Big Missed Opportunity...

JohnMasterson

I don't know about you, but I believe that Alfred Hitchcock is the greatest director to never direct a Bond film. I guess it just wasn't meant to be...But I think it should have happened. I mean; could you imagine Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli, Harry Saltzman, Charles K. Feldman, United Artists, Universal, Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Shamley Productions Inc. and Alfred Hitchcock coming together to direct Alfred Hitchcock's Casino Royale at the height of the James Bond craze in the 1960's?

It would have been a HUGE production. But certain things would have been different. I don't believe Hitchcock would have had Peter R. Hunt editing his James Bond picture and Sean Connery would've had to sit Casino Royale out, in favor of a younger man playing a Bond who just earned his Double-O stripes. And Hitch might have had Bernard Herrmann composing the score instead of Bond alumni John Barry.

chrisisall

That would have been epic.
The closest we got was North By Northwest.

Mr Martini

Lets just hope there's not another missed opportunity. I'm talking about Christopher Nolan directing a Bond film. I hope this happens.

JohnMasterson

Mr Martini wrote:

Lets just hope there's not another missed opportunity. I'm talking about Christopher Nolan directing a Bond film. I hope this happens.

Well, if Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli didn't want to reach out to Steven Spielberg (who actually WANTED to direct a Bond picture) and if Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson didn't want to allow Doug Liman to direct a James Bond picture, what makes you think they're going to let Christopher Nolan film 007?

We got Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Bourne Identity out of Steven Spielberg's and Doug Liman's respective desire to make a James Bond motion picture! X-( (Cubby, Barbara and Michael are SUCH a bunch of CONTROL FREAKS!!) X-(

BIG TAM

Less control freaks more old Hollywood moguls, I reckon. Cubby Broccoli & Harry Saltzman ran their franchise like the old studio system when the likes of Warner, Goldwyn & Selznick had complete creative control. Not a bad thing in some respects. It certainly makes for a unity of product. I sense Barbara Broccoli is a little less inclined to follow this approach, hence the hiring of people like Marc Forster & Sam Mendes - directors with a prolific body of work beyond the Bond franchise.

JohnMasterson

BIG TAM wrote:

Less control freaks more old Hollywood moguls, I reckon. Cubby Broccoli & Harry Saltzman ran their franchise like the old studio system when the likes of Warner, Goldwyn & Selznick had complete creative control. Not a bad thing in some respects. It certainly makes for a unity of product. I sense Barbara Broccoli is a little less inclined to follow this approach, hence the hiring of people like Marc Forster & Sam Mendes - directors with a prolific body of work beyond the Bond franchise.

I think Barbara and Michael could have reached out to Steven Spielberg in the 1990's if Spielberg still had the itch to direct a Bond picture in his system, but they never did, either because Spielberg no longer had any interest in Bond or because it was a money thing or lack there of.

I believe Doug Liman wanted to do Bond during the Die Another Day years and Michael and Barbara didn't have any foresight. They couldn't foresee their old James Bondian formula failing with director Lee Tamahori, and post-The Bourne Identity years they just decided to sort of emulate Doug Liman's style with Martin Campbell.

BIG TAM

Spielberg's an interesting proposition. He's a fantastic storyteller but I'd never thought he'd be apt for a Bond film until Sam Mendes came along. I think Mendes' quality work on SKYFALL may cause Wilson & Broccoli to cast their net wider with directors. I certainly hope so. I agree with most that Christopher Nolan is the next logical step. He shares a lot with Mendes artistically & has the ability to build on what's been set up thus far. I don't think his success would cause any friction within the Bond universe.

Going back to the first issue raised, I consider Alfred Hitchcock to be a cinematic genius, but strangely don't think he'd necessarily be a good Bond film director. He's a director of suspense whereas the Bonds require a director with a faster pace. Whilst I could imagine Hitch making something truly macabre out of Jill Masterson's gold-painted demise (too much for a PG rating probably), I couldn't see him improving on Guy Hamilton's deft handling of the Bond-Oddjob face-off. And I think he'd have come unstuck with the pyrotechnics & sheer scale of a film like THUNDERBALL. Hitch's best work was in the '50s & his '60s output post-THE BIRDS was starting to look a little flat visually if I have to be honest.

JohnMasterson

BIG TAM wrote:

Going back to the first issue raised, I consider Alfred Hitchcock to be a cinematic genius, but strangely don't think he'd necessarily be a good Bond film director. He's a director of suspense whereas the Bonds require a director with a faster pace. Whilst I could imagine Hitch making something truly macabre out of Jill Masterson's gold-painted demise (too much for a PG rating probably), I couldn't see think he'd have come unstuck with the pyrotechnics & sheer scale of a film like him improving on Guy Hamilton's deft handling of the Bond-Oddjob face-off. And I THUNDERBALL. Hitch's best work was in the '50s & his '60s output post-THE BIRDS was starting to look a little flat visually if I have to be honest.

I don't care about Goldfinger or Thunderball, I'm talking about AFTER the Goldfinger and Thuderball years, if Alfred Hitchcock were to direct Casino Royale either with or without Charlels K. Feldman producing alongside Broccoli and Saltzman, Hitch could have accentuated the suspense from the Casino Royale novel---And he could have pretty much filmed the novel as it read.

(By the way, I consider the height of the James Bond craze to be after Thunderball. Because the release of Thunderball turned 007 into a phenomenon.)

BIG TAM

A faithful adaptation of CASINO ROYALE with Hitch at the helm might have worked. I've not read it but by all accounts it's a straightforward thriller with a serious lead character. Hitch had an impish sense of humour so he may have felt the need to lighten it up somewhat. Who knows, perhaps he might have inserted a double-taking pigeon. )

JohnMasterson

BIG TAM wrote:

A faithful adaptation of CASINO ROYALE with Hitch at the helm might have worked. By all accounts it's a darkish novel with a serious lead character. Hitch had an impish sense of humour so he'd have probably lightened it up somewhat. Perhaps he might have inserted a double-taking pigeon. )

I'm sorry that I'm an au'tistic man with Asperger's Syndrome, who doesn't get your sense of humor. Because I'm like a dumb little kid at times. A lot of things go straight over my head, and I don't get a lot of social ques when I'm talking to someone face to face.

BIG TAM

Apologies, JohnMasterson. It wasn't my intention to mock. I've a cheeky sense of humour that I've purposefully not shown much on these threads for the very reason there are so many people on this fan site it's impossible to know how to pitch things. I've a huge love of Bond but am prone to treating it with a degree of tongue in cheek humour now & again. Once again, apologies for my quirkiness & I hope it won't stop you from reading any further thoughts I may have on the world of 007.

Napoleon Plural

Could have been done, as an unofficial entry instead of the CR we got. Not sure it would have floated Hitch's boat however, it is still a fairly straightforward spy thriller. Mind you, it couldn't have been worse than Topaz.

Number24

I think it would be a great shame if Nolan doesn't get to make a Bond. Back in the 70's and 80's in particular the producers used "in- house" directors who were good craftsmen and administrators, but with very little freedom. Lately the producers have used more independent and a bit more "auteur"-type directors who have a personal style and have made very good non-Bond movies. I'm thinking of Forster and Mendes. In that light I belive they could hire Nolan in a few years time.

Jarvio

Hitchcock directing a bond film would have been very interesting.

I agree that CR would have suited well, and would have been nice if we got an official CR film in '67, directed by Hitchcock, in place of that spoof crap.

Hitchcock films are like a series of their own, with his films being in box-sets together etc. So it would have been interesting to have a bond film be part of two separate 'series' (007 and Hitchcock).

Silhouette Man

I think that Ian Fleming wanted Hitchcock to direct a James Bond film - he'd seen North by Northwest at the cinema in 1959 and was very impressed! Not surprising, as it's often quoted as a 'proto-Bond film' and its early influence can be seen in From Russia with Love of course.

Napoleon Plural

Just as DAF was a big hit on release, and regarded as terrific fun, so CR back then would have done the series no favours but would be great to look back on. I'd rather have it as a time capsule - unreleased but we could see it now.

JohnMasterson

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Just as DAF was a big hit on release, and regarded as terrific fun, so CR back then would have done the series no favours but would be great to look back on. I'd rather have it as a time capsule - unreleased but we could see it now.

So, if Alfred Hitchcock had filmed the Bond novel, Diamonds Are Forever pretty much exactly how it read (minus the crippled Felix Leiter, obviously) in 1967 in place of You Only Twice Only, would that have done the series no favors as well?