Controversial opinions about Bond films

1553554556558559707

Comments

  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Controversial opinion: I wish Lazenby never got the role. I love OHMSS, but that's in spite of him. He just never clicks for me. An experienced and professionally trained actor like Connery or even Moore would have CRUSHED it. Lazenby, to his credit, turns in an adequate performance for a first time actor, but he doesn't have the charisma of a leading actor, and he's just way too young for the Bond that should be portrayed in the story OHMSS has. It's even more evident when paired with Diana Rigg, who even she regretted in an interview about not being paired with Connery or Moore.

    Sean and Roger are great actors but they can't play a lover as much as a younger guy, i agree there should have been an experience actor but not like Connery or Moore, they played more Cinematic Bond than bond from the books.
  • OctopussyOctopussy Piz Gloria, Schilthorn, Switzerland.
    edited March 2020 Posts: 1,081
    Controversial opinion: I wish Lazenby never got the role. I love OHMSS, but that's in spite of him. He just never clicks for me. An experienced and professionally trained actor like Connery or even Moore would have CRUSHED it. Lazenby, to his credit, turns in an adequate performance for a first time actor, but he doesn't have the charisma of a leading actor, and he's just way too young for the Bond that should be portrayed in the story OHMSS has. It's even more evident when paired with Diana Rigg, who even she regretted in an interview about not being paired with Connery or Moore.

    Sean and Roger are great actors but they can't play a lover as much as a younger guy, i agree there should have been an experience actor but not like Connery or Moore, they played more Cinematic Bond than bond from the books.

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton. Lazenby was the most Bondesque character in real life, having serviced in the Australian Special Forces, rising to the rank of Seargant, gaining expert skills in unarmed combat. The fact that he was a skii-instructor at one stage and one of the highest paid models in Europe help too. I find that his portrayal of Bond is genuine and heartfelt and it's for this reason that you believe the relationship between Bond and Tracy. Lazenby reacts to situations in the film, not as an actor, but rather as he would as a human-being and that's what makes his Bond relatable. It's moments like when Tracy invites Bond to her room in the Casino and Lazenby stands up only to sit down as she tosses the keys to him that make his performance great. The small nuisances in his performance. I can't image Sean or Roger being afraid of the bear while trying to evade Blofeld's henchmen in St. Moritz. I can't image Sean or Roger proclaiming their love to Tracy in the barn. I can't image Sean or Roger sobbing over Tracy's death at the climax of the film. I'm currently reading OHMSS and the book has given me a renewed love for the film and in particular for George's performance as to me it feels straight from the pages itself. It's really apparent in the book how human Bond really is and it's a characteristic that Lazenby totally nails in the film, perhaps ironically due to his inexperience.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Lazenby and Hunt returning, together with a third Dalton film, is the big unfulfilled wish of the franchise.

    Wholeheartedly agree.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Lazenby's performance has a lot to do with Hunt's editing expertise. One gets the sense that Lazenby was "edited around," as it were.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Octopussy wrote: »
    Controversial opinion: I wish Lazenby never got the role. I love OHMSS, but that's in spite of him. He just never clicks for me. An experienced and professionally trained actor like Connery or even Moore would have CRUSHED it. Lazenby, to his credit, turns in an adequate performance for a first time actor, but he doesn't have the charisma of a leading actor, and he's just way too young for the Bond that should be portrayed in the story OHMSS has. It's even more evident when paired with Diana Rigg, who even she regretted in an interview about not being paired with Connery or Moore.

    Sean and Roger are great actors but they can't play a lover as much as a younger guy, i agree there should have been an experience actor but not like Connery or Moore, they played more Cinematic Bond than bond from the books.

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton. Lazenby was the most Bondesque character in real life, having serviced in the Australian Special Forces, rising to the rank of Seargant, gaining expert skills in unarmed combat. The fact that he was a skii-instructor at one stage and one of the highest paid models in Europe help too. I find that his portrayal of Bond is genuine and heartfelt and it's for this reason that you believe the relationship between Bond and Tracy. Lazenby reacts to situations in the film, not as an actor, but rather as he would as a human-being and that's what makes his Bond relatable. It's moments like when Tracy invites Bond to her room in the Casino and Lazenby stands up only to sit down as she tosses the keys to him that make his performance great. The small nuisances in his performance. I can't image Sean or Roger being afraid of the bear while trying to evade Blofeld's henchmen in St. Moritz. I can't image Sean or Roger proclaiming their love to Tracy in the barn. I can't image Sean or Roger sobbing over Tracy's death at the climax of the film. I'm currently reading OHMSS and the book has given me a renewed love for the film and in particular for George's performance as to me it feels straight from the pages itself. It's really apparent in the book how human Bond really is and it's a characteristic that Lazenby totally nails in the film, perhaps ironically due to his inexperience.

    And that's exactly why Lazenby is my second favourite Bond after Dalton.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    Octopussy wrote: »
    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton. Lazenby was the most Bondesque character in real life, having serviced in the Australian Special Forces, rising to the rank of Seargant, gaining expert skills in unarmed combat. The fact that he was a skii-instructor at one stage and one of the highest paid models in Europe help too. I find that his portrayal of Bond is genuine and heartfelt and it's for this reason that you believe the relationship between Bond and Tracy. Lazenby reacts to situations in the film, not as an actor, but rather as he would as a human-being and that's what makes his Bond relatable. It's moments like when Tracy invites Bond to her room in the Casino and Lazenby stands up only to sit down as she tosses the keys to him that make his performance great. The small nuisances in his performance. I can't image Sean or Roger being afraid of the bear while trying to evade Blofeld's henchmen in St. Moritz. I can't image Sean or Roger proclaiming their love to Tracy in the barn. I can't image Sean or Roger sobbing over Tracy's death at the climax of the film. I'm currently reading OHMSS and the book has given me a renewed love for the film and in particular for George's performance as to me it feels straight from the pages itself. It's really apparent in the book how human Bond really is and it's a characteristic that Lazenby totally nails in the film, perhaps ironically due to his inexperience.

    100% right on the money. Sean and Roger were always acting, which of course, they’re professional actors. George wasn’t, and so he was largely reacting, naturally. He didn’t know how to do anything else.
  • Posts: 1,916
    The Connery in OHMSS stands alongside the DAF as sequel to OHMSS as 2 of the great what ifs of the series.

    My take is if they'd gotten to do OHMSS after GF as originally planned then maybe Connery would've been on target, but given the script was different at the time it may not have turned out near what we got. And there's no way he'd have every tolerated the lengthy shoot from late '68 into the spring of '69.

    He wasn't in peak physical form then, either, evident as far back as YOLT. He was still in good shape, but looked a bit heavier and older. There's a behind the scenes photo of Connery in Japanese makeup at the ninja training school next to a technical advisor who looks a lot older but is in great shape and makes Connery look less fit.

    This is where Lazenby came in and stood out. He just sold it better than Connery could've at that time.
  • Birdleson wrote: »
    I've gone one about this before. Two timelines that work, and kind of make sense.

    DN>FRWL>TB>OHMSS>LALD (only for the consistency of Hedison's Felix)>TSWLM>FYEO>LTK

    or

    GF>YOLT>DAF>NSNA

    That is well thought out. Pretty neat.

    That's a great idea. I'll have to try watching them like this!
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    BT3366 wrote: »
    The Connery in OHMSS stands alongside the DAF as sequel to OHMSS as 2 of the great what ifs of the series.

    My take is if they'd gotten to do OHMSS after GF as originally planned then maybe Connery would've been on target, but given the script was different at the time it may not have turned out near what we got. And there's no way he'd have every tolerated the lengthy shoot from late '68 into the spring of '69.

    He wasn't in peak physical form then, either, evident as far back as YOLT. He was still in good shape, but looked a bit heavier and older. There's a behind the scenes photo of Connery in Japanese makeup at the ninja training school next to a technical advisor who looks a lot older but is in great shape and makes Connery look less fit.

    This is where Lazenby came in and stood out. He just sold it better than Connery could've at that time.

    Agreed. I also think that the film world was okay with a downbeat ending in 1969--films had gotten darker--in a way that they weren't in 1964, 1965, or 1967. So the timing with Connery simply wouldn't have worked out.
  • Posts: 1,394
    I have a feeling that if they had filmed OHMSS with Connery,they would have have spared Tracey,at least until the pre title scene of the next film.It would have been epic to see Connerys Bond in full revenge mode.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,711
    Are there any films, and I mean any films at all, not just Bond, where Sean Connery has a grnuinely romantic relationship with a woman?
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,108
    Are there any films, and I mean any films at all, not just Bond, where Sean Connery has a grnuinely romantic relationship with a woman?

    Haven't seen it but I've been told Robin and Marian should be one.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.
  • Posts: 16,149
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.

    I agree here. The Connery of the late '60's would have been far more ideal for Fleming's OHMSS, rather than being in his prime as per TB. The book is several years after Vesper and he still pays his respects. He's far more world weary and tired.

    In addition, had a faithful YOLT been shot afterwards the Connery of DAF would have been suited to THAT story, IMO.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2020 Posts: 6,277
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.

    I agree here. The Connery of the late '60's would have been far more ideal for Fleming's OHMSS, rather than being in his prime as per TB. The book is several years after Vesper and he still pays his respects. He's far more world weary and tired.

    In addition, had a faithful YOLT been shot afterwards the Connery of DAF would have been suited to THAT story, IMO.

    Only if Cubby and Harry did what Babs and MGW did decades later and give Connery both a piece of the action and substantial creative input. Only then would Connery have given a great performance in OHMSS in 1968.

    Babs and MGW do not get enough credit for learning from Bond history.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Lazenby and Hunt returning, together with a third Dalton film, is the big unfulfilled wish of the franchise.

    I’m not Lazenby returning is a fans unfulfilled wish? Agreed on the other points though.
  • Posts: 1,916
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.

    Speaking for myself, it's not that Connery couldn't have, it's would he have wanted to given the circumstances. He was at the end of his tether with YOLT and would've never stood for the epically long shoot that was OHMSS, with a stronger character or not. Lazenby came about at just the right time for the right film. What if he'd have been in another YOLT-type of gadget-laden film?

    As for romantic relationships in other Connery films, how about The Russia House or Cuba? Problem is those 2 films are a slog to get through.
  • Posts: 1,394
    Entrapment is a movie that romantically pairs him up with a quite young Catherine Zeta Jones.
  • edited March 2020 Posts: 1,596
    @MakeshiftPython I am in complete agreement regarding Lazenby. In fact, for my controversial opinion, I think he's genuinely pretty bad in the role and the movie 100% succeeds in spite of him. It is really difficult for me to bring myself to watch that film because every time I do I am in awe of its greatness and borderline infuriated at how bad Lazenby hampers what would otherwise be far and away the best Bond film ever made, or at least top 3.

    He's not as bad as I'm making him out to seem. He isn't terrible. But he certainly isn't good. He's far too chummy to be 007. There's something boyish and unconvincing about the performance. His physicality is certainly great, though, and I'm sure that he would do alright if he continued in the role. But when people praise his performance I am often baffled.

    tl;dr - He isn't terrible, but given the context of the film around him, he is (relatively speaking).
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 814
    BT3366 wrote: »
    MARNIE?

    Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
    Octopussy wrote: »

    This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton.

    I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.

    I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.

    Speaking for myself, it's not that Connery couldn't have, it's would he have wanted to given the circumstances. He was at the end of his tether with YOLT and would've never stood for the epically long shoot that was OHMSS, with a stronger character or not. Lazenby came about at just the right time for the right film. What if he'd have been in another YOLT-type of gadget-laden film?

    As for romantic relationships in other Connery films, how about The Russia House or Cuba? Problem is those 2 films are a slog to get through.

    Connery was also at the end of his tether with Broccoli and Saltzman. He would’ve been sleepwalking through OHMSS worse than YOLT.
  • Posts: 631
    i don’t think Connery’s approach would have worked with the OHMSS film that we actually got.

    His portrayal of Bond is quite lightweight from Goldfinger onwards. When he got a free crack at his own interpretation of Bond, in NSNA, we could all see what he thought a Bond film should be. And that film was not in the style of OHMSS.

    I think that Roger could have carried off an excellent OHMSS, if it had been saved for him. Roger could have made us believe that Tracy was The One, and he could also have acted the grief at the end of the film very well too. He was a much underrated actor, better than Connery perhaps.

    This does remind me that the film makers were under no obligation to make OHMSS the next film in 1969. They could easily have put it on the back burner (“too depressing”) and gone with one of the other novels. After YOLT in 1967 they still had LALD, MR, DAF, TMWTGG and TSWLM as Fleming novels or titles still to film, so they could have put Lazenby into one of those.

    That way OHMSS could easily have been a Roger Moore film, perhaps a late 1970s one.
  • Posts: 2,915
    He was a much underrated actor, better than Connery perhaps.

    Nope. Moore was underrated, but he simply doesn't have a body of work that includes performances like those Connery gave in The Offence, Robin and Marian, The Man Who Would Be King, The Wind and the Lion, The Hill, etc. Connery played a "lightweight" Bond for the same reason Moore played a "lightweight" Bond--it was the template of the character and what audiences expected. The point of OHMSS was the challenge those expectations. Connery got bored with Bond because the movies were giving him progressively less to act with and because he felt he was being taken advantage of by the producers. Had he reached a deal with them and been under Hunt's direction, I have very little doubt that he would have risen to the challenge of OHMSS. His later career shows how good of an actor he was.

  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    @MakeshiftPython I am in complete agreement regarding Lazenby. In fact, for my controversial opinion, I think he's genuinely pretty bad in the role and the movie 100% succeeds in spite of him. It is really difficult for me to bring myself to watch that film because every time I do I am in awe of its greatness and borderline infuriated at how bad Lazenby hampers what would otherwise be far and away the best Bond film ever made, or at least top 3.

    He's not as bad as I'm making him out to seem. He isn't terrible. But he certainly isn't good. He's far too chummy to be 007. There's something boyish and unconvincing about the performance. His physicality is certainly great, though, and I'm sure that he would do alright if he continued in the role. But when people praise his performance I am often baffled.

    tl;dr - He isn't terrible, but given the context of the film around him, he is (relatively speaking).

    +1. His walk and accent is not Bond either. He’s ok in a brilliant film.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    i don’t think Connery’s approach would have worked with the OHMSS film that we actually got.

    His portrayal of Bond is quite lightweight from Goldfinger onwards. When he got a free crack at his own interpretation of Bond, in NSNA, we could all see what he thought a Bond film should be. And that film was not in the style of OHMSS.

    That doesn't necessarily prove he couldn't have done a film in the style of OHMSS. I'm sure if he wanted he could have done it, but NSNA at the time it came out was supposed to be something that would rejuvenate his career and be what audiences expected of his James Bond. All that said, he wasn't even happy with how NSNA turned out anyway.
  • Posts: 1,596
    Precisely. Saying that Connery's approach wouldn't work is extraordinarily underestimating him as an actor (or any actor with some range and pedigree, honestly). Connery, if he wanted to and put his mind to it, could absolutely have pulled that off. Now, given Connery's thoughts toward the role and the series at the time, he likely wouldn't have given it his 100%, but that's a different conversation.

    If we take Connery as the actor we know from the rest of his career, and his earlier Bond work with Young, he absolutely could've delivered the timbre of performance that the filmmakers were looking for.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,575
    Connery has gone on record stating that he would have loved to do a Bond film of such nature. Problem is that it was done when he was done with the role. It should have followed up TB like the novels did chronologically.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    Connery has gone on record stating that he would have loved to do a Bond film of such nature. Problem is that it was done when he was done with the role. It should have followed up TB like the novels did chronologically.

    In a 1967 interview that was done sometime after YOLT was completed, Connery said he was willing to return as James Bond if EON had paid him £1m.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,575
    Connery has gone on record stating that he would have loved to do a Bond film of such nature. Problem is that it was done when he was done with the role. It should have followed up TB like the novels did chronologically.

    In a 1967 interview that was done sometime after YOLT was completed, Connery said he was willing to return as James Bond if EON had paid him £1m.

    I thought he turned that down.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,277
    Connery has gone on record stating that he would have loved to do a Bond film of such nature. Problem is that it was done when he was done with the role. It should have followed up TB like the novels did chronologically.

    In a 1967 interview that was done sometime after YOLT was completed, Connery said he was willing to return as James Bond if EON had paid him £1m.

    I thought he turned that down.

    He did just that with DAF.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,180
    Connery has gone on record stating that he would have loved to do a Bond film of such nature. Problem is that it was done when he was done with the role. It should have followed up TB like the novels did chronologically.

    In a 1967 interview that was done sometime after YOLT was completed, Connery said he was willing to return as James Bond if EON had paid him £1m.

    I thought he turned that down.

    I'm saying after YOLT Connery's asking price was £1m, EON rejected that, thus he walked away from doing a sixth Bond film. He would only come back in DAF when United Artists made that offer.

    It's kind of remarkable though that even though these films made well over $100m, EON wasn't even willing to pay Connery just 1% of that. Cut to 50 years later and EON is willing to pay up Daniel Craig because they know he's worth the money.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,575
    YOLT made 111 million and DAF made 116. Safe to say OHMSS would have made around that. Small piece of the pie. I think YOLT was too grand which didn't give him much to work with.
Sign In or Register to comment.