMSS,
> and YOLT also still ranks above any non-Connery Bond, so in that sense
> it's still not that bad of a movie.

It surprises me that you'd rank YOLT above all of the non-Connery
Bonds, but anyway...

> I guess having lived through the 60s and 70s as a kid and beyond is
> what makes me see both how Bond has worked and hasn't in ways that
> those who hadn't grown up on him through those decades can't see
> it. It's all in relation to and within the context of the times and
> how the movies played off and reflected those times. It really was
> never better captured than in the 60s.

That's something you've brought up before, and there's part if it I
find a little difficult to swallow. Does the fact that none of us
lived in Elizabethan England make it impossible for us to offer valid
arguments about the relative merits of Shakespeare's plays? Also,
isn't there a counter-argument that precisely because I *wasn't*
caught up in the Bondmania of the '60s I might be better placed to
judge the films on their own merits, rather than having my opinions
clouded by sentimentality or nostalgia?

(However, please see below for further comments about this issue.)

> Bottom line: it comes down to choice of writers. Broc & Saltz
> were blessed to have Richard Maibaum most of the time, but Barb & Mike
> can't seem to get it in their heads that Purvis & Wade stink as Bond
> scribes, but they just keep hiring them. Is there some kind of
> dyslexia involved here or what?

You don't suppose that the runaway box-office success of Purvis and
Wade's two Bond movies to date might have something to do with it?
I'm not saying this says *anything* about the quality of those films,
but strictly from a business point of view, doesn't that seem a more
likely reason for rehiring the same writing team than 'some kind of
dyslexia'?

> Besides, the original vision is no
> longer there in the form of Cubby. It's like when a TV series switches
> producers in mid-stream. All of a sudden, maybe even without realizing
> that a switch had been made, you feel like the show isn't quite the
> same anymore. Same thing with Bond now. You can never replace the
> original vision of anything. There could be rare instances when it
> could be improved upon by someone perceptive and skilled enough to do
> it, but usually the opposite is the case. As it is with B&M.

Short of Broccoli and Wilson resigning and handing over the reins to
somebody who will better serve your preferences, or Cubby returning
from the grave to resume control of EON, there's not much hope that
things will ever work out to your satisfaction.

Less flippantly and argumentatively, thanks at least for the
explanation, which I think has clarified where the problem lies. In
one sense, you're right in saying 'you had to be there'. It
doesn't matter how much I may know about the history of the films,
the cultural context in which they were made, etc etc. That gives me
an intellectual understanding of your position, but you're right in
saying there's no way I'll ever be able to see things from your
perspective. Yet again, it seems to me that we've reached stalemate
(i.e. if I carry on making the same points over and over it's soon
going to get pretty stale, mate).

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227849 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 14:52

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > YOLT wasn't as bad as DAF, so I've always
> > considered that one as a minor slip-up which was made up for by OHMSS,
> > and YOLT also still ranks above any non-Connery Bond, so in that sense
> > it's still not that bad of a movie.
>
> It surprises me that you'd rank YOLT above all of the non-Connery
> Bonds, but anyway...

--- As flawed as it is, it's not nearly as heavily flawed as others.
It does have its plusses which outweigh the plusses of other
non-Connery films, i.e. Connery, John Barry's poignant
orientally-tinged score, and a real panormaic feeling that it was
actually shot in Japan, unlike something like TND, the settings of
which felt very 16 mm in scope and not really lavished upon much. YOLT
also still played like a travelogue, as all the 60s Bonds did, in a way
that later Bonds didn't seem to do as well, which added to the exotic
nature of the early series. Perhaps this may've been due to the
"discovery" of transcontinental flight in the 50s and 60s as a form of
leisure for the masses and the exploration of the unknown world through
globetrotting was reflected in those films then. Like I said, the film
wasn't a bad one, it just could've been done better without its flaws,
with a miscast Donald Pleasance as Blofeld being the most glaring one.

> > I guess having lived through the 60s and 70s as a kid and beyond is
> > what makes me see both how Bond has worked and hasn't in ways that
> > those who hadn't grown up on him through those decades can't see
> > it. It's all in relation to and within the context of the times and
> > how the movies played off and reflected those times. It really was
> > never better captured than in the 60s.
>
> That's something you've brought up before, and there's part if it I
> find a little difficult to swallow. Does the fact that none of us
> lived in Elizabethan England make it impossible for us to offer valid
> arguments about the relative merits of Shakespeare's plays? Also,
> isn't there a counter-argument that precisely because I *wasn't*
> caught up in the Bondmania of the '60s I might be better placed to
> judge the films on their own merits, rather than having my opinions
> clouded by sentimentality or nostalgia?

--- With every history, there are two perspectives: from the people who
have actually lived in the time and from the people who look back on it
or on what came from it but can never fully grasp its understanding of
the actual "temper" of the times. You may know what happened in the
60s, but it's only a smattering of knowledge compared to someone who's
lived through it. What you miss out on is the "aroma" or "flavour," so
to speak, of the decade that helps color it in ways that go beyond mere
knowledge of it. Just as if your growing up through the 80s and
knowing all that envelopped you at that time and how they affected you
will never be fully grasped by later generations who can only estimate
what that real effect could've been.

> (However, please see below for further comments about this issue.)
>
> > Bottom line: it comes down to choice of writers. Broc & Saltz
> > were blessed to have Richard Maibaum most of the time, but Barb & Mike
> > can't seem to get it in their heads that Purvis & Wade stink as Bond
> > scribes, but they just keep hiring them. Is there some kind of
> > dyslexia involved here or what?
>
> You don't suppose that the runaway box-office success of Purvis and
> Wade's two Bond movies to date might have something to do with it?
> I'm not saying this says *anything* about the quality of those films,
> but strictly from a business point of view, doesn't that seem a more
> likely reason for rehiring the same writing team than 'some kind of
> dyslexia'?

--- Sure, it could be strictly a business decision, but if the film
turned out as bad as TND was - story-wise - then it becomes a case of
some kind of dyslexia when EON decides to keep them on to write to more
badly scripted films. But I guess if they're still raking in the
bucks, it doesn't really matter to them how ineptly structured the
plots are, which is symptomatic of the Junk Age we're currently living
in.

> > Besides, the original vision is no
> > longer there in the form of Cubby. It's like when a TV series switches
> > producers in mid-stream. All of a sudden, maybe even without realizing
> > that a switch had been made, you feel like the show isn't quite the
> > same anymore. Same thing with Bond now. You can never replace the
> > original vision of anything. There could be rare instances when it
> > could be improved upon by someone perceptive and skilled enough to do
> > it, but usually the opposite is the case. As it is with B&M.
>
> Short of Broccoli and Wilson resigning and handing over the reins to
> somebody who will better serve your preferences, or Cubby returning
> from the grave to resume control of EON, there's not much hope that
> things will ever work out to your satisfaction.

--- Sigh. But I keep hoping and that's why I'll keep seeing them and,
unfortunately, keep criticizing them. I wish I could stop doing any or
all three of those.

> Less flippantly and argumentatively, thanks at least for the
> explanation, which I think has clarified where the problem lies. In
> one sense, you're right in saying 'you had to be there'. It
> doesn't matter how much I may know about the history of the films,
> the cultural context in which they were made, etc etc. That gives me
> an intellectual understanding of your position, but you're right in
> saying there's no way I'll ever be able to see things from your
> perspective. Yet again, it seems to me that we've reached stalemate
> (i.e. if I carry on making the same points over and over it's soon
> going to get pretty stale, mate).

--- There's some truth, I'd say, in being able to view things from an
objective level when you haven't been there, when you haven't been
"tainted" by the times. In that way, the timelessness of a work can be
measured, which in itself carries its own validity. But yeah, that's
the vantage point of my Bond view of things.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227851 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 14:59

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- Sure, it could be strictly a business decision, but if the film
> turned out as bad as TND was - story-wise - then it becomes a case of
> some kind of dyslexia when EON decides to keep them on to write to more
> badly scripted films.

Quick point, because I think you might have used the same example
before: TND's screenplay is credited to Bruce Feirstein. Purvis and
Wade didn't come on board until TWINE.

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227856 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 15:58

Eric Grayson

Oh, come on about a non-traditional ending. Didn't you guys ever see
Bonanza? And it was on every week while OHMSS was playing.

Bonanza always had a girl falling for one of the boys on the Cartwright
ranch, and she was "special" and "the one." She inevitably died at the
end of the show in order to keep the show in a kind of stasis.

This is much the same thing that Fleming did with OHMSS. It's very
well done, pretty creative, but it's a Bonanza ending. Garry Shandling
spoofed this kind of literary device in one of his shows... he had a
girlfriend for the first time in the series and rocks kept missing her,
assassins were shooting at her, etc.

In the end, we all know that Bond can't stay married or he won't really
be Bond. This was Fleming's own lack of a kind of imagination to see
how Bond's character could have evolved without making him "goofy dad,"
the trap that all 50s-60s books, movies, and television shows fell
into. (This is why Bob Newhart refused to have any kid during the run
of his show... he didn't want to be "goofy dad.")

This "change" (marriage), has been done in literature, but it's done
rarely. A good example that rings to mind is Harry Harrison's The
Stainless Steel Rat series, in which the action hero marries his
nemesis (Angelina). They actually progress and have kids, and he
remains a criminal action hero. It's delicately tuned writing, but it
works.

Fleming took the easy way out. It makes Bond a permanently shallower
character without extra clever writing, which we've had some evidence
of in the film series.

Eric

In article <1140990905.433200.300870 [at] v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
<ahindma612 [at] aol.com> wrote:

> SPOILER
>
> Let's not get either our hopes up or get ahead of ourselves. I've seen
> no mention anywhere that the finale of the book version of Casino
> Royale will be the same as the film version. "The bitch is dead" line
> is there but it could be buried in the film somewhere.
>
> It took b*lls (besants?) by the makers of OHMSS to keep the ending the
> same as the book. I'm not convinced that the Hollywood money machine is
> prepared to take a chance on a Bond with a non-traditional film ending
> yet. Nor am I convinced that Broccoli and Wilson have the power to give
> us the ending as Fleming intended.
>
> I hope I'm wrong, I really do, but I don't think that even if OHMSS
> were made today that we'd get the ending of the 1969 version.
>
> The studios want "safe". Sadly this has little to do with what the
> audience wants. A bad reaction from a test audience (who probably
> aren't familiar with the books or why they were so successful) could
> spell the end for our last chance at a Fleming style Bond.
>
>
> WQ wrote:
> > jeffwahlman [at] gmail.com wrote:
> > > No, but Bond does stop Tracy's suicide attempt so there definitely is a
> > > connection between the two stories that was lost on most when OHMSS
> > > came out and will be lost on most when CR comes out.
> >
> > --- Solid point. It looks like even I missed that connection.
>

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227859 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 16:20

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Sure, it could be strictly a business decision, but if the film
> > turned out as bad as TND was - story-wise - then it becomes a case of
> > some kind of dyslexia when EON decides to keep them on to write to more
> > badly scripted films.
>
> Quick point, because I think you might have used the same example
> before: TND's screenplay is credited to Bruce Feirstein. Purvis and
> Wade didn't come on board until TWINE.
>

--- Yes, but how much of P&W went into it? Based on TWINE and DAD, my
guess is a lot since all three rank low on the quality scale for me.
Why EON didn't use the France/Caine/Fierstein troika for follow-ups to
GoldenEye is beyond me - again, suggesting that a sort of dyslexia
exists with the current EON team. Let's just hope that Haggis
effectively overwrites whatever inherent flaws P&W have built into the
script for CR. More than anything else, the creative, if not the
financial, success will hinge on him being able to iron out a credible
work of Bond, from which Craig could only greatly benefit. And should
CR flop in terms of a weak, flawed or incomprehensile script, then
it'll be just proof positive that EON is suffering from dyslexia. Both
scripting and casting dyslexia.

> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227865 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:16

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- Yes, but how much of P&W went into it? Based on TWINE and DAD, my
> guess is a lot since all three rank low on the quality scale for me.

According to a Purvis and Wade interview conducted by HMSS a few years
back, Barbara Broccoli first got in touch with them just before TND was
released, so they clearly didn't have any input on that script at all.

> Why EON didn't use the France/Caine/Fierstein troika for follow-ups to
> GoldenEye is beyond me - again, suggesting that a sort of dyslexia
> exists with the current EON team.

GE's script has its problems too. The pacing's rather stop-start, and
it's riddled with redundancies ('sexist, misognist dinosaur') and
Americanisms ('last call', 'frequent flyer mileage') which I presume
Brosnan, for one, had been to long in Hollywood to notice.

As for the idea of the GE troika coming back to pen TND: Jeffrey Caine
was tied up with his TV series 'Bodyguards' so was probably
unavailable. I don't know whether France was also otherwise engaged at
the time, but in any case his other screenplays, for 'Cliffhanger',
'Hulk', 'The Punisher', and 'Fantastic Four', don't exactly fill me
with confidence that he would have proved to be the saviour of the Bond
films had he stayed on board.

As for Feirstein, there's an early draft of TND, solely credited (as
the film was) to him, available online:

http://home.online.no/~bhundlan/scripts/Tomorrow-Never-Dies. htm

Apart from the fact that it would seem to confirm that the Americanisms
in GE are his - no Brit would ever use the phrase 'tied one on' - it's
damn poor stuff throughout, and it's no wonder the film was extensively
rewritten.

While Purvis and Wade wrote the story for TWINE, the screenplay credit
goes to Purvis, Wade, and Feirstein. You can assign blame for the bits
of that film you don't like to Purvis and Wade, but there's no way of
proving it until and unless clearly delineated drafts surface.

All of which leaves DAD as the only example of Purvis and Wade being
credited with working alone on a Bond screenplay - but if you watch the
'script to screen' documentary on the DAD DVD it's perfectly clear that
such a credit is misleading, because the scriptwriting on a Bond film
is essentially done by committee. (Listen to the DVD commentary for MR
to hear Christopher Wood's mock-outraged comments about the numerous
changes made to his script - a script for which he received sole
credit. Note also that Wood's novelisation of TSWLM is a damn good
Flemingesque read, suggesting that the light, comedic tone of the film
was not entirely his doing.)

Unless you're in on the screenwriting process from the beginning, or
you're lucky enough to have access to early drafts like the one for TND
linked above, establishing authorship for a lot of what's in the Bond
films is a tricky and imprecise business. Of course, it's much simpler
and much more fun to say 'it's all Purvis and Wade's fault and moreover
it's all Broccoli and Wilson's fault for hiring them over and over
again'

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227866 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:19

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> While Purvis and Wade wrote the story for TWINE, the screenplay credit
> goes to Purvis, Wade, and Feirstein. You can assign blame for the
> bits of that film you don't like to Purvis and Wade, but there's no
> way of proving it until and unless clearly delineated drafts surface.

Bruce Feirstein and Dana Stevens did uncredited re-writes of Purvis
and Wade's THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

Feirstein is a terrible Bond writer.
--
--Mac

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227867 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:22

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> Bruce Feirstein and Dana Stevens did uncredited re-writes of Purvis
> and Wade's THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.
>
> Feirstein is a terrible Bond writer.

Agreed, but I thought he got a screenplay credit on TWINE?

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227868 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:29

Mac

Mac wrote:

> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>
>> While Purvis and Wade wrote the story for TWINE, the screenplay
>> credit goes to Purvis, Wade, and Feirstein. You can assign blame
>> for the bits of that film you don't like to Purvis and Wade, but
>> there's no way of proving it until and unless clearly delineated
>> drafts surface.
>
> Bruce Feirstein and Dana Stevens did uncredited re-writes of Purvis
> and Wade's THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.

My apologies. Only Stevens was uncredited.
--
--Mac

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227869 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:32

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> Bruce Feirstein and Dana Stevens did uncredited re-writes of Purvis
>> and Wade's THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH.
>>
>> Feirstein is a terrible Bond writer.
>
> Agreed, but I thought he got a screenplay credit on TWINE?

He did. I think a Purvis and Wade draft of THE WORLD IS NOT
ENOUGH is on the 'net. Feirstein's TOMORROW NEVER DIES
script had to be re-written by Daniel Petrie Jr.

I think DIE ANOTHER DAY had eleventh-hour rewrites, but I
think that was Purvis and Wade (who are currently working
on ideas for Craig's second Bond film)
--
--Mac

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227870 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:40

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> My apologies. Only Stevens was uncredited.

No worries. I had to double-check myself to make sure.

I'm browsing through Feirstein's TND draft as I type. It's even worse
than I'd remembered, if such a thing is possible. Jeez.

Best

Phil

'...merely being a member of the lucky sperm club does not preclude one
from a life of criminal activity...'

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227871 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:47

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Mac wrote:
>
>> My apologies. Only Stevens was uncredited.
>
> No worries. I had to double-check myself to make sure.
>
> I'm browsing through Feirstein's TND draft as I type. It's even worse
> than I'd remembered, if such a thing is possible. Jeez.

He tried to get the "...big breasted women in hollowed-out volcanoes"
line in both of his scripts. When you've written TOMORROW NEVER DIES,
it's not a good idea to rip the piss out of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE,
especially with sub-Kevin Williamson fan-wank...
--
--Mac

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227873 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 17:54

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> He did. I think a Purvis and Wade draft of THE WORLD IS NOT
> ENOUGH is on the 'net. Feirstein's TOMORROW NEVER DIES
> script had to be re-written by Daniel Petrie Jr.

I'd forgotten that, and I'd also forgotten that my first thought when I
saw the names on the TND DVD was 'who the hell is this Petrie guy and
what's he doing on the audio commentary'? (I was somewhat out of the
loop at the time.)

I've had no luck in tracking down the Purvis/Wade first draft, but
what's reported to be the Dana Stevens draft of TWINE is here:

http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/worldisnotenough.txt

It's pretty close to the finished film. I presume such gems as 'I'm
sure they're perfectly rounded' and 'Molly Warmflash', nowhere to be
found here, are the results of a subsequent Feirstein rewrite.

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227874 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 18:03

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> I've had no luck in tracking down the Purvis/Wade first draft, but
> what's reported to be the Dana Stevens draft of TWINE is here:
>
> http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/worldisnotenough.txt
>
> It's pretty close to the finished film. I presume such gems as 'I'm
> sure they're perfectly rounded' and 'Molly Warmflash', nowhere to be
> found here, are the results of a subsequent Feirstein rewrite.

I believe the P&W draft contains a tram-car chase, but I cannot
be certain. The changes you mention are the work of Feirstein
(although the Kenneth Connor-ish way Pierce delivers the line
about the figures is worthy of derision all by itself), he took the
name "Warmflash" from a shop on the way to Pinewood!

I suppose we can thank the maker she wasn't christened
Molly Spud-U-Like....
--
--Mac

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227875 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 18:10

Mac

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227876 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 18:13

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> I believe the P&W draft contains a tram-car chase, but I cannot
> be certain.

I seem to recall that as well, and I read elsewhere that their draft
opens in Havana. Unfortunately, that's not helping to turn up a copy
on the web.

> The changes you mention are the work of Feirstein
> (although the Kenneth Connor-ish way Pierce delivers the line
> about the figures is worthy of derision all by itself),

Ha! That's right on the money. The pursed lips, the quick once-over,
the ever so slight double-take-and pause-for-effect - pure Connor. I
guess Brosnan just figured that the only thing to do with a line like
that was play it to the hilt.

> he took the
> name "Warmflash" from a shop on the way to Pinewood!
>
> I suppose we can thank the maker she wasn't christened
> Molly Spud-U-Like....

LOL!

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227881 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 19:04

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> WQ wrote:
>
> > --- Yes, but how much of P&W went into it? Based on TWINE and DAD, my
> > guess is a lot since all three rank low on the quality scale for me.
>
> According to a Purvis and Wade interview conducted by HMSS a few years
> back, Barbara Broccoli first got in touch with them just before TND was
> released, so they clearly didn't have any input on that script at all.

--- I thought they had. My goof, I guess.

> > Why EON didn't use the France/Caine/Fierstein troika for follow-ups to
> > GoldenEye is beyond me - again, suggesting that a sort of dyslexia
> > exists with the current EON team.
>
> GE's script has its problems too. The pacing's rather stop-start, and
> it's riddled with redundancies ('sexist, misognist dinosaur') and
> Americanisms ('last call', 'frequent flyer mileage') which I presume
> Brosnan, for one, had been to long in Hollywood to notice.

--- The pacing is more a problem of editing than the script, I think.
Some time ago I re-edited GE using something as simple as 2 vcrs
because I knew it could be a tighter film and even more Bondian than it
was. It's amazing what a subtraction of about 15 needless minutes does
for it. I hope Campbell doesn't end up using the same editor for CR.
But I agree that some of the dialogue seemed a little too American.

> As for the idea of the GE troika coming back to pen TND: Jeffrey Caine
> was tied up with his TV series 'Bodyguards' so was probably
> unavailable. I don't know whether France was also otherwise engaged at
> the time, but in any case his other screenplays, for 'Cliffhanger',
> 'Hulk', 'The Punisher', and 'Fantastic Four', don't exactly fill me
> with confidence that he would have proved to be the saviour of the Bond
> films had he stayed on board.
>
> As for Feirstein, there's an early draft of TND, solely credited (as
> the film was) to him, available online:
>
> http://home.online.no/~bhundlan/scripts/Tomorrow-Never-Dies. htm

--- Thanks for this one. I'll read it up.

> Apart from the fact that it would seem to confirm that the Americanisms
> in GE are his - no Brit would ever use the phrase 'tied one on' - it's
> damn poor stuff throughout, and it's no wonder the film was extensively
> rewritten.
>
> While Purvis and Wade wrote the story for TWINE, the screenplay credit
> goes to Purvis, Wade, and Feirstein. You can assign blame for the bits
> of that film you don't like to Purvis and Wade, but there's no way of
> proving it until and unless clearly delineated drafts surface.

> All of which leaves DAD as the only example of Purvis and Wade being
> credited with working alone on a Bond screenplay - but if you watch the
> 'script to screen' documentary on the DAD DVD it's perfectly clear that
> such a credit is misleading, because the scriptwriting on a Bond film
> is essentially done by committee. (Listen to the DVD commentary for MR
> to hear Christopher Wood's mock-outraged comments about the numerous
> changes made to his script - a script for which he received sole
> credit. Note also that Wood's novelisation of TSWLM is a damn good
> Flemingesque read, suggesting that the light, comedic tone of the film
> was not entirely his doing.)

> Unless you're in on the screenwriting process from the beginning, or
> you're lucky enough to have access to early drafts like the one for TND
> linked above, establishing authorship for a lot of what's in the Bond
> films is a tricky and imprecise business. Of course, it's much simpler
> and much more fun to say it's all Purvis and Wade's fault and moreover
> it's all Broccoli and Wilson's fault for hiring them over and over
> again.

--- All true, since film really is a collaborative effort and who knows
who contributed what. It's just easy to point the blame on a visible
name. Ultimately, though, it all has to go to EON - praise and
criticism.

>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227885 ]

Mo, 27 Februar 2006 19:44

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
> Mac wrote:
>
> > He did. I think a Purvis and Wade draft of THE WORLD IS NOT
> > ENOUGH is on the 'net. Feirstein's TOMORROW NEVER DIES
> > script had to be re-written by Daniel Petrie Jr.
>
> I'd forgotten that, and I'd also forgotten that my first thought when I
> saw the names on the TND DVD was 'who the hell is this Petrie guy and
> what's he doing on the audio commentary'? (I was somewhat out of the
> loop at the time.)
>
> I've had no luck in tracking down the Purvis/Wade first draft, but
> what's reported to be the Dana Stevens draft of TWINE is here:
>
> http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/worldisnotenough.txt

--- Neat. The more of these links, the better. I'm keen on tearing
these things apart as well as combing through them to see what might've
been unnecessarily edited out.

> It's pretty close to the finished film. I presume such gems as 'I'm
> sure they're perfectly rounded' and 'Molly Warmflash', nowhere to be
> found here, are the results of a subsequent Feirstein rewrite.
>
> Best
>
> Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227899 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 01:23

phil.gerrard1

WQ wrote:

> --- Neat. The more of these links, the better. I'm keen on tearing
> these things apart as well as combing through them to see what might've
> been unnecessarily edited out.

I suspect you'll dislike the TND draft as much as many of us (I'm
amazed that film which I find kind of fun, if admittedly dumb and
over-the-top, was salvaged from this). As for TWINE, since you don't
care for the movie, I doubt this will change your mind much, but bear
in mind that it's already a rewrite of Purvis and Wade's original, and
note that Feirstein's later 'polish' added some of the really crass
stuff which makes even me wince, even after taking into account my low
standards ;-)

Best

Phil

Comparing the two scripts, I notice that the dreadful 'beverage cup
holder' line which eventually found its way into TWINE was originally
in Feirstein's script for TND...

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227904 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 01:52

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> Comparing the two scripts, I notice that the dreadful 'beverage cup
> holder' line which eventually found its way into TWINE was originally
> in Feirstein's script for TND...

I just wish they'd let a Christopher Wood or a (former Bond star and
Academy Award winning screenwriter) Julian Fellows go over the
script to ensure the dialogue was authentic.

Back in the old days they used to do it with Maibaum all the time.
--
--Mac

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an
over-confident snowboarder throwing away a gold medal.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227906 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:04

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> I just wish they'd let a Christopher Wood or a (former Bond star and
> Academy Award winning screenwriter) Julian Fellows go over the
> script to ensure the dialogue was authentic.
>
> Back in the old days they used to do it with Maibaum all the time.

It won't mean much to non-UK readers, but the bit I love in Feirstein's
TND draft is that when the cabinet minister (department unspecified)
Johnstone appears, all the other characters adress him as 'Minister
Johnstone'. That's the kind of basic error a cursory visit to the
library, a 'phone call, or an internet search could have fixed. Very
sloppy stuff.

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227907 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:08

Mac

phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:

> It won't mean much to non-UK readers, but the bit I love in
> Feirstein's TND draft is that when the cabinet minister (department
> unspecified) Johnstone appears, all the other characters adress him
> as 'Minister Johnstone'. That's the kind of basic error a cursory
> visit to the library, a 'phone call, or an internet search could have
> fixed. Very sloppy stuff.

Maibaum's "Sir Havelock" sticks out like a sore thumb too.

Mind you, you can even bloody spell address, so you've no
reason to talk!

And don't give the standard Brit "I'm pissed*" response!

:)
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas wonders what happened to Howie Mandel's hair."

* Drunk, Z.

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227908 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:10

Mac

Mac wrote:
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>
>> It won't mean much to non-UK readers, but the bit I love in
>> Feirstein's TND draft is that when the cabinet minister (department
>> unspecified) Johnstone appears, all the other characters adress him
>> as 'Minister Johnstone'. That's the kind of basic error a cursory
>> visit to the library, a 'phone call, or an internet search could have
>> fixed. Very sloppy stuff.
>
> Maibaum's "Sir Havelock" sticks out like a sore thumb too.
>
> Mind you, you can even bloody spell address, so you've no
> reason to talk!

Whoops.

Yeah, I might have had a small sherry.
--
--Mac

"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"

"Vargas think Mac is a bit of a can't..."

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227911 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 02:27

phil.gerrard1

Mac wrote:

> Mind you, you can even bloody spell address, so you've no
> reason to talk!
>
> And don't give the standard Brit "I'm pissed*" response!

Umm... it's late and I've been out with a few actor buddies who have
been bemoaning their lot.

Nope, that amounts to much the same answer, doesn't it?

Best

Phil

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227928 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 16:29

Tom Zielinski

"Mac" <see.mac [at] SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:46hm3vFb9291U1 [at] individual.net...
> phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com wrote:
>
>
>> It won't mean much to non-UK readers, but the bit I love in
>> Feirstein's TND draft is that when the cabinet minister (department
>> unspecified) Johnstone appears, all the other characters adress him
>> as 'Minister Johnstone'. That's the kind of basic error a cursory
>> visit to the library, a 'phone call, or an internet search could have
>> fixed. Very sloppy stuff.
>
> Maibaum's "Sir Havelock" sticks out like a sore thumb too.
>
> Mind you, you can even bloody spell address, so you've no
> reason to talk!
>
> And don't give the standard Brit "I'm pissed*" response!
>
> :)
> --
> --Mac
>
> "Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
> What do you do, Vargas?"
>
> "Vargas wonders what happened to Howie Mandel's hair."
>
> * Drunk, Z.

I know what "pissed" means. Used to live with a girl from northern
Wisconsin, and they used the term "pissed" interchangeably with hammered,
bashed, befuddled, boozed up, buzzed, canned, crocked, drunken, flushed,
flying, fuddled, gassed, glazed, groggy, high, hosed, in orbit, inebriated,
jolly, jugged, juiced, laced, liquored up, lit, lush, merry, muddled, oiled,
on a bun, pie-eyed, plastered, plowed, potted, seeing double, sloshed,
soaked, sotted, soused, stewed, stoned, tanked, tight, tipsy, totaled,
wasted, zonked.

I'm sure I've missed a couple. I like "on a bun" myself

Then there were the multitude of synonyms for breasts, which we won't go
into in this debate.

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that back when Mandel had hair, he did one of the most hilarious HBO comedy
specials he had ever seen..."

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227929 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 16:38

Tom Zielinski

"phil.gerrard [at] ntlworld.com" <phil.gerrard1 [at] ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1141048780.691511.259270 [at] e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> WQ wrote:
>
>> --- Sure, it could be strictly a business decision, but if the film
>> turned out as bad as TND was - story-wise - then it becomes a case of
>> some kind of dyslexia when EON decides to keep them on to write to more
>> badly scripted films.
>
> Quick point, because I think you might have used the same example
> before: TND's screenplay is credited to Bruce Feirstein. Purvis and
> Wade didn't come on board until TWINE.

Quite right.

http://www.hmss.com/films/dad/p&w/

Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that hiding in a farm in Kent after stealing $87 million hardly seems like a
good plan..."

Re: Connery Bonds I Would've Like to Have Seen [message #227930 ]

Di, 28 Februar 2006 16:40

phil.gerrard1

Tom wrote:

> I know what "pissed" means. Used to live with a girl from northern
> Wisconsin, and they used the term "pissed" interchangeably with hammered,
> bashed, befuddled, boozed up, buzzed, canned, crocked, drunken, flushed,
> flying, fuddled, gassed, glazed, groggy, high, hosed, in orbit, inebriated,
> jolly, jugged, juiced, laced, liquored up, lit, lush, merry, muddled, oiled,
> on a bun, pie-eyed, plastered, plowed, potted, seeing double, sloshed,
> soaked, sotted, soused, stewed, stoned, tanked, tight, tipsy, totaled,
> wasted, zonked.
>
> I'm sure I've missed a couple. I like "on a bun" myself

A few more here if you need 'em (scroll to the end):

http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/07_02/lexicon.h tm

Best

Phil

Seiten (2): [1 2 > »]

Vorheriges Thema:	Barb Shoots Down Tabloid Reports
Nächstes Thema:	Been pretty negative but now it`s turning

Gehe zu:

-=] Zurück zum Anfang [=-

aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 10:22:18 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07054 Sekunden

.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.