Would this Bond film have improved with another actor from the time ? : Quantum of Solace

245678

Comments

  • echo wrote: »
    Dalton would have been fine in TMWTGG. It's the overly light Bonds (TSWLM, for one) that I can't see Dalton in...
    Assuming that TLWTGG was not released in 1974, a more faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel could have been a great third film for Dalton. In such a perspective, Jeremy Irons could have been an excellent Scaramanga.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,243
    Absolutely. In an alternate universe, this would have been Lazenby’s fourth film; he would have grown nicely into the role.
    Of course there are a lot of other elements to TMWTGG that could use some revision, Moore is not the film’s problem.
  • Posts: 19,339
    OK time for a new film to discuss,SPECTRE....
  • Posts: 17,814
    Though I wouldn't want any actor to struggle with the mess that was SP, I guess Connery, Moore and Brosnan could handle the humorous elements of the film quite easily. The Rome car chase felt like a little bit like a throwback to those eras, with all the gadgetry, Bond in conversation with Moneypenny, and the bit with the older man in the Fiat.

    The more serious bits of the film; possibly Dalton?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    How about Fassbender?
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited January 2019 Posts: 4,423
    Sir Rog easily. He had the charm and the magnificence to do Spectre right, whatever one's feeling towards that film is. Sir Rog has the versatility and the flexibility to match the tonal shifts in SP.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    royale65 wrote: »
    Sir Rog easily. He had the charm and the magnificence to do Spectre right, whatever one's feeling towards that film is. Sir Rog has the versatility and the flexibility to match the tonal shifts in SP.
    I'm inclined to agree and for the same reasons. Moore had the essential quality of versatility, and in his long run his approach and delivery matched the tone of the scenes in his films to perfection. No small feat.

    I'd also say Brosnan could have had a decent go at it. After all, he is an actor who managed to be the best thing (along with Pike) in the shambles that was DAD, and so he likely could have handled SP well enough.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I would possibly throw Lazenby's hat in the ring.
    He had similar moments of serious and light-hearted in OHMSS,and there would be no doubt he would have handled the fight sequences well.
  • edited February 2019 Posts: 19,339
    Moving on to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

    This had elements of MooreBond in it after all,and BrosnanBond was tantalizingly close to getting it..

    Personally,i think Craig could have made the film as good.
    (And needless to say - change the bloody Bond girl !! )

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,584
    bondsum wrote: »
    That was my point @bondjames. Otherwise this thread could quickly end up with every member just coming here and stating for the record that they can't imagine another actor in the role and to keep the movie as it is. Clearly, no one can erase time and alter what already exists. But as I also pointed out, it requires more than simply swapping the actor around or replacing them with someone untested due to all the different ramifications that might ensue. Scenes will be reshot or rewritten if they don't work on the day with one actor, though they might work better with another actor. Supporting cast members would be selected differently due to the strength of the actor in place. Certain actors that turned down the chance of working with one Bond actor, might be more tempted to work with another as it's always been a personal unfulfilled wish of theirs. For instance, I can't imagine many actors turning down the chance of playing opposite Connery in the 70s, but I can Roger Moore, especially when he's just come from television. Same goes for Anthony Hopkins opposite Timothy Dalton versus Brosnan. There used to exist a certain snobbery about TV actors versus proper movie actors back in the day. Things have changed now, but that wasn't always the case during the 60s and 70s, nor the 50s for that matter. Also consider the fact that the actors that had made that successful transition from TV to movies, such as McQueen, Redford, Newman were reluctant to star opposite other actors fresh from TV themselves.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Given it wasn't a particularly successful film financially for whatever reason, perhaps TMWTGG could have made more money with Connery. Having said that, LALD outgrossed DAF, & TSWLM & MR were very successful later in the 70s, so perhaps not.
    I can still recall all the hype for LALD. It was huge. What with the title song being very popular, the TV advertising, posters, commercials for milk, Roger Moore presenting the winning Oscar for Brando in The Godfather, etc. The producers made sure this Bond picture couldn't fail. People were going to see it regardless, no matter what the critics said. You also have to take into consideration that movie attendances were extremely low when both OHMSS and DAF were released. This is often overlooked. It was in fact The Godfather that kick-started the revival of cinema.

    Interesting point. And then again in 76/77 movie audiences were tailing off because of the invention of video cassettes. People were watching quite new films at home. Did that lead to the introduction of movie complexes, with multiple screens, arcades etc?
  • Posts: 19,339
    Could any 007 actor surpass George ?
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,599
    I'm still the advocate that OHMSS with Sean would have been the best ever made. Especially if he didn't have a fallout with the producers during YOLT
  • edited March 2019 Posts: 3,333
    NicNac wrote: »
    Interesting point. And then again in 76/77 movie audiences were tailing off because of the invention of video cassettes. People were watching quite new films at home. Did that lead to the introduction of movie complexes, with multiple screens, arcades etc?
    Cheers @NicNac. I kind of remember 76/77 differently. Video releases were mostly confined to much older movies that had already come and gone years before. New movies were still having to wait a couple of years before they got a video release. They were also very very expensive and the quality not that good. Video rental stores began to pop-up more around the early Eighties than the Seventies. I can still recall going to HMV in London in the late Seventies and the back catalogue of available movies only filling one small wall.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 815
    If he returned for OHMSS, Connery would’ve been just as bored as he was in YOLT. Moore might’ve been all right but... Lazenby all the way! He’s not really an actor but I dunno, I think he does a bang up job here, particularly for fight scenes and emotional scenes. It would’ve been easy to totally get the feeling wrong with his reaction to Tracy’s death but he pretty much nails it. Cheers Mr. Lazenby.
  • Posts: 19,339
    He does fit into this particular film very well,agreed @Thunderball .
  • edited March 2019 Posts: 17,814
    Although I have difficulty seeing anyone but Laz in OHMSS, I guess Roger would be my pick, even over Connery. It would have been REALLY interesting to see Rog undercover as Sir Hilary Bray at Piz Gloria – dubbed and all!
  • Posts: 1,165
    I love George in OHMSS. I think he is absolutely fantastic in it. The only other Bond actor I could see pulling off that performance is Pierce!
  • Posts: 2,919
    If he returned for OHMSS, Connery would’ve been just as bored as he was in YOLT.

    There's no reason to assume this would have been the case if Hunt was still directing and using the Maibaum/Hunt/Raven script. Connery was bored with appearing in conventional Bond films, but OHMSS would have offered him a greater acting challenge and a chance to escape the "gadgets and machinery" that he'd come to dislike in the series. And anyone who's seen The Offence or Robin and Marian knows that Connery can give superb dramatic performances when offered the chance.

    Lazenby did a very good job as Bond in OHMSS. If Connery had said goodbye to the role in that film, he might have given an awesomely moving performance and made a great film even greater.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,073
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Could any 007 actor surpass George ?
    EVERY seriously acceptable 007 actor, even most of those we haven't even thought about, would have surpassed George. Laz was the main liability of an otherwise close-to-perfect movie. Just about any other actor that might have been credible based on the outward description of the James Bond character would have improved the movie overall. I still think, as I have for decades, that George is just not credible as a smart, educated and experienced "secret agent", for lack of a better word for what Bond is. George has a stupid, clueless look on his face all the time, and for me that cannot be compensated by being able to do hand-to-hand combat (which I never cared for anyway). Having him dubbed with Sir Hillary's voice doesn't help, either.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 815

    Revelator wrote: »
    If he returned for OHMSS, Connery would’ve been just as bored as he was in YOLT.

    There's no reason to assume this would have been the case if Hunt was still directing and using the Maibaum/Hunt/Raven script. Connery was bored with appearing in conventional Bond films, but OHMSS would have offered him a greater acting challenge and a chance to escape the "gadgets and machinery" that he'd come to dislike in the series. And anyone who's seen The Offence or Robin and Marian knows that Connery can give superb dramatic performances when offered the chance.

    Lazenby did a very good job as Bond in OHMSS. If Connery had said goodbye to the role in that film, he might have given an awesomely moving performance and made a great film even greater.

    Connery was done with Bond, he didn’t want to keep doing it for years and years, he wanted to move on. That much is easily evident in YOLT. The only way he would’ve done OHMSS is if they backed a Brinks truck stuffed with cash to his house, as with DAF, and it wouldn’t have been prime Connery.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Prime Connery would have made this movie the best in the series, but Connery in YOLT and DAF, would have been a poor choice. Still better than George though in all honesty
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,861
    A really tough call and one of the greatest “what-ifs” in Bond history.

    While I know it goes against the purpose of this topic, ultimately, I think that we get the movie we get. With Connery in OHMSS, do we get Diana Rigg? Do we get a faithful adaption of the novel? More importantly would we believe that Bond is emotionally hurt by Tracy’s murder? For (IMO) OHMSS swims or stinks on the believability of the Bond/Tracy relationship.

    No doubt, Connery has forgotten more about acting than Lazenby will ever know, but given Connery’s Bond (or at-least the scripts that he was given), that last scene may not have worked quite the same with him in the role. Maybe, had OHMSS been filmed earlier in the series (right after FRWL?) – before Connery’s Bond became so established in the public’s mind – a more nuanced performance by him would have worked. But, again, that would have – to some degree – gone against the larger trend of how spies were being portrayed in the movies and TV at that time.

    Its’ just an opinion, and I find it difficult to pin down, but I think that Lazenby’s very inexperience plays in the movies favor.
  • edited March 2019 Posts: 2,919
    Connery was done with Bond, he didn’t want to keep doing it for years and years, he wanted to move on. That much is easily evident in YOLT. The only way he would’ve done OHMSS is if they backed a Brinks truck stuffed with cash to his house, as with DAF, and it wouldn’t have been prime Connery.

    Connery wanted to move on because the films had become formulaic and time-consuming. Had he been offered a less formulaic and more challenging film (along with a bit more money and perhaps the guarantee this would be his last film) he likely would have risen to the occasion. If Hunt could get such a fine performance out of Lazenby, he could have easily engaged Connery's interest.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Connery buggered of and could not be bothered and came back with DAF in which is was a far more grumpy overweight uncle than the 007 from his first 5 movies. So he could not have done it better than the Aussie fella in my humble opinion.
    As for Roger Moore while I rate him fairly high this movie asked for some impressive physical performance which I could not see him do to be honest.
  • Posts: 2,919
    I never thought Connery in DAF was particularly grumpy--he seems to be enjoying himself more than in YOLT. And DAF was a light cash-in of a movie. But as he showed around this time (with The Hill and The Offence), Connery could give superb performances when he felt the challenge to do so. His later Bond films never gave that challenge, whereas OHMSS would have, especially if Hunt was still calling the shots. Things might have been different if the producers had taken a different direction with the film, but that's adding another hypothetical into the equation.
  • edited March 2019 Posts: 3,333
    Revelator wrote: »
    Connery was done with Bond, he didn’t want to keep doing it for years and years, he wanted to move on. That much is easily evident in YOLT. The only way he would’ve done OHMSS is if they backed a Brinks truck stuffed with cash to his house, as with DAF, and it wouldn’t have been prime Connery.

    Connery wanted to move on because the films had become formulaic and time-consuming. Had he been offered a less formulaic and more challenging film (along with a bit more money and perhaps the guarantee this would be his last film) he likely would have risen to the occasion. If Hunt could get such a fine performance out of Lazenby, he could have easily engaged Connery's interest.
    It wasn’t simply down to just the movies becoming formulaic. Connery didn’t like feeling typecast and felt the producers weren’t financially rewarding him enough to compensate for the money the movies were bringing in. Typecasting and money were his biggest bugbear. Though it wasn’t helpful that some foreign interviewers even referred to him as James Bond and not by his real name. Also he was finding it increasingly difficult going out in public without being hounded by the media and fans alike. The being photographed sitting on the toilet in Japan and it being published there was just one of many incidents that brought it all to a head and made him quit.

    I do agree that Connery didn’t give a grumpy performance in DAF as he seemed to be genuinely enjoying himself. I also agree with his dislike of the long shooting schedules, which he made sure DAF didn’t suffer from in his contact. OHMSS was one of the longest Bond shoots ever and there’s no way the movie would’ve looked the same had Connery had his tight schedule restraints enforced for that movie.

    What would be more interesting is what the movie would’ve looked like had say Terrence Stamp been cast, or even Oliver Reed. Two actors that were actually considered for the role before Lazenby was finally cast.

    As for Roger Moore, he refused to sign up for Bond 7 which was going to be originally TMWTGG. Instead he signed up for more The Saint fearful of the public outcry that it wasn’t Connery that the public were going to be seeing in a Bond movie. Moore ruled himself out so was never in contention.
  • edited March 2019 Posts: 2,919
    The long shoot for OHMSS would undoubtedly have been a complication, though Connery might have enjoyed working in remote Switzerland and Portugal more than Japan. And a higher salary might have helped, just as more money overcame his fears of typecasting and persuaded him to return for DAF. The assurance that this would be his going-away film might also have greased the wheels, along with it being an already special film, given Hunt's passion for the project and a different-than-usual script.

    Putting aside all the contingencies and returning to the thread topic, I think that if Connery had been somehow persuaded to return to the role and star in OHMSS, it would have been an even better film. I believe he would have responded to what Hunt was trying to achieve.

    Picturing Terence Stamp or Oliver Reed in the role would be interesting, but neither was a finalist for the role--according to Helfenstein, those were John Richardson, Hans De Vries, Robert Campbell, Anthony Rogers, and Lazenby (photos from the auditions can be found here.)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Had they released OHMSS when they first intended, it would have been Connery in the role. Not so sure it would have been a better film.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Connery and money - a Scotsman in heaven .
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,599
    Last night I watched a 1971 BBC interview with Connery either during or after the shoot of DAF. To me, it was primarily for the money for the Scottish Education Fund. He gave no other reason besides it. Made me rethink that OHMSS wouldn't have worked with him
Sign In or Register to comment.