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'd done it and really given it 100% then it'd probably be even more highly regarded than it is now. I'd even say that it might generally be regarded as the all time best. Brilliant enough to appeal to fans and memorable enough (the one where he gets married) to sway the man on the street who otherwise would have just said GF.
The one thing I've always been unsure of is, would Connery have been able to bring the vulnerability Lazenby did? He looks like he's genuinely scared for his life when escaping Piz Gloria for example. And if you'd asked me a couple of years ago I would have said no. But to be honest, after reading some interviews with Lazenby lately, I'm pretty sure that that aspect of his performance was entirely down to Hunt's direction. And Connery is a good enough actor to pull that off vulnerable human and romantic if needed, look at Robin and Marian.
So yeah, I think if he'd done it and actually put the effort in, and if Hunt was still directing, then it'd be even better than it already is. That's what should have happened as well really. I like Lazenby but OHMSS would have been a perfect sendoff for Connery (I doubt he'd have done DAF if he'd done it). Imagine how powerful the ending would have been if it was the effortlessly cool bruiser we'd spent all the previous films watching breaking down like that instead of a new guy.
Lazenby was good. And given the point Connery was at, I'm not sure I'd risk going back in time and changing it just in case he phoned it in. But peak Connery in OHMSS would have been perfect and it's a shame it didn't happen.
I wonder if Connery ever even glanced at the OHMSS script or if he just dismissed it outright no matter the quality of the story. My guess is he was DONE and didn't care by that point and never did. After all, this is the guy who claimed DAF was the best Bond script, unless he was just trying to play nice while he made and promoted the film.
Has he ever commented about OHMSS?
I think he simply enjoyed the process of collaborating with Mankiewicz, not that it was the best script overall. It's got some of the best dialogue in Bond films, which Connery seemed to have a ball with.
But Connery starring in it after YOLT ... no. He was overly frustrated by the part and it would‘ve shown. It would be a lesser OHMSS than we have it today. But in „Thunderball-shape“ and such a classic, earthed script at hand and starring against Diana Rigg I am 100% sure it would be even better than it is today without a doubt.
I've always very much enjoyed and defended Lazenby's performance in OHMSS, and if given the chance to replace him with Connery in it, I wouldn't take it. Connery is the best James Bond, but Lazenby was the right one for OHMSS IMO.
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.
I'd like to see his Bond against a physical Blofeld like the one Salvalas played. The bobsled fight would be pretty cool. Interesting how Connery's Bond was pitted against more cerebral Blofeld's. He looked like a giant up against Pleasance.
Secondly, there’s the matter of a shortage of snowfall when they wanted to shoot the Connery version, hence why it was abandoned and they went for YOLT instead. Then there’s the matter of a completely different Piz Gloria, as the one used in the movie was still under early construction so could not have been used. Of course, OHMSS was originally intended to be made directly after GF, but as I stated above it would have introduced the submersible Aston Martin which we only know about due to Peter Hunt being handed this script and him demanding it be thrown out and completely rewritten.
Had he read Maibaum's script and understood the direction Hunt wanted to take perhaps his enthusiasm would have returned?
I could see Connery's Bond being burned out and bored to tears with the hunt for Blofeld as in the novel.
Still I love Lazenby and the film we have. I also love Connery's return in the next film.
I think Connery could have the range to play a weary and emotional Bond. It would have been a great capper to his Bond can given him an emotional arc. I think it's one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.
I can appreciate what Lazenby did with the material. I wouldn't take away from his performance. I would have loved to have seen Connery with the same material.
In addition, don’t forget that the hiring of Diana Rigg was due, in part, to having an inexperienced leading man. In short, with Connery, maybe we don’t get Rigg and I think that she – in many ways – is the heart of OHMSS.
As for Box Office, by 1969 the “spy-craze” was ending, and I think that while OHMSS would have done better with Connery, it still wouldn’t have done as well as YOLT.
I see your point. I'm guessing with the way Hunt shot and edited the fight scenes, he would have made Sir Rog look a better brawler then most have, though.
This is something I brought up earlier and countered it with the idea that audiences might not have rejected that notion on the account that Connery had already won more than enough goodwill from audiences to be open to the idea of his Bond meeting his match through Tracy. You pair him with a leading actress that would have believably brought out his vulnerability, especially if it’s with someone as talented and charismatic as Rigg. After five films, it would feel less phony and more earned to see this man show a different side. It would certainly help make Connery’s run feel like a journey. I personally think it would have felt more earned to see his character expanded in such a way, as opposed to watching an unknown male model propped up as a leading man with no acting experience.
Great point. A world weary Connery rejuvenated by falling in love with... well, it would have to be the right actress. I can see it though.
A fresh Connery from DN and FRWL could've easily pulled this off imho. Despite his supreme confidence, there is still a naivete about him.
It's all in the editing. Some of his fight scenes fare better than others and it came down to creativity or a lack thereof. You're obviously right though that it's a handicap that they didn't have with Lazenby and a theoretical Connery.
However, you could make the argument that it would've felt appropriate for Connery's Bond if seen as the conclusion to a long journey that we had gone on with him for many years. This time he lost and he had the acting chops to pull it off.
BTW, I love OHMSS as is and wouldn't change it, but come on now, Connery could've done it justice.
As for Moore, he wasn’t interested in following directly on Connery’s heels by being the second Bond. He only agreed after Lazenby had popped that particular cherry and demonstrated that audiences would and could accept another face as Bond, hence why he bailed out of a possible 007 movie in 1968 and signed up for more of The Saint instead.
For my money, his on screen relationship with Kara in TLD is the most convincing since OHMSS (and up until CR). Connery doesn't really have any real emotional connection with any of his leading ladies which to me doesn't suggest he was the best actor for this film. All pure speculation of course (as all these comments inevitably are).
By the same logic hadn't Connery ruled himself out of the role and therefore also was "logistically incorrect".
Yes, Connery did rule himself out which is why I don’t care to dwell on this topic, nor do I encourage it. However, Connery had at least been Bond before OHMSS, unlike Dalton, who’d only appeared in some small TV drama called Sat'day While Sunday that nobody’s seen or even heard of, including Cubby Broccoli, otherwise he’d have mentioned it. Realistically Dalton was being considered for DAF, not OHMSS. It’s just that some members here have a delusional belief that Dalton could’ve been Bond in OHMSS based on their dislike of Lazenby and not the true events. Your post just endorses that same misguided belief, which is why there’s a continuous plethora of “Dalton could’ve been Bond in OHMSS” posts almost monthly to the point where it becomes tedious. The worse case scenario is that some actually believe it.
Theoretically, yes, Dalton could’ve played Bond in OHMSS as he was alive and acting at the same time, as was Craig when GE was in preproduction. The only obstacle, or fly in the ointment, is that no one had actually heard of Dalton until after The Lion in Winter came out almost an entire month after Lazenby had already been announced as the new Bond, by which time it was far too late, even if they had wanted him in the role.
Look, I’ve made my position abundantly clear on the ‘69 OHMSS subject on other threads besides this one. I believe the only realistic possibility of a Connery OHMSS movie was back in ‘65 before the producers struck a deal with McClory and opted for TB instead of their preferred choice. Had Terence Young directed OHMSS instead of TB and McClory made his independent version with the scrawny Lawrence Harvey in place of Connery, we’d be discussing a completely different Lazenby picture, possibly TMWTGG. Of course, we don’t know what the ramifications of two Bond pictures coming out simultaneously would’ve done to the franchise at such a crucial moment in its popularity. The detrimental effect of Charles K. Feldman’s Casino Royale coming out before YOLT did considerable damage to Eon’s box office takings just two months prior to their own release. My belief is we would’ve witnessed something similar between OHMSS and TB, only in ‘65 rather than ‘67. The fundamental difference being that McClory’s TB would not have been a satirical spoof unlike Feldman’s movie, but would’ve starred the alcoholic Harvey not at all flattering in his swimming trunks. Personally, I’d rather Harry & Cubby had successfully struck a deal between Charles K. Feldman (and not McClory) and filmed CR starring Sean Connery in place of YOLT, therefore not damaging their own release date that same year. This way they still would’ve had YOLT in reserve to film at a much later date. If OHMSS had been filmed in ‘65 as originally planned followed by CR, then that would’ve left Lazenby to make his own debut in YOLT in ‘69.