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
Before 1969 it wouldn't have, since the series was focusing on bigger and bigger successive entries. Just as importantly, without Peter Hunt on board, the film would have certainly been worse.
But surely doing a film for charity is better than doing it for mercenary motives. And Connery also liked DAF's script for its wit and even offered dialogue suggestions of his own. He responded to what each film had to offer him: in YOLT he was less engaged because Bond was dwarfed by gadgets and spectacle; in DAF he was mostly in light comedy mode to introduce the Roger Moore template; in OHMSS he would have been called on by Hunt to give what he later gave to John Huston, Sidney Lumet, and Richard Lester.
I don't think that would be the case either. Only an increase in salary or share of the profits (or funding for outside projects) would have brought Connery back. Perhaps an agreement that this would be his last Bond film would have sweetened the deal. But once Connery was back, I think his seeing that Hunt and Maibaum aimed to make a much different Bond film would have brought out a great and committed performance from him--and we know he was capable of one if the project was worthy of it.
Well, the subject of this thread is not about how plausible it would have been for this Bond film to have starred that actor. The most plausible outcome was exactly what happened in reality. But if we're imagining "would this Bond film have been better with another 007 actor," then we have room for different scenarios.
It's impossible to be sure, given all the hypotheticals involved, but we know OHMSS's happy ending was ruled out after it became clear the film would be Lazenby's last. Moreover, I think a sad ending was more likely because it would eliminate Bond's marriage as soon as possible. There was a good deal of trepidation at UA and EON over the idea of Bond being married, which partially accounts for the delay in filming OHMSS. Getting Bond's marriage over with in the space of one film, rather than two, would have assuaged that trepidation.
I believe the original plan was to have that ending as the pts of the next film! Hunt insisted on it being used as the final scene!
Sure, I understand your point about the plausibility of the situation plus your remarks and where you’re coming from. I just don’t believe Connery saw Bond as anything more than a fast buck. I still don’t believe he would’ve afforded Hunt the extra months to see his vision through without it costing the studio heavily. DAF was shot and wrapped in just 5 months. OHMSS was 11 months if memory serves me correctly. This 5 months was the timescale that Connery prefered to work to. Let’s not forget that Connery had a stipulation in his DAF contract that he got a huge bonus for everyday they went over schedule. The producers and studio would’ve seen that this didn’t happen with OHMSS, just as they did with DAF. Neither would’ve wanted to pay the actor one penny more than what they had originally agreed to.
Yes, it was still possible for Connery to have made OHMSS in 69 had they paid him a fortune and given into his demands. However, due to the much shorter and strictly controlled production schedule I believe the movie wouldn’t be held up in the same way that it is today. It would’ve been a rushed and compromised production with many more shortcuts taken to get the film in the can.
One actor I used to think was a credible alternative was John Richardson. The photo below is from the movie She (1965) where he looks much better than the still taken for the OHMSS auditions.
However his hairline was receding pretty rapidly by the time of OHMSS. Sure, I suppose a toupee could’ve been used much like Connery, but there was something to be said for going with a virile young Lazenby who had all his own natural dark hair and looked more like the quintessential Bond should look rather than a blonde version. Certainly to cinema audiences at the time.
Given Connery's mercenary side, and the fact that OHMSS was already going to spend far less on sets and spectacle, I think giving him a bit more money could have ensured his agreement to the production schedule, especially since it would be an improvement over that of YOLT, giving him more time in London. Of course, the producers at the time were not prepared to go the extra mile to get Connery back.
I don't think Connery was entirely mercenary about Bond--he was when he became bored by the direction the series had taken and his treatment by the producers. His aforementioned involvement in the Warhead script, his input and approval of DAF's script (and that of the earlier Bonds with Terence Young), and his numerous complaints about the series being overtaken by gadgets show that he did care. Given that his favorite Bond film was FRWL, he might have been intrigued at the idea of saying goodbye to Bond with a well-compensated, well-scripted film that hearkened back to FRWL and gave him the opportunity to do some real acting in the role. This of course did not happen, and had nothing but an extremely slim chance of happening, but if it had, Connery could have given a great performance, as he did soon afterward in other roles.
Just to set the record straight, it was feasible for Connery to return as 007 in OHMSS had the producers been willing to concede a share of their profits and give Connery a record-breaking salary increase. Personally I think both producers were far too stingy and should’ve made Connery a partner just as UA’s David Picker suggested. Had they made him a partner then the the running over schedule might have been put to one side in favour of making the best Bond movie possible. Plus we would’ve got a better DAF and a grittier LALD with the reappearance of Ursula Andress instead of Quarrel Junior.
I completely agree with you and David Picker that Connery should have been made a partner, and that the producers were too stingy and high-handed. Cubby's successors learned that lesson and made Craig a producer, whereas Broccoli and Saltzman seemed to think that after getting lucky with Connery they could create (and cast aside) stars at will. Lazenby cured them of that idea, though they were occasionally temped by the prospect of casting small-time Americans who could be pushed around (John Gavin and James Brolin).
Sorry I am a bit late to this thread. That is a wonderful scene.
One thing that always seems obvious is the 'what-if'? scenario of Sean Connery being in the film. In my personal opinion, it may not have worked as well as it does. Now, taking nothing away from Sir Sean, he is a bonafide legend. Few would argue against him being the greatest 007. The Bond of OHMSS is markedly different from the Bond he portrayed previously, though.
My issue with Sean being in it is somewhat two-fold. And keep in mind, I am not stating my opinion as fact, merely as I see it.
Firstly, Sean's out and out tough guy persona. I think George Lazenby's comes across with a certain vulnerability in OHMSS, that is very authentic. Not, in all likelihood, because of any great acting chops. More likely because as a person, he was in a situation not familiar to him, and this showed on screen. Again, I don't know this but I'm guessing. I'm sure Sean Connery could have provided this too, he is a good actor for sure. It would, however, have been at odds and somewhat jarring with the cool, collected and tough persona we have come to expect from his Bond. I believe that sense of vulnerability is fundamental to making Bond's character work in this film.
Secondly, I didn't ever really feel much tenderness in any of Sean's on screen relationships with his co-stars previous to OHMSS. Again purely opinion, but the rather brutish way he forces himself on to Pussy Galore in GF, or 'What do you do, when, where and how' first meeting with Domino in Thunderball don't lend themselves well to a more caring relationship with Tracy. As I stated before, Sean is an excellent actor, so he could, in theory, have pulled this off, but it would, again, be at odds with audiences expectations of what he brings to Bond.
I think the far more, if you will pardon the pun, interesting hypothetical would have been if EON had pulled the trigger four years earlier on Sir Roger Moore. On the face of it, he projected probably even less vulnerability than Connery. His Bond did, however, seem to have a slightly softer and gentlemanly persona. I think this would have fit perfectly with the material in OHMSS, and pulled even more humanity out of Sir Rog.
Now, not to suggest he is a better actor than Sean Connery, but again he seemed to have a somewhat sweeter(for want of a better word) relationship on screen with most of his leading ladies. This would have lent itself perfectly to Bond's relationship with Tracy. Also, with the benefit of hindsight of course, a fresh and young(ish) Moore would have benefited Diamonds Are Forever immensely. We probably would have got a proper follow up to the events in OHMSS that we all yearn for, but never really got...
Apologies for the essay, and for the record OHMSS is near perfect as it is.
Regarding Roger, I feel he needed a couple of films to relax into the role of Bond. In LALD and TMWTGG he's effective but callow and occasionally stiff. I wouldn't have minded if he'd started in DAF, since that was already a Moore film. But perhaps Peter Hunt--who directed Roger in The Persuaders, Gold, and Shout at the Devil--could have drawn a great performance from him.
Nevertheless, I think Connery in OHMSS would have been a deeper experience, since that film marked an end to the first Bond cycle, and who better to end it (with an emotional bang) than the actor who created the role? It would have been a bittersweet and hard-hitting goodbye.
I think Moore was just fine as Bond in LALD and managed to quickly establish his own style in the film. But . . . I think many were still complaining that Connery was no longer Bond, so they forced Moore to try to portray Bond more like Connery in TMWTGG. Big mistake, as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad that Moore was able to re-establish his own style in TSWLM.
LALD sees Roger Moore at his best as Bond. Moore played a Flemingesque Bond in his first 2x films, before they allowed him to be more like Roger Moore and increase more the comic tone.
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS) had a lot to live up to. As far as the entire world was concerned, Sean Connery was James Bond. And here was some impostor – worse, an impostor from the colonies.
And yet I will fight anyone who dares to tell me that they don't like On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Fleming's story on the screen. Because they are flat out wrong. In the 50 years since it was released, it stands out as one of the best 007 films ever. Possibly even the best. It has the best soundtrack. It pushes the character into difficult new places. And that ending: that's not just a great James Bond ending, it's probably in the top 10 film endings of all time.
Lazenby isn't Connery. He lacks the presence, the star quality and the element of constant danger that his predecessor (and successor, since he returned to the role for Diamonds are Forever) made his own. His voice is a bit all over the place, like someone trying to do an impression of Tom Hardy's Bane. It doesn't help that he spends a huge portion of the film pretending to be a bespectacled, milquetoast man called Hilary Bray, nor that he was partially dubbed by George Baker.
But what Lazenby does have, when he's allowed, is brute strength. He is better equipped for stuntwork. His slight awkwardness, too, ends up being his major strength. None of the other Bond actors could do vulnerability very well but, whether intentionally or not, Lazenby is an open sore. He's ruffled more easily, caught out more. He even displays palpable fear at one point.
This is Fleming's story, on screen and it works with Lazenby.
I agree, it's a near perfect film as it is. We are just discussing the hypothetical 'what ifs'. I'm sure George would have gone on to be a legendary Bond had he not suffered a mental implosion when offered a longer term deal.
That is an excellent scene. One of the best exchanges between Bond and the leading lady of the whole series.
Scenes like that made Lazenby not look like a rookie actor.
How would a potential Connery Bond-Blofeld interaction work though since they apparently met two years earlier?
Well the whole film would need to be re-written in parts to cover situations like that.
I thought the same thing but I wonder how that would have worked. Perhaps they never meet face to face until he is discovered in bed with Ruby and Bunt
Possible yep,but it wouldn't be the classic it became I think.
Yeah its my favorite novel by Fleming. If only they filmed it in order by reversing OHMSS and YOLT
Unless Blofeld was again played by Donald Pleasance (and there was no chance of that, since Hunt didn't like the way he moved), I don't see how that would be more of an issue. After all, Lazenby was still playing a character who met Blofeld in the previous film. OHMSS simply ignored the contradiction, which was the best thing to do. Just pretend Connery's Japanese make-up was better than it really was and that Blofeld never saw him without it!
Good lord, can you imagine the Bobsled fight with Lazenby against Donald Pleasance. That scene would have had to have been written out for sure.
I see what your saying. The thing is I think Bond actors are so defined by their early work. This is one of the reasons why I don't think Craig and a TSWLM type Bond film can work. It goes too much against audience expectations. This, to me anyway, would make Connery in the film jarring, as his somewhat infallible, tough persona was set in stone by this point.
Moore and Brosnan's where probably the only two Bond's that had somewhat middle of the road(in tone, not quality) Bond debuts. And I think this why they varied their approach to the role more as time went on. With the other Bond's, Connery included, the dye was cast early. For good or bad.
Yes that is a bit of a shame.