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
If he ended up with seven films, his lucky number, we would have gotten a new Bond in 1973. Who could realistically take over from Moore then? Connery?
I would have liked Connery in OHMSS, but Moore would have been a strong alternative too I think. Speaking of vulnerability, there’s a very brief moment in LALD that I think showed that Moore had it in him to do more emotional moments that I don’t think the films ever gave him too much to play with. It’s when the receptionist tells Bond that his wife is expecting him, and the unflappable Moore Bond suddenly looks like someone walked over his grave, then a beat later you can see the wheels turning in his head as he’s mentally picking himself up and the cynicism is kicking back in as expressed in his delivery of “an incurable romantic, Mrs. Bond”. I can only imagine if he had done OHMSS he would have knocked it out of the park.
Connery could have been The Saint.
Kingsley Amis (in The James Bond Dossier, 1965) thought there was no way that Sean Connery could have portrayed Sir Hilary Bray in a future film version of OHMSS. Amis cited this as one example of why Connery was, in his view, miscast in the role of Bond. That's a view I would say that few commentators would have shared at the time, though Amis never really seemed to be a big fan of the Bond films as opposed to the books.
As it turned out of course Amis needn't have worried, nor had George Lazenby to worru either as George Baker dubbed over the scenes where he was in cover as Bray. I assume that the same thing would have been done with Connery's voice had he actually filmed OHMSS, given how loath he was to give up his own Scottish accent in parts.
Other way around I think: The Offence and Robin and Marian show that Connery could be very vulnerable indeed. There's nothing equivalent in Roger's filmography.
Well that's true. I'd momentarily forgotten about that! Maybe he could have played Sir Hilary after all? Sadly, we'll never know though I do find Amis' occasional pronouncements on the Bond films very interesting.
I'd say Roger Moore's outstanding performance in The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970) covers the same sort of ground. There's definitely vulnerability displayed in his performance there. Perhaps he didn't quite have Connery's range, but you get my meaning.
Couldn't agree more. Audiences probably would have been far more moved had Connery stuck around. In addition, Bond in the novel is weary and seasoned, which would have suited Connery at the time.
Regarding a face-off with Red Grant, Moore had the height/stature. And Moore being a little more refined offsets the brutal psychopath. Then it goes back to staging and directing and filming. He can play it cool. If the filmmakers kept the scene as tough, it could have been a game changer regarding Moore. Who later was over the top successful in the Bond role. It all could have added to.
That is an excellent moment. I think he would have nailed OHMSS.
That's a tough one. Connery had a different type of physicality to Moore, despite Sir Rog's size. I would guess that with a few nifty editing tricks, plus Moore being a fair bit younger at the time probably would have helped the energy of the scene.
He certainly wouldn't have done it better than Connery, but with a little help from the the chaps behind the scenes, I'm sure he could have done it excellently.
We all know the famous decision of George to not return to the role. He was offered a 7 picture deal and turned it down. He thought Bond was passé and the days of a secret agent who wore suits and such was done. But what if George didn't turn it down. What if George had signed on the dotted line? Would this eliminate Moore getting to play Bond? Would the series had the commercial success with the Aussie? Would George develop his acting skills and rival Sean in terms of popularity?
What say you Mi6? What if George Lazenby had signed on the dotted line and became the Bond of the 70's?
As it stands, the campaign for OHMSS mostly emphasized James Bond rather than Lazenby as the "new Bond". Had he agreed to continue, he most certainly would have been backed by a stronger marketing campaign, which might have helped his popularity.
But truthfully, Lazenby just wasn't accepted as Bond at the time. Audiences and critics mostly dismissed him. Sad to say, because, IMO he did an excellent job for a beginning actor.
Had George stayed on and OHMSS been the GF, TB success it might have been, then he could have grown into the role.
I think Lazenby showed great potential as an actor in OHMSS and I think he could have improved over time had he stuck with it. However, it just seems like it would've been similar to Dalton's situation, where he was never truly accepted (in America at least) and the franchise wouldn't be able to sustain long term success with him as Bond. It's definitely the biggest "what if" in the history of the series.
With Lazenby as Bond in the 70's, I expect that EON would have marketed those films quite heavily, in order to convince the audience that Lazenby was a worthy successor of Connery.
Just kidding, but there is NO way I wanted Laz as Bond ever again.
So thankful he bowed out.
But I don't know how good it would have been for Bond in the long run. OHMSS was a success but Lazenby was similar to Connery. To move out of his shadow I think they needed an actor who could really make it his own and do something different (Cubby understood this too, that's why Moore didn't drive an Aston Martin, never said "shaken not stirred", etc).
If we didn't have Moore and if Lazenby had carried on into the 70s instead then I think that Bond would have been stuck trying to emulate Connery, and I don't know if we would have had such a continuous run of films. I think the series would have eventually died with Lazenby or the next guy for a good few years before a reboot/remake in the 2000s or 2010s. Moore wasn't just a great James Bond, he was one of the most important. If he hadn't broke the mould and redefined what Bond could be then I really don't know if we would have gotten films into the 80s and 90s.
Yes the whole tone of DAF would need to change for if they kept the Tracy death as the PTS then it would be a more obvious continuation and revenge movie. I wonder if Telly would have returned as Blofeld. (scroll back a few pages if you would like to see what Mi6 felt about that! LOL!
I could see Lazenby working quite well in LALD, and even TMWTGG. Once we get to TSWLM and MR I have a harder time seeing Lazenby in the role. Maybe it would be like Dalton, he does a few and then moves on for the next Bond.
Most of what I see here on the boards it seems people want Lazenby to be in DAF and then stop his run as Bond. I don't recall anyone suggesting that he continue for the same number of films as Moore ended up doing.
Also if Lazenby did do the character for that many, does Dalton get considered as his replacement? As Dalton brings much of the same to the role in the danger aspect. Maybe this sets off a whole new domino chain?
Greatly aided by the original Fleming source material, Peter Hunt’s direction (of the movie, not him necessarily from what I’ve read), a great supporting cast (Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas, Gabriele Ferzetti, etc.), his short comings as an actor don’t really hurt the movie. In fact, I think his inexperience at being Bond, actually helped its believability, if anything. That said, how would he have done with a lesser script, or a lesser supporting cast? My gut, tells me – not as well.
In Roger Moore EON found a Bond with both significant history in the business, and who was also willing and able to be the public “face” of the enterprise that is 007. And he was politically savvy enough to make it work. Given Lazenby’s independent streak (and some of say lack of political tack), how would he have done in that role? And in many ways, that role is just as important as the acting one.
In an ideal world, I would have liked to see Lazenby (and Hunt) return for DAF to complete that cycle of films, before handing it off to another actor.
I'm not exactly a Lazenby fan, but I don't dislike him. I think having OHMSS as his debut was kind of a mistake. It's a story that should have had a much more weary older Bond, and with an actor who already had a couple of Bonds under his belt in order to earn that more dramatic and emotional take. I just didn't buy it from Lazenby. He was good for a first time actor, but not as THE dramatic lead. That said, I honestly believe a movie like LALD would have been better suited to Lazenby more than OHMSS as it's much more action oriented and fast paced. He definitely would have done better portraying a physically agile Bond than Moore did. He just comes in, does his quips, fights good fights, calls it a day, rinse and repeat.
But would the public have grown on him? That's a tough one to answer. He was already out the door before OHMSS came out, so many people were not walking into that movie thinking this would be the start of a new Bond's run. I don't blame the public for dismissing Lazenby then, as he pretty much dismissed himself.
True, there are a lot of different people that deserve credit (for stuff like changing the brands and losing the catchphrase especially, Moore wouldn't really get a say in that would he). But at the same time, none of those changes would have mattered if they didn't have an actor to make them work, and Moore's Bond is so close to his own general persona that I think he deserves most of the credit.
I think the gadgets in the draw and the other callbacks were a learning curve as they'd never done an actor change before. It sort of makes sense on paper. That stuff is meant to reassure the audience that it's still the same Bond they've seen in all the other movies. But of course all you really do is end up reminding them of Connery. At least they learned from their mistakes with LALD.
The thing that bugs me most about the calbacks in OHMSS is that it's a film that doesn't really care about continuity at all. On the one hand they seem to just be focused on adapting the book. Who cares that we've already done YOLT, continuity doesn't matter, so Bond and Blofeld don't recognise eachother. Which is a fine approach in itself. But the callbacks to the Connery films make that harder to go along with because it makes it clear that this is the same world as the other movies. They were ignoring continuity while also bringing attention to it. Brilliant film but that was a pretty weird approach to take.