'Battle for Bond' book

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

I'm about to start 'The Battle for Bond' by Robert Sellers, which arrived on my doorstep today.

http://www.mi6.co.uk/news/index.php?itemid=5041&catid=105

Yes, I know its not been released officially yet for another few days... I have a copy in advance - and quite legitimately - woohoo

I've had a flip through and it looks jolly good and very well-researched.

...I still very much doubt it was Robert Sellers who started this thread though... doesn't seem likely.

[Lerica]

Found this whilst searching away for Sir Stan,..as normal. Anyway another one to add to the list perhaps?

MI6 News :: Stanley Baker turned down the role of James Bond before Connery was cast, reveals his widow


Bond News - 02-05-04
Stanley Baker turned down the role of James Bond before Connery was cast, reveals his widow

One of the greatest Welsh screen actors, Zulu star Stanley Baker, was offered the role of James Bond before Sean Connery - and turned it down, reports ICWales.

He didn't want to be tied to a three-film, five-year deal offered by producer Cubby Broccoli, Baker's widow Lady Ellen revealed.

[batman]

Thanks Lerica.

Much as I love Stanley and his films, I'm not sure he would have been right as Bond.

Reading the link, it also says Stanley was cast in This Sporting Life but was dumped at the last minute in favour of Richard Harris.

Bats.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by Sam Boone This is one of those things that will never be cleared up like who auditioned for the Monkees. No doubt others will have some other conflicting evidence and I think already people will be ready to argue the toss with the book. What's the betting Ian Fleming wanted Charles Manson to play Bond. No wait - that's The Monkees. In fact Charles Manson was in jail at the time of The Monkees auditions. In fact ..... what's this thread about again? Where;s my medication....

Actually, the book is obviously very well researched. Its a primary source research book rather than a re-hash of what has gone before.

The Hitchcock and Burton 'Thunderball' was in discussion stage around four years before Cubby and Co were on board. If you're going to take the mickey out of a book, at least wait until its published.

The book does NOT offer an opposing view to that which is already known... it simply adds details that were not already widely known... frankly the book would be of little point, if it simply regurgitated what is already widely known.

I don't think the first post in this thread was really from the author of the book. I've read the first few chapters and it really is NOT an empty fan book. Its quality.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Aaryk Noctivagus The book does NOT offer an opposing view to that which is already known... it simply adds details that were not already widely known... frankly the book would be of little point, if it simply regurgitated what is already widely known.

This does sound like a good read, especially if you are Bond fan like me. Let us know what you think when you've finished it.

Bats.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by batman This does sound like a good read, especially if you are Bond fan like me. Let us know what you think when you've finished it.

Will do, Bats. I'm a few chapters in and its well written and apparently very well researched. Apparently they had reference to the private correspondence and such like of the various involved parties.

I'm very impressed so far.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

So far so good... actually so very very good.

'The Battle for Bond' is an excellent very well-researched book... and a good read. I haven't finished it quite yet, but it is so very detailed and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

I would recommend this to anybody with a detailed interest in James Bond, and indeed an interest in film-making since it is quite a cautionary tale.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Aaryk Noctivagus So far so good... actually so very very good. 'The Battle for Bond' is an excellent very well-researched book... and a good read. I haven't finished it quite yet, but it is so very detailed and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I would recommend this to anybody with a detailed interest in James Bond, and indeed an interest in film-making since it is quite a cautionary tale.

Cheers mate. That one will go on the anniversary/christmas/birthday 'please can I have' list .

Bats .

[author]

Thanks very much for your positive words on the book.

Any chance of sticking those comments on amazon?

Cheers

Robert Sellers

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by author Thanks very much for your positive words on the book. Any chance of sticking those comments on amazon?

The trouble is, Author... and I mean no disrespect in this... I doubt that you are 'Robert Sellers'. I am very glad you made us aware of the existence of this book (and thank you for that), but I find it surprising that Robert Sellers would feel the need to come to a forum and personally advertise his book in this way.

If you involved yourself in the society of this forum, and I could see your knowledge on matters in general, then there is a chance I'd recognise you from your words... and I'd certainly understand Robert Sellers coming to this forum if he found fun in such a place, but that doesn't seem to be the case with you.

You see, I could understand Robert Sellers involving himself in this forum because he wanted to be involved in such a community, much the same as my reason for being here. However, I cannot understand Robert Sellers feeling the need to come here simply to plug his book. With all respect to this wonderful forum, I wouldn't expect this place to be of much importance for the promotion of a book.

There are people who visit fora in such a way because they think its funny to pretend to be other people... I don't understand why, but they do. Rather like I don't understand people who spam fora with little reason and a web address that doesn't work... but it happens a lot.

I'd find it surprising if you were, in fact, Robert Sellers (especially as what you said in the first post doesn't quite gel with what is in the book). I'd feel sorry for having doubted you, but I would wonder why you felt the need to come to this forum without any interest in being involved more. Believe me, I'd love it if you were Robert Sellers, but then, with your current activity in the forum, I doubt there would be any possibility of becoming friends in any case.

It certainly is a great book though.

[author]

I understand your reservations about my identity, since I have hardly contributed to this great forum. I'm just too busy, either researching and writing (I'm currently working on 2 books and have 2 books set for publication - one including the first bio on James Robertson Justice), but I do enjoy dipping in and reading certain threads.

As for plugging my book on the forum, I think it's a jolly good way of getting very serious film enthusiasts such as yourself interested in my book. I did a similar thing when my book on lew Grade's ITC came out, I contacted The Mauseleum Club and a forum on that ran for months. I've also started a Bond thread on this book on Commanderbond.net. As I say, it's a very good way of informing fans about the book, and getting dialogue over it started.

Thrilled you're enjoying the book.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by author Thrilled you're enjoying the book.

So am I

I just wish we could get to know you a little better. If you are Robert Sellers, then I really really respect your research and writing abilities.

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Another thing about 'The Battle for Bond' - or at least the first naive abortive attempts to get the character on screen before Broccoli and co entered the frame... is that it reminded me painfully of my current attempts to get my own script into production.

The first attempts were just so naive and fumbling - There was no chance of getting (or affording) Alfred Hitchcock, and the whole story of that seemed to be like a bunch of guys playing 'Dream Team' with directors instead of football stars. Then I suddenly catch myself and realise that, naive though it was, those guys were much further towards fulfilling their object than I am.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by batman Brolin's screen test is on one of the Bond extras dvds ... he was awful, trying to be all smooth and sexy but just coming across as really creepy. Poor ol' Babs. Sam Neill's is on one of the other dvds. His is a lot better but just not Bond enough, if you know what I mean. I am a big fan of Patrick Mower's but I think he would not have been Bond enough either. It would be interesting to be able to see some of the other tests .... did Lewis Collins actually do a screen test? In an interview he gave he implied he never got further than a chat with Cubby who, he said, took an instant dislike to him. Shame. I have Collins' Italian movies on DVD and (apart from a dodgy haircut) he comes across really well. Bats .

Just read an interesting piece on the late Michael Billington, he holds the record for having screen tested for the role of Bond the most times, 3 or 4 times I beleive,he came closest to playing the part than any of the other contenders,I wonder if being the boyfriend of Broccoli's daughter helped, seemingly not, he eventually got to play a small part at the beginning of the Spy Who Loved Me as agent XXX's (barbara bach) lover.

And John Gavin was paid in full for his contract to play Bond in Diamonds are Forever, Connery stepped in at the eleventh hour for 1 million dollars all of which he donated to charity.....and they say the Scots are mean! aye well...... Two more Bonds that never were, Mike Billington and John Gavin.....

[Aaryk Noctivagus]

Originally Posted by christoph404 ...Connery stepped in at the eleventh hour for 1 million dollars all of which he donated to charity...

Nice thing for him to have done.

Connery wasn't mean, he just didn't carry cash around lest it spoil the cut of his trousers ... the story goes he didn't wear underpants for the same reason.

Its all in 'The Battle For Bond' folks - Although I must add that the book is much better than just a source for such trivia as that.