›

What if George Lazenby had been in Diamonds Are Forever?

1234568»

Comments

  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    As Hunt and Lazenby only did one Bond, and obviously the same movie, its hard to work out the influence. Personally, I am convinced that if Hunt had directed OHMSS with the same team (and obviously music) but with a different Bond, it would still have been a great movie. It is the overall feel and look of the film (plus the ending...plus Ms Rigg..plus the stunt etc etc) that does it for me, its not a great movie because of GL. So, for me, the more interesting question is concerning the alternative time line of Hunt directing several more movies. Can we all agree that DAF would have been much better if Hunt had directed?
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    What a good thread!

    I am convinced that if Lazenby had done DAF that DAF would have been much better.
    Connery was just wrong for that movie and consider this: With Lazenby they would have done DAF as a full fledged revenge story!! DAF might have even been the best Bond ever who knows.

    And who knows if Lazenby would not even have been more popular than Connery at one point, he just never got a chance (which he caused himself of course stepping away).

    Imagine Connery stepping away from the role after Dr. No! Would we even seriously consider him to be the best Bond actor. He undoubtably would be ranked No 6 now.

    If Connery had not done a second Bond he would still be better than Brosnan.

    OHMSS is a great Bond film due to the story and script, not beacuse Lazenby was anything special. He was an ok stand in for Sean, who did well with the emotional scenes.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    suavejmf wrote: »
    OHMSS is a great Bond film due to the story and script, not beacuse Lazenby was anything special. He was an ok stand in for Sean, who did well with the emotional scenes.

    Agree. OHMSS without Lazenby would still have been an exceptional film under the stewardship of Hunt. OHMSS without Hunt could have been a dud.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    Avenging Tracy's death surely would rank as THE greatest motivation that we would have seen on the screen. Its a real shame we never saw it. Back to back movies, a seamless 5 hours or so of quality. The funeral scene on it's own would have been iconic.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    edited July 2015 Posts: 5,131
    Oh yes. Hunt was excellent. If only he had done more (as talked about for FYEO). He created a great visual style...learnt via Terrence Young no doubt.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,617
    As a relative newbee to these forums, has there ever been a vote on the best Bond directors? Over the years their infuence has been massive.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    OHMSS would have worked with Sean Connery as well of course and nobody would even doubt that OHMSS would be the greatest (Bond) movie of all time, had Sean played the part.

    But Lazenby was not just a stand-in. He did very well, because OHMSS could have been "destroyed" with the wrong actor.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    As a relative newbee to these forums, has there ever been a vote on the best Bond directors? Over the years their infuence has been massive.

    Pretty sure there has. I seem to remember Young being way out in front.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    True, Lazenby performed admirably. Connery is my favourite 007....but could he have done the final scene as well? I'm not sure and we'll never know.
  • patbpatb
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Hunt had a different vision of Bond. IMHO, it was fortuitous that he had a new actor to work with. We were just on the cusp of 60s/70s culture and I am not sure how Connery's Bond would have fitted in with Hunt's Bond. It would have been interesting. I know others disagree but ...the death scene ? (plus the romantic montage and the scene on the hay barn) We never saw Connery's Bond being that romantic. I dont think it would have worked. But Hunt's Bond met Tracy very early and was romantic straight away. It's not only stretching Connery's Bond but stretching the audience to accept Connery's Bond in this way. (in the same way that I cant imagine PB's Bond crying with M in his arms, but, as usual, I digress)
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Personally I think we're not giving Connery enough credit. If he had been on board, and I mean with all his heart and soul, he would have rocked in OHMSS. But coming off the YOLT experience, which barely had Connery 'act' rather than just be there, we are more or less left to assume that he wouldn't have gotten the romance and drama down. All I can say is, watch Marnie. If the Marnie Connery had been in OHMSS, it'd have been awesome!
  • patbpatb
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,617
    Fair point but its a different question regarding would the audience have accepted the change in character. When you have a new actor, there is an acceptance that, to some extent, you are watching a new Bond with a different character (PB to DC an obvious example), when you see the way that Connery's Bond treated women in the run up to OHMSS, would it have been believable? Connery fans may know better but are there any examples in the earlier movies where Bond has treated the Bond girls in any other way than either sexual objects or tools to beat the bad guy (or both).
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    RC7 wrote: »
    To refer back to the OP, the interesting angle is not so much, Lazenby returning, but Hunt. Having Hunt not direct a Bond beyond OHMSS is far more galling than a lack of Laz. Hunt is like Campbell, they just 'get' Bond.

    Exactly. Well said. The critical factor would have been getting Hunt back to make the proper revenge sequel that was needed.

    Not sure so much about Cambell.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    He gets my vote based on the excellent CR (best Bond since the 60's)....but not GE (an average entry).
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    suavejmf wrote: »
    He gets my vote based on the excellent CR (best Bond since the 60's)....but not GE (an average entry).

    As I said before, GE and CR are so wildly different in terms of quality that it's almost as if they are different directors. GE just looks so awful as well - it looks more like a naff 80s movie than the ones actually made in the 80s. Only TND in the Brosnan era has much visual flair IMO. The TWINE Bilbao scene is nice but apart from that it's pretty poor.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Getafix wrote: »
    suavejmf wrote: »
    He gets my vote based on the excellent CR (best Bond since the 60's)....but not GE (an average entry).

    As I said before, GE and CR are so wildly different in terms of quality that it's almost as if they are different directors. GE just looks so awful as well - it looks more like a naff 80s movie than the ones actually made in the 80s. Only TND in the Brosnan era has much visual flair IMO. The TWINE Bilbao scene is nice but apart from that it's pretty poor.

    Keep it about Lazenby and DAF. This isn't a Brosnan bashing thread okay?
  • 007ClassicBondFan007ClassicBondFan
    Posts: 2,270
    I always feel that the biggest tragedy in the history of the series was Lazenby not returning, especially since he was the second actor the official series had, DAF I feel would have been better with him in the role, although I'm not exactly sure how they would have featured Irma Bunt since the actress passed away shortly after the film was released. If anything, the DAF we ended up with was more of a sequel to YOLT than OHMSS, and it would take another few good films until we got a proper acknowledgement of the films events with TSWLM and FYEO.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    suavejmf wrote: »
    Oh yes. Hunt was excellent. If only he had done more (as talked about for FYEO). He created a great visual style...learnt via Terrence Young no doubt.

    It would have been very interesting to see a Hunt-directed DAF. Would Savalas have returned? Would Bunt (unfortunately the role would have to be recast) be in the movie too? And Hunt's take on Wint and Kidd would also have been interesting; I'll bet they would have been more Bunt-like than the campy characters we got.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    They overreacted to it. It wasn't a flop or a bomb.
  • Ottofuse8Ottofuse8
    edited August 2015 Posts: 832
    It would have been interesting to have seen two movies, the first of which ends in bond finding and killing bunt, and in the second, finally finding and killing blofeld, with blofeld having a smaller role in the first movie with bunt as the main villain, and once again as the main villain in the second.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    They're greedy. Always have been. Your movie cost 7 million and it brings in over 80 million. Even with a downbeat ending and a non actor in the lead, you only end up 30 mil below You Only Live Twice
  • AntiLocqueBrakesAntiLocqueBrakes The edge
    Posts: 538
    Missed opportunity. Lazenby could have gone on a Quantum like revenge tour. (Some on board might see that as a problem, ha). The PTS in DAF would have been carried out with more conviction without the "Guess Who's Back" factor. Connery doesn't even grieve, doesn't reference the marriage, and even has polite discussion with Blofeld in Whyte's penthouse. THIS MAN KILLED YOUR WIFE, SEAN. Lazenby would have gunned for Ernst the whole movie. Sad that he never got the chance.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,124
    As much as I dislike DAF and love OHMSS I think as DAF stands it probably saved the franchise. It hurts me to admit it but another movie in the same tone as OHMSS could have killed the franchise.
  • AgentJamesBond007AgentJamesBond007 Vesper’s grave
    Posts: 2,632


    My attempt to see what the gunbarrel could've looked.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    NICE.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    If he did, we would've had a real revenge story. However, I doubt Bond would've survived the 70's without the change to the campy tone and Moore's arrival to rescue the franchise.
  • petergreenhill5petergreenhill5
    Posts: 824
    OHMSS is a strong Bond film despite Lazenby, not because of him. It's strong because of Rigg and Savalas, Fleming's novel, Barry's score. Lazenby delight's in recalling how he'd stay out till the early hours and then learn his lines in the car on the way to the studio. Lazenby had no acting experience and it shows. Wooden is the most appropriate description. Fortunately, Lazenby's poor advisers saved us from having to endure any more from him. Despite the Bond film, his film career was limited. Connery's return, albeit it for just one film, was very welcome to many Bond fans at the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.