000: 3 Tantalizing Missed Opportunities In The Bond Franchise

When active in the field for 60+ years, it is rather inevitable, that you are going to miss some shots. In fact, the entire Bond franchise with its different iterations and crossroads can essentially be summed up as this endless buffee of fascinating what ifs that are too many to count. And what would even be the point? As M would say, "regret is unprofessional."

However, over the years, there have been times, when a very different outcome for the franchise was almost tangible. Ones, where many building blocks had already been set and, sometimes, even a few gears put in motion. Yet, for various reasons, they didn't quite materialize. Not so much the what ifs of the Bond history but rather, the if onlys. And, well, some of them have been living rent free in my head for ages. So, much like Bond did with Golfinger, Drax and Graves, I figured I'd vent a few out.

1. Blofeld — Bond's Greatest Nemesis, Franchise's Biggest Failure

Kicking things off, is non other that the biggest and baddest of the Bond franchise — Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Or well, at least in theory. Now, at first, it would seem borderline insane to call Blofeld an unused potential. In fact, one could argue that the franchise has taken just about eveything it can from the character through its different iterations by many talented performers.

It's just that, well, I can't help but to feel that every time, when the building blocks to do something great with him were laid, it always went down the chimney one way or another. In other words, Blofeld is a character, whose greatest legacy should have been giving Bond his Moriarty, but instead ended up giving us Dr.Evil.

So, let's rewind the clock back to the beginning to see, where did it go, wrong. In From Russia With Love and Thunderball, we're presented with this looming but distant presence. We don't see his face and we don't know much about him, but he himself seems to know more, than Bond, MI6 and the audience combined. A puppetmaster, who is menacing not by virtue of what we see, but what we imagine lurks in the shadows. At this point, when watching Bond movies in chronological order, it feels like we're set up for something epic.

However, cue to finally properly meeting him in You Only Live Twice and it all starts unraveling. Don't get me wrong, while Donald Pleasence's portrayal of the character does make for an instantly iconic figure, there's just something underwhelming about the way he is presented here.

Not exactly helped by the increasingly sillier tone the franchise was moving towards at the time, the air of menace and threat from these previous films is simply gone from good ol' Ernst. He's just your average run of the mill megalomaniacal Bond villain, who captures Bond, lets him hang around, gets his plans foiled in a big set piece fight and later escapes unclimactically. Add to that the fact that Connery was getting bored of the role at this point and this multi movie builup to meeting The Villain of the Bond franchise doesn't feel nearly as powerful as it should have been.

Unfortunately, the following films, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Diamonds Are Forever, didn't really improve on it much either. Granted, things did get more interesting in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, as Telly Savalas turned in maybe the best Blofeld peformance of them all against Lazenby's Bond. However, while Savalas was indeed great, he still never quite felt like the mastermind, who was built up in these early films. He did manage to hurt Bond more than any villain had done before or since though. So, at least the scene was set to really make a homerun with the character in the next film.

Unfortunately, they made Diamonds Are Forever instead. What could have been a brilliant revange tale, where returning Connery goes after Blofeld to avenge Tracy's death, became a joke. Bond franchise was well into entering its live action cartoon era at this point but not yet embracing it with the wink and charm of Roger Moore. And Blofeld, now played by Charles Grey, ended up being the biggest casuality here. Don't get me wrong, Grey is genuinely entertaining to watch and is obviously having fun with the character. It's just that, well, what a far cry it was from the menacing figure we first met in From Russia With Love.

So, when the whole Thunderball rights debacle between Harry Saltzman and Cubby Borccoli efficiently made it impossible to use Blofeld in Eon produced films for almost half a century, it wasn't really a big loss. They had exhausted Ernst without ever really doing him justice.

However, when a another opportunity to use the character presented itself decades later in 2015s Spectre, it was simply too good to miss. Especially considering that, this time, it was to happen within a more grounded and serious universe of the Craig era and played by the great Christoph Waltz, who seemed like a nobrainer for the role.

All the stars seemed to have finally aligned. The promos looked promising and Waltz's introduction scene was truly effective, when first seeing the movie. At that moment, it really felt like we're about to see what the true potential of the character is.

Nope, fell flat again. For starters, the build up from previous films was simply not there. Something that the filmmakers made a valiant effort to fix with a bunch of retroactive storytelling, but ultimately failed for the most part. More preplexingly though, once again, they choose to have Blofeld beaten in a rather anticlimactic way and then only have him return as a secondary villain in No Time To Die. And, as the latter film also marked the end of Craig's tenure, Blofeld's potential was left unfulfilled once again.

Now, when looking at the grander scheme of things, its not like the franchise actually needs Blofeld, as we've had more than our fair share of iconic and memorable villains. However, should they ever decide to use him again, it's clear that they should hit the ground running. Build him up and execute him to perfection throughout pretty much the entire tenure of whoever ends up being the new Bond. Map it out and don't falter along the way. Everything or nothing.

2. The Return of Natalya Simonova — How 'Tomorrow Never Dies' Could Have Delivered A Gutpunch

Considering that the Bond franchise has a bit of a tricky relationship with continuity, it has a surprisingly storng track record in bringing back beloved characters from previous films. However, with Tomorrow Never Dies, I think it missed perhaps it's best shot at doing so. One that would have not only elevated the film, but also Brosnan's entire Bond tenure — bringing back Natalya (Izabella Scorupco) from Goldeneye.

So, as it stands, Tomorrow Never Dies is a perfectly fine by-the-numbers Bond flick. Not one most would put in their my top 5, but definitely among those that you turn on, when you just want a reliable Bond adventure. It ticks all the boxes rather well and even has a nice little subplot of Bond meeting a former flame in form of Paris Carver (Teri Hatcher).

Speaking of the latter, it's actually quite good. It has a some emotional moments, works well within the main plot and is generally more effective than it should have been, when considering Brosnan's and Hatcher's infamous on set relationship (and the fact that we have no previous attachment to Paris before this movie). However, replace Paris with Natalya and a butterfly effect of potential unveils itself pretty quikcly.

Firstly, it's the chemistry. With Brosnan and Scorupco playing off each other excellently in Goldeneye, their reunion would have definitely given this plotline both, better banter, as well as a stronger emotional core. Especially considering that Natalya was one of the few love interests for Bond, who actually developed a sincere connection with him. Moreover, since Natalya was estalbished as quite a proactive character, she could have also been used to a better effect in the main plot. In essence, as more than just a sacrificial lamb.

Most importantly however, she would have elevated the tone and impact of the entire movie. With Natalya being one the best developed and well liked supporting characters in all of the Bond franchise (one could argue she gets almost as complete of a character arc in Goldeneye as Bond), having this tragic continuation for her story would have simply hit that much harder. Both for Bond and for us.

The story of her trying to find her feet after the events of Goldeneye and getting in with the wrong folks in form of Carver to eventually teaming up with Bond again but meeting her demise because of it. If played out well, this could have delivered quite a gutpunch. In other words, Natalya could have been to Brosnan's Bond, what Tracy was for Lazenby's and Vesper for Craig's. This last person to bring out genuine humanity in him only to become a shadow of regret. One that could have sent Brosnan's Bond throughout the reminder of his tenure.

Now, it is questionable, just how realistic of a prospect it ever was. To my knowledge, while bringing back an actress from a previous film was indeed a real consideration at some point, it's also clear that it must have been scrapped at a very early phase of development. Moreover, even if they did go forward with it, I have no idea, whether Scorupco would have agreed to return. Nevertheless, what remains, is still a tantilizing possibility that had all the necessary building blocks setp up. Speaking of setting up builing blocks.

3. Tarantino Royale — Attempt Foiled, Idea Planted

The story of how Quentin Taratino almost got the rights to adapt Casino Royale as a 60s' period piece is well documented in Bond history and pretty much a closed chapter. However, with or without Tarantino, the idea of a period piece Bond does remain a hugely fascinating prospect. Especially during a time, when Bond franchise has once again found itself from this limbo between Bonds, where no clear direction forward seems to exist and possibilities seem endless.

First, to quickly sum up this little side plot of Bond history, the story goes that at some point after the success of Pulp Fiction, Tarantino tried for years to get the rights to adapt Casino Royale into a film but eventually lost out to Eon producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson. Now, while Tarantino himself has stated, that he was never actually close to making it, he was definitely making moves.

Not only did he make a genuine bid the get the rights, he actually met up with Pierce Brosnan to discuss the idea of him starring in this very different take on Bond. He was less lucky with Broccoli and Wilson though, who never gave him audience. Much to Tarantino's annoyance, who felt that he deserved a meeting at the very least.

So, he went public with it, expressed a lot of affinity for Fleming's original writing and shared his disappointment in not getting a shot at adapting it. He even revealed the he had already choosen Uma Thurman for the role of Vesper. More importantly, however, he shared a strong vision he had for the film. Additionally to being set in the 60s', it was to be shot entirely in black and white and would have essentially been a one-off that heavily relied on Fleming's original writing.

And well, had it been made, the consequences would have been fascinating both in short and long term. First of all, it would have simply been a damn good movie. Taratino has never producded an objectively weak body of work and his signature knack for brilliant dialogue, clever writing and energetic violence would have definitely found it's place within Bond universe. Additionally, he's really good at writing cool antiheroes with style. So, again, right up Bond's alley.

As for the period piece setting, not only would it have been stylish as hell, it would have also lent itself better for a classic Flemingesque spy story. On the actors front, the reported choices would have definteitly worked too. Brosnan had expressed desire to take the character into darker direction anyway and has later proven that he can play both a more r-rated version of a spy/assassin type (The Matador) as well as darker and grittier version (The November Man). Thurman, on the other hand, would have defintely had the chops and vibe for the role of Vesper (although, I do have to admit, it's impossible for me to separate Eva Green from that character in my head).

Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, had this film become a success, it would have done wonders to loosen up the whole franchise. Simply put, pretty much since the late 80s', every Bond's tenure has been shadowed with the same question: does 007 still have a place in modern times? Now, granted, proving the naysayers wrong has definitely led to some epic results (Goldeneye, Casino Royale, Skyfall). However, the franchise has also struggled quite a bit with this endless balancing act of trying to please everyone (Die Another Day, Spectre).

So, with that in mind, what a one-off like Tarantino's Casino Royale would have essentially done, is create a precedent. One that affirms that it's okay to throw this balancing act out of the window from time to time and simply give a talented storyteller the freedom to focus on the mythos, the characater, its potential and shut all the noise out.

Actually, why not do it now, when the franchise is in this limbo between Bonds. Maybe give someone older like Idris Elba or Tom Hardy a shot at a one great Bond film before figuring out a longer term solution. In other words, what Tarantino's bid inspired me to think is that maybe Eon should try something similar to Todd Phillps' Joker — this little self contained film that simply wants to explore a character and mythos in it's own uncompromised way. In fact, it seems that Tarantino did actually end up inspiring Eon itself to go forward with their take on Casino Royale, as they had declared it unfilmable before Tarantino started showing interest.

Now, am I disappointed that Tarantino's version never came to fruition? Not really. Martin Campbell's Casino Royale with Daniel Craig is not only among my favourite Bond films but films in general. Also, the Bond franchise actually did briefly return to the 60s' back in 2005. Granted, in video game format with EA's rather excellent From Russia With Love. Having said that, it's also clear that the potential of a period piece Bond on silver screen is undeniable. Who knows, maybe even Quentin himself could still get his chance. With the Bond franchise in limbo and Tarantino's last project The Movie Critic running into a bit of a dead end, one can't completely rule it out.

Jumping Forward

A funny thing happened, when writing this article. I set out to make a retrospective of instances, where the franchise had failed to hit its mark but ended up with what now feels like tribute to the potential still laying dormant in this epic universe.

Indeed, while the list above is barely scratching the surface, one thing is clear — in whatever way James Bond will return, there will be no shortage of good marks for 007 to hit. Just gotta figure out the when, how, with whom and where. As Bond himself would say: "Life is full of small challenges."