I could see Daniel Craig’s Bond being similar to the Bourne series and 24, with Bond going rogue a few times, dealing with more real world threats or villains within the government and Mi6
Thank god OHMSS wasn't released in 1979. Given how the producers were riding off the Star Wars train & wanted a slice of the science-fact pie, can you imagine a version of OHMSS that was set in space?
Your point about a Moore 'Thunderball' being a bit of a mess is interesting and almost certainly right. A Moore 'OHMSS' would still largely depend on which actress was cast as Tracy. An actress as talented and charismatic as Rigg would still be required. The biggest issue I can think of with a different continuity in the series is casting. Would there be suitable equivalents available for the actual major casting in the real films in the alternative timeline?
True, it needs to be someone like Diana Rigg, the thing is the romance of OHMSS worked because Diana Rigg's Tracy is worthy of Bond's love, she proved to the audience that she deserves Bond's marriage, she's worthy of it. Now, if they've cast an unknown actress in there, the romance would have failed, yes, it's interesting to see Moore in that film, but the thing is would the romance worked? It needs to be a reason why: A.) Why Bond fell in love with her? B.) What Bond saw in her? C.) Is she's worthy of Bond's love? If the actress who's playing Tracy in this alternate timeline failed to answer these questions, the romance would have failed.
so tiered of everyone say moore was to old, he was not, he look great, he look better than connery did in his diamonds are forever, and daniel craig last 3 films, but again i love moore, for me he was the person who made me love james bond, and in my childhood i like connery, lazenby and dalton as well, but when i get older i wanted in my order only to have now 2023 only 4 actors to play bond. Connery-moore-brosnan-cavill
Adaptations in "book order" would have to involve short stories such as The Hildebrand Rarity and Risico - something Henry failed to address. A faithful adaptation of YOLT would have meant that there would be no Austin Powers film series, which at least started off riffing heavily on the film version thereof. Even more pointedly, Casino Royale in the early 1960s (and its film rights with EON) would result in no CR by Charles Feldman, one starring David Niven. There still would have been a NSNA, in all likelihood (Fleming presumably would have written Thunderball without crediting Whittingham and McClory; Sean Connery starring as Bond...well, _that_ would not have been a given, though).
I would let Bond lose his memory at the end of YOLT and continue the awesome thrill ride in TMWTGG. Funny that Maud Adams would still have been a part of it.
Casino Royale replacement would not be great and would be of the same directionless crap like the 4 others.. Quantum of Solace would have been better, There would not be any Spectre since they are done with that already, and blofeld is dead there is no reason to bring him back. (you missed that point) why would they wait so long to bring in Spectre? No time to die would be better, they would not try to do OHMSS again, and bond would not have to have a baby and die.
I don't think that OHMSS and YOLT would be as close to the books if it's filmed in the 70's, as you said, it's Lewis Gilbert who would be directing, all of the Bond films that he'd filmed bears no resemblance to the source materials (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), and I don't think OHMSS either, it would be different from the source material, probably there would be no marriage and that tragic ending. And again, by this point, the Producers always liked to chase in to the success of the other blockbuster films, they've cashed in to those Blockbuster trends like Blaxploitation, Asian Kung Fu Karate, and Sci Fi films in the 70's, of course, If I'm in the position of Cubby Broccoli, I would also do the same: time change, then so the people's demands when it comes to the tone of films, and the only way to create a box office success is through chasing trends and those films that created success like Jaws or Star Wars. James Bond Franchise, let's accept it, is a business, it's a money talk thing, they would make a film that they would thought to be profitable, if they're going to pull the same old trick like in the 60's, there's no way that the Franchise would have survived, they need to cash in to certain trends in order to make money. That's it, they need to ride the wave, and especially with the case of OHMSS, I doubt it would follow the source material had it been in the 70's, yes, while Bond became one of the leads of Blockbusters in the 60's, 70's was a new thing, trends and culture already evolved by this point, in there's no way they would going to adapt the whole concept of Bond falling in love and getting married with his wife getting killed, that concept would have likely to bomb at the Box Office, it would shock the people, especially that Bond is already an established character here at this point, people already know him as an Action Hero Man, and seeing him suffer that tragedy, it would get a flak from the audiences, that's one of the things why the Moore Era was such a success at the time, because it's escapism, full of bombastic adventures without any drama, just fun and entertainment, the same for Diamonds Are Forever, it's not until now that the people learned to appreciate drama like those in the Craig Era. That's why every Eras of Bond points to the trends and culture in that particular decade, Moore Era reflecting the campiness of the 70's, Dalton Era reflecting the gritty action of the 80's, same for Brosnan, Craig, Connery and Lazenby, each are representative of their eras, and they need to be like that in order to ride into the wave of box office successes, and also for the longevity of the Franchise. So since it would be entirely different, Tracy in that version would have likely to be another Secret Agent being partnered with Bond to help him in his mission, but no romance or whatsover, and I doubt she would died in this version, like what I've said, there would be no marriage, it's the 70's, the rise of Women's Liberation! So making Tracy a suicidal countess and getting killed would go against that movement and likely to draw a flak in the box office. Especially that if we're going to presume (1977 is the TSWLM, so it would be somewhere in 1979) man it's the year the Star Wars made big money, and the Producers would've likely to cash in to their success, so instead of Moonraker, we're going to place OHMSS in that year? Because by that point, I don't think people were prepared and ready for Bond getting married unlike in 1969, where everyone in the Production supported that concept. So it would be possibly and likely to be different from the source material, it would be probably more outlandish, gadget laden and bombastic. The same for You Only Live Twice, I don't think it would also be the same as in the book, probably not in the early 80's (as early as 1981), I doubt the Producers would make it dark like how it's in the book, it would still probably be somewhat having a hint of campiness in it, can you imagine Sheena Easton singing You Only Live Twice? 😁 Added in with some pop as the soundtracks? Bill Conti composing the soundtrack? Remember it's For Your Eyes Only that followed Moonraker in 1981. And again, who would be the supporting casts for those alternate films? That's also the main problem.
I suppose a '73 FYEO would be about drug smuggling like our LALD. The ATAC storyline might be considered too similar to the Lektor plot in FRWL six years earlier. It was suggested on that forum thread (see part 1) that the main novels would be adapted first then the short stories. Therefore, "Eyes" could be in 1983 with the ATAC plot. The TB legal problems were cleared up in 1964, meaning it would have to be made in 1965 with Sean Connery or 1969 with George Lazenby at the latest. I don't think they'd have hung around and made it in 1973/74 with Roger Moore. Another question, do EON/MGM still have the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE after the mid-1970s or could there be problems, resulting in new villains being created? That would mean Karl Stromberg for TSWLM and Max Zorin for OHMSS or YOLT. Regarding Felix Leiter, I suppose Jack Lord could play him in CR. Would he return in LALD or given his inflated ego, might we get Cec Linder instead? Anyhow, his ego gets the better of him by '65, resulting in Rik Van Nutter in DAF, followed by Norman Burton in GF and David Hedison in TB. Would Felix be in this timeline's movie of TMWTGG like the novel if it's filmed in 1981 or 1983? If so, James Brolin could play him, the latter year as compensation for losing the part of 007. (A Roger Moore vs Christopher Lee showdown would be epic and could easily kick NSNA's ass if against it in The Battle of the Bonds.) Could that mean Brolin is back in LTK or Hedison is still reused? (F)AVTAK isn't in this universe, meaning it is one of the unused Fleming titles alongside THR, Risico and 007 in New York.
I could see Daniel Craig’s Bond being similar to the Bourne series and 24, with Bond going rogue a few times, dealing with more real world threats or villains within the government and Mi6
While I’d love to see all the films from this timeline, Roger in Majesty’s, YOLT, and Golden Gun would have been awesome to watch!
I really enjoyed this part 2 the most. I say it would of been a huge debate till this day between who’s the best Bond out of mainly Connery and Moore!
Thank god OHMSS wasn't released in 1979. Given how the producers were riding off the Star Wars train & wanted a slice of the science-fact pie, can you imagine a version of OHMSS that was set in space?
Your point about a Moore 'Thunderball' being a bit of a mess is interesting and almost certainly right. A Moore 'OHMSS' would still largely depend on which actress was cast as Tracy. An actress as talented and charismatic as Rigg would still be required. The biggest issue I can think of with a different continuity in the series is casting. Would there be suitable equivalents available for the actual major casting in the real films in the alternative timeline?
Just to cite 1 example, Pedro A WOULD NOT have been in FRWL (he would have been a totally unknown actor indeed).
True, it needs to be someone like Diana Rigg, the thing is the romance of OHMSS worked because Diana Rigg's Tracy is worthy of Bond's love, she proved to the audience that she deserves Bond's marriage, she's worthy of it.
Now, if they've cast an unknown actress in there, the romance would have failed, yes, it's interesting to see Moore in that film, but the thing is would the romance worked? It needs to be a reason why:
A.) Why Bond fell in love with her?
B.) What Bond saw in her?
C.) Is she's worthy of Bond's love?
If the actress who's playing Tracy in this alternate timeline failed to answer these questions, the romance would have failed.
I wonder what this time line effects would have on Austin powers.
No Austin Powers film series, perhaps?!
(It began by parodying the film version of YOLT).
so tiered of everyone say moore was to old, he was not, he look great, he look better than connery did in his diamonds are forever, and daniel craig last 3 films, but again i love moore, for me he was the person who made me love james bond, and in my childhood i like connery, lazenby and dalton as well, but when i get older i wanted in my order only to have now 2023 only 4 actors to play bond. Connery-moore-brosnan-cavill
Adaptations in "book order" would have to involve short stories such as The Hildebrand Rarity and Risico - something Henry failed to address.
A faithful adaptation of YOLT would have meant that there would be no Austin Powers film series, which at least started off riffing heavily on the film version thereof. Even more pointedly, Casino Royale in the early 1960s (and its film rights with EON) would result in no CR by Charles Feldman, one starring David Niven. There still would have been a NSNA, in all likelihood (Fleming presumably would have written Thunderball without crediting Whittingham and McClory; Sean Connery starring as Bond...well, _that_ would not have been a given, though).
Wouldnt thunderball be in 1974 instead of 1973 and For You Eyes only got 1973? Also Thunderball would be more like The Spy Who Loved Me.
Hi Henry, when’s the next video coming out? Been missing your weekly videos lately
She would be Judy Havelock, not Melina.
I would let Bond lose his memory at the end of YOLT and continue the awesome thrill ride in TMWTGG. Funny that Maud Adams would still have been a part of it.
BOND 26 should be based on which novel?
Casino Royale replacement would not be great and would be of the same directionless crap like the 4 others.. Quantum of Solace would have been better, There would not be any Spectre since they are done with that already, and blofeld is dead there is no reason to bring him back. (you missed that point) why would they wait so long to bring in Spectre? No time to die would be better, they would not try to do OHMSS again, and bond would not have to have a baby and die.
I don't think that OHMSS and YOLT would be as close to the books if it's filmed in the 70's, as you said, it's Lewis Gilbert who would be directing, all of the Bond films that he'd filmed bears no resemblance to the source materials (You Only Live Twice, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), and I don't think OHMSS either, it would be different from the source material, probably there would be no marriage and that tragic ending.
And again, by this point, the Producers always liked to chase in to the success of the other blockbuster films, they've cashed in to those Blockbuster trends like Blaxploitation, Asian Kung Fu Karate, and Sci Fi films in the 70's, of course, If I'm in the position of Cubby Broccoli, I would also do the same: time change, then so the people's demands when it comes to the tone of films, and the only way to create a box office success is through chasing trends and those films that created success like Jaws or Star Wars.
James Bond Franchise, let's accept it, is a business, it's a money talk thing, they would make a film that they would thought to be profitable, if they're going to pull the same old trick like in the 60's, there's no way that the Franchise would have survived, they need to cash in to certain trends in order to make money.
That's it, they need to ride the wave, and especially with the case of OHMSS, I doubt it would follow the source material had it been in the 70's, yes, while Bond became one of the leads of Blockbusters in the 60's, 70's was a new thing, trends and culture already evolved by this point, in there's no way they would going to adapt the whole concept of Bond falling in love and getting married with his wife getting killed, that concept would have likely to bomb at the Box Office, it would shock the people, especially that Bond is already an established character here at this point, people already know him as an Action Hero Man, and seeing him suffer that tragedy, it would get a flak from the audiences, that's one of the things why the Moore Era was such a success at the time, because it's escapism, full of bombastic adventures without any drama, just fun and entertainment, the same for Diamonds Are Forever, it's not until now that the people learned to appreciate drama like those in the Craig Era.
That's why every Eras of Bond points to the trends and culture in that particular decade, Moore Era reflecting the campiness of the 70's, Dalton Era reflecting the gritty action of the 80's, same for Brosnan, Craig, Connery and Lazenby, each are representative of their eras, and they need to be like that in order to ride into the wave of box office successes, and also for the longevity of the Franchise.
So since it would be entirely different, Tracy in that version would have likely to be another Secret Agent being partnered with Bond to help him in his mission, but no romance or whatsover, and I doubt she would died in this version, like what I've said, there would be no marriage, it's the 70's, the rise of Women's Liberation! So making Tracy a suicidal countess and getting killed would go against that movement and likely to draw a flak in the box office.
Especially that if we're going to presume (1977 is the TSWLM, so it would be somewhere in 1979) man it's the year the Star Wars made big money, and the Producers would've likely to cash in to their success, so instead of Moonraker, we're going to place OHMSS in that year? Because by that point, I don't think people were prepared and ready for Bond getting married unlike in 1969, where everyone in the Production supported that concept.
So it would be possibly and likely to be different from the source material, it would be probably more outlandish, gadget laden and bombastic.
The same for You Only Live Twice, I don't think it would also be the same as in the book, probably not in the early 80's (as early as 1981), I doubt the Producers would make it dark like how it's in the book, it would still probably be somewhat having a hint of campiness in it, can you imagine Sheena Easton singing You Only Live Twice? 😁 Added in with some pop as the soundtracks? Bill Conti composing the soundtrack?
Remember it's For Your Eyes Only that followed Moonraker in 1981.
And again, who would be the supporting casts for those alternate films? That's also the main problem.
I suppose a '73 FYEO would be about drug smuggling like our LALD. The ATAC storyline might be considered too similar to the Lektor plot in FRWL six years earlier.
It was suggested on that forum thread (see part 1) that the main novels would be adapted first then the short stories. Therefore, "Eyes" could be in 1983 with the ATAC plot.
The TB legal problems were cleared up in 1964, meaning it would have to be made in 1965 with Sean Connery or 1969 with George Lazenby at the latest. I don't think they'd have hung around and made it in 1973/74 with Roger Moore. Another question, do EON/MGM still have the rights to Blofeld and SPECTRE after the mid-1970s or could there be problems, resulting in new villains being created? That would mean Karl Stromberg for TSWLM and Max Zorin for OHMSS or YOLT.
Regarding Felix Leiter, I suppose Jack Lord could play him in CR. Would he return in LALD or given his inflated ego, might we get Cec Linder instead? Anyhow, his ego gets the better of him by '65, resulting in Rik Van Nutter in DAF, followed by Norman Burton in GF and David Hedison in TB. Would Felix be in this timeline's movie of TMWTGG like the novel if it's filmed in 1981 or 1983? If so, James Brolin could play him, the latter year as compensation for losing the part of 007. (A Roger Moore vs Christopher Lee showdown would be epic and could easily kick NSNA's ass if against it in The Battle of the Bonds.) Could that mean Brolin is back in LTK or Hedison is still reused?
(F)AVTAK isn't in this universe, meaning it is one of the unused Fleming titles alongside THR, Risico and 007 in New York.
oh dear, o wonder if u vould have the same actors , actress this vers of the bondfilms like in the org, or u have others in mind?
I personally don't think l&ld was a great film for Moore to start off with. I think it's too dark, no good Bondian introduction and a lack of comedy.
To throw a cat among the double take pigeons, what about adding the continuation novels to this made up timeline?