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
There's something to be said for this. George's legacy would surely be somewhat tarnished had he slogged his way through the weak entries of the early 70s.
Better to burn short and bright than to fade away amongst an embarrassing sea of slot machine elephants, JW Pepper and slide whistles.
I can see where you're coming from there but who knows if a serious DAF with Laz hunting down Blofeld would've sunk the series? Impossible to tell really. Cubby and Harry certainly had enough faith in him to keep going.
Let's not forget that OHMSS still made a very healthy profit just not quite in the spectacular league of the previous films (and YOLT was already down on TB - possibly due to CR67 - so natural fatigue had started to set in with the audience and spymania had peaked around 65/66) so I don't think EON would've been too concerned that the box office was a little bit down. If a Laz sequel to OHMSS had brought in way less box office wise then they might have had to make a decision.
Had it been a flop they could have let him go, waited a few years then relaunched with Rog.
Admittedly Sean and DAF kept things ticking over but it was really Rog who proved the series could survive without Sean.
Actually we do know. Look what happened with Dalton. People were curious about a new Bond after Moore was in the role so long, there was faith in EON to give a good showing, and the film (TLD) performed well. Then a few years later once that bubble of good will, enthusiasm and hype had died down LTK came along and underperformed. Doubtlessly this would have been the case for Laz, had he decided on returning. There is always a slight "bump" when a new actor comes in, which is why often their sophomoric effort gets seen as a dud or "tricky second album."
OHMSS was indeed a success, but if you Dail down the ambient noise the fact is that people didn't take to Lazenby or fully appreciate the film at the time. A slump would have been almost inevitable had they attempt a follow up.
Well you're missing out the factor that Lazenby already said, before it's release, he wouldn't return. The negative press it created may or may not have kept people away/ or attracted them. In that way, nd in his performance, he's completely different from Dalton. He's got far more 'joi de fivre' in his performance (as he's gotl oads of it as a person). The only thing that I think would've worked against him is his own personality, his inability to conform to the regime of Bond and film-making. In other words, I don't think he would've been the same 'Bond'in the next film as he was in OHMSS.
John Gavin would have been a disaster.
And even with his limited acting experience, George really pulled off that last scene. Can't really see any of the others doing it that well, save for maybe Tim.
I can actually imagine Rog pulling it fine.
I don't think I've ever seen Big Sean vulnerable (except when on the rack and after being shot in TB) but that doesn't mean he couldn't have done it. Moore and Craig could have done it also.
Whereas Connery and Moore played it cool and collected all the time, but it's plausible that they could temporarily suspend that portrayal and pull off the final OHMSS scene with the necessary gravitas without overacting (which Dalton and Brosnan would be at risk of doing). This is based on hints in their Bond movies and their non-Bond work.
Despite his lack of experience, I thought Lazenby managed to scrape thought the quieter moments (the action sequences are where he did his acting), though he was surrounded by actors of strong calibre. Dalton could have done it without needed the same support.
I'm happy with OHMSS as it is. If anything I wish Lazenby could have done TB and YOLT too (properly and in the right order).
Have to agree with this! Just cant see Connery in those scenes with Rigg!
I'm with you all.
Sean is a great movie star but I don't think that necessarily translates very well into selling crying over his dead wife. Rog the same for that matter.
Dalts in the Della scene is terrible, he improves a bit but the scene is not a patch on popping the baloon when Saunders cops it.
Broz would've been interesting given his actual experience of bereavement but I fear some overacting would have been unavoidable and he falls into the same movie star bracket as Sean and Rog (although obviously not in the same league).
Which leaves us with Dan and given his work in CR I think we can safely say he'd have done an admirable job but there's no way I'd change a thing. Laz nails it.
Connery's Bond was so rough on women it's hard to imagine him in a tender love story, not that Connery doesn't have the acting ability to do it. The dynamic with Rigg would have also been very different, Connery would have been a lot more authoritative, whereas in the film as is it feels like she's the one in charge a lot of the time.
Good point. She is in charge and I think a lot of that is due to Diana's experience and self confidence in front of the camera, whereas George was learning the ropes. I really think had Sean done OHMSS, Diana's Tracy would have truly been his equal. I think he would have really met his match in Rigg and to see Connery/Bond fall head over heels for her would have been quite something. I have no doubt he could have pulled it off. In addition seeing Connery's Bond develop that relationship only to lose her in end could have had quite an impact.
I wouldn't change it either. Had Sean done OHMSS and it been his last, I have a hard time picturing what type of tone the first post Connery film would've taken. I imagine DIAMONDS would still follow, but we might actually have gotten John Gavin or someone like Burt Reynolds then.
I wonder how his doing OHMSS would've affected both his legacy as Bond and that of the film. Would we look at his Bond differently? The franchise? Impossible to say of course without seeing the hypothetical film. It just seems to me that Joe Public sees OHMSS as 'that weird one where the guy who only did one film gets married." The pairing up of the one-off actor and the unusual-for-Bond conceit kind of add to the film's alienness. But had Connery done it, it would've just been another Connery Bond film. The series would've had a harder time escaping from OHMSS to something else, I think. And Connery's Bond might be seen as less static. I'm not sure if either would've been for the best.
Which is why...
I agree.