what if the entire James Bond series looked like this?

Y

yahoo

New member
In other worRAB, all the original novels and short stories
were filmed in the same order that they were originally published,
and therefore the films reflected the original plots,
and the world as it was in whatever time they were written?

'Cos then we could have had...

SEAN CONNERY:
"Casino Royale" (1962)
"Live And Let Die" (1963)
"Moonraker" (1964)
"DiamonRAB Are Forever" (1965)
"From Russia With Love" (1966)

GEORGE LAZENBY:
"Dr. No" (1968)
"Goldfinger" (1970)
"For Your Eyes Only" (1972)

ROGER MOORE:
"For Your Eyes Only" (1973)
"From A View To A Kill" (1974 - original title)
"Thunderball" (1977 - NOT remade as unofficial Bond movie!)
"The Spy Who Loved Me" (1979)
"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" (1981)

TIMOTHY DALTON:
"You Only Live Twice" (1983)
"The Man With The Golden Gun" (1985)
"Octopussy" (1987)
"The Living Daylights" (1989)
then rounded off with "License To Kill" (1991)

PIERCE BROSNAN:
same as it was (1995-2002)

DANIEL CRAIG:
"Colonel Sun" (2006 - written by Kingsley Amis under a pseudonym)
 
Interesting idea but should you include License to Kill and the Pierce Brosnan movies as they have nothing to do with Ian Fleming whereas Never Say Never Again, unofficial or not, does? :)
 
Technically, both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me should be listed near the end, they weren't anywhere near the novels.

Where you have put Moonraker, it should be Die Another Day, which was basically written years ago anyway.
 
Maybe, but I thought the structure of the franchise should be:

(1) 1962-89 - every Ian Fleming work, filmed in the order as originally published;

(2) 1991-2002 - not based on literary works at all;

(3) 2002-present - based on James Bond novels by distinguished writers
and that are therefore ideal film material.

Plus, one myth suggests that "Colonel Sun" was Dalton's planned 1991 film,
as opposed to "The Property Of A Lady" (a shorty story published with "Octopussy").
 
Lazenby should have acted in "DiamonRAB Are Forever",
instead of a bored and out-of-shape Sean Connery -
and deserves a third Bond movie since his take on 007
is now so highly regarded, many fans wish there was more of him!

What Connery and Roger Moore have in common, regarding Bond,
as that they both out-stayed their welcome in the role and ended on a weak note -
Connery should have ended on a high with "You Only Live Twice" (IMHO his best)
and Moore should have ended with "For Your Eyes Only",
although sadly the producers had a hold on him (despite his age),
and Timothy Dalton wasn't available at all, until 1987.
 
Dalton played Bond in 2 films, between 1987 and 1989 -
a third, scheduled for 1991, was delayed due to legal wranglings,
and by the time these were over, Dalton felt too much time had passed
and so moved on, thus paving the way for Pierce Brosnan.

Dalton should have made almost as many Bond films as Connery and Moore,
since his portrayal has been regarded by many critics
as being the closest to Ian Fleming's literary character -
under-rated in 1987-89, now re-appraised thanks to Daniel Craig.
 
well i could be wrong here but didn't Ian Fleming write some of the books based on the screenplays that had been done.. i.e sometimes he wrote the novel of the film

i could be wrong there
 
He used Kevin McClory and Jack Scwartzman's screenplay "Warhead" as the basis for his novel Thunderball, probably hoping McClory wouldn't notice. KM sued him and began a lengthy legal battle.
This is why anyone wishing to make a Bond movie, without Eon's blessing, is only allowed to make Thunderball/Warhead/Never Say Never Again. :)
 
Another reason why I started this thread is because several Bond movies from before 1989
(notably the highlights of Roger Moore's tenure as 007, which was terrific, but too long)
have almost nothing in common with their literary sources, except for Bond and their titles -
so to have "Casino Royale" filmed when mobile technology and the Internet didn't exist
and "Moonraker" (otherwise Moore's finest hour) filmed when its events weren't 'too dated',
would make both (and others) more relevant to the time perioRAB the books were written in.
 
Time has been very unkind to Fleming's Moonraker, so much so that it was impossible to find for years: Christopher Wood's novelisation was the only version available.
Although Michel Lonsdale is a very good Drax, the novel's Drax is much more interesting. :)
 
Back
Top