It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Exactly. I'm not really a fan of DAF (aside from basically the credits through Amsterdam) but Broccoli and Saltzman would have been fools not to woo Connery back (and I'm willing to bet Connery, as the original Bond, didn't exactly want to play second fiddle by following up Lazenby's story).
I think you're basically correct. This is the ultimate dilemma.
As it is, I'm fine with the way things panned out as I'm huge Moore fan as well as being a huge OHMSS fan. They subconsciously and inadvertently created a series that could, in it's various forms, be all things to all people. That's EON's legacy. They really don't get enough credit.
I consider myself quite lucky in that I don't really dislike any of the era's per se, although they vary quite a bit. The only period that I could really do without and wouldn't miss one bit is 1999-2002 inclusive. Everything else sort of works for me.
OHMSS was a great way to end the 60's as I said earlier. DAF was a great way to begin the 70's. Glen's FYEO was a good start to the 80's and Campbell's GE & CR beautifully opened the 90's and 00's respectively (yes,.....I realize I'm ignoring Tamahori's joke...but as mentioned 1999-2002 is the only bit I'm not happy about so I'd prefer to forget it entirely).
In the world, we had a nasty war going on in Vietnam. We had the start of an energy crisis. There was unrest in America with the youth uprising and rebelling against the "establishment". People were looking to the cinema for some escapism. DAF fits the bill perfectly.
The gritty and revenge movie with Bond avenging Tracy's death? While die hard Bond fans may have wanted to see this the general movie going public probably wasn't going to go for it.
I won't say it's an overdue recalibration. It was a needed recalibration that helped mold the series (like or hate it) for the rest of the 70's. The tone, the script, it all harkens to what's coming with Moore's Bond. Imagine this, Lazenby leaves the role. Connery comes back and we get a revenge picture. Connery exits and Moore takes over in LALD. To me it's even more jarring and sets up Moore for failure. I think Saltzman and Cubby were looking long term and knew that gritty wasn't going to play.
I agree, but I do wish we could have seen Gert Fröbe come back as Goldfinger's twin brother. Irma Bunt deserves a comeback as well.
As for Auric's brother showing up in DAF. I think that would have been a little too much. Not that Blofeld in drag wasn't too much. LOL! I actually enjoy the story of Blofeld capturing a recluse and taking over his empire. I am glad that Cubby had that dream.
But DAF is a great 'leave your brain at the door' Bond film ,ala MR or DAD...we do need these lighter Bond films scattered throughout.
I dont think Connery looks that bad , sure hes not as fit as 1962-65 but looks okay imo
"when GL declined his draconian contract"
Why would Cubby give him 7 film contract , I simply do not buy it for a newcomer.....2-3 film contract , that I may buy. I would never have given a green guy like that a multi picture deal.
Chow only sgd a 2 picture deal with Bruce Lee , to use an example.
I agree...he looks fine and still has the Bond vibe.
I couldn't disagree more and it's one of the things that bothers me about DAF.
Connery came in looking sloppy , his hairpiece as not one of his best and for some reason he didn't allow them to tame his eyebrows. To me, this shows a certain arrogance, and reinforces that he did this just for the money. It shows contempt for the franchise, character and it's audience.
There is absolutely no reason that he could not have looks just about the same as he did in TB; he was only 40 years old. Just look at The Great Train Robbery, 9 years later, he fit, groomed and looks great.
The only thing I can think of is that Cubby and Salzman were attempting to do it on the cheap, I mean thrifty side. Connery signed a similar deal with his films but I guess it was a 5 picture deal. The problem was that as the films grew in popularity he was locked in at a set rate. It gnawed at him and drove him to leave the role. They took the same tack with Laz. They thought they had found a Bond that was an unknown and therefore would work cheap. Lock him up for 7 pics and get some cost certainty. He also wouldn't be able to hold them hostage.
Moore was smarter cause after MR (4 picture deal) he was in control as Cubby had to come to him and they'd negotiate a new one picture contract. Cubby always needed Moore, a lot more then Roger needed Bond. So I am sure that Roger got better paid in his last 3 movies then in the first 4.
Connery signed onto DAF less than a month before shooting even began. A 40 year old out of shape Connery was not going to look like he did at 34 in such a short amount of time.
Absolutely he could have. His age was irrelevant; 40 is not what some people feel it is.
He may have signed at a certain point but negotiations were going on for some time. He had more than enough time to trim down; and there’s no excuse to for the dodgy grooming.
Maybe that's possible today with how there's a much healthier lifestyle options regarding diet and exercise, but 1971 was a different time. While he may not be in the shape that he was when he was in his 30s, he brought back a lot of charm and energy that I don't think he had since TB or even earlier. He certainly came off far more engaged in his performance in DAF than he was in YOLT. I always find it puzzling that anyone could find his performance in DAF as simply coasting or phoning it in, but I suspect it's a perception fueled just by how out of shape he appeared.
I do think it's very unfair of Bond fans to slam this film for not being a OHMSS followup. Had Lazenby not jumped ship and Peter Hunt stayed on board, I think a proper follow up would have actually happened. Since that was no longer an option for EON, it made perfect sense to try to recapture the magic of GOLDFINGER in order to reinvigorate the franchise. And it did. It paved the way for a much smoother transition with Roger Moore taking the part (who it turned out was recommended by Connery).
Well, part of Connery’s appeal as Bond was his look and how he moved; it’s been described as panther like. He just doesn’t have that here and it undermines the entire character and film. To some it doesn’t matter, for me it does.
As far as knowing how to get in shape , even in 1970 , pretty much “ eat less and move more” would have done the job. Now , I’m a licensed personal trainer with nearly 40 years experience and know there’s more to it than that, but enough was known back then to get the job done.
That's fair, but even if he doesn't have the physique he still had the energy and charm to his performance to be an engaging presence. I felt the same about Roger Moore in AVTAK, despite clearly looking to old for the part.
Was it feasible in less than a month for Connery to look like he did in TB when he was that out of shape at 40? His signing onto DAF was, after all, a last minute decision, made by UA's David Picker who pushed it onto EON. The dates show that Connery signed on in March of 1971, with shooting starting in the beginning of April. There's nothing to confirm whether Connery actually tried losing weight in that short time or didn't bother at all. Even if he tried in the course of shooting, that would cause a problem in continuity showing Connery's weight fluctuating throughout the film which would have been doubly distracting.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think he is on fire in this film. My favorite of his performances (with Thunderball in second place).
Again, go look at him 9 years later, virtually a decade, in The Great Train Robbery; he looked great. He made the effort.
Although it usually ranks for me in the lower middle I tend to watch it more often than some of the other Connery's.
I do have a lot of fun with it, and am a strong supporter of Bond's out of shape look for this film. I'm also a strong supporter of Roger's look in VIEW. :)
Although Tracy is ignored for this film, the PTS can be looked at a a subtle revenge nod. He's pretty ruthless in his hunt for Blofeld. In addition, who's to say Bond didn't go through a grieving process off screen, hence letting himself go a bit in the physique department? I actually think it works fine.
In fact, I'd go as far to say that Connery's build in DIAMONDS, is closer to what Bond should have looked like during his burned out moments in SF.
Better make that two.
He looked dreadful in DAF, and he was only 41! That is what they got for $1,250,000. At least Dick Turpin had the decency to wear a mask while he robbed people.