›

A "What if..." Bond moment

OHMSS69OHMSS69
edited May 2014 in Bond Movies Posts: 2,341
Bond fans have always contemplated and discuss the what if Connery had appeared in OHMSS. Had EON decided to do OHMSS in 1967 instead of YOLT. A lot of "ifs".

I doubt we ever mentioned or discussed : What if EON had done OHMSS after GF as originally planned?

Connery's lackadaisal performance in YOLT is well documented. But what if McClory had not come back to cast his unwelcomed shadow over the Bond films following the lawsuit he had won concerning the rights to TB?

Imagine OHMSS with the Connery we saw in TB. Before he was pissed at Cubby and Salzman; before he was so bored with the role and could not wait to finish up; Before he was overweight and as out of shape as he was in YOLT. EON choosing to
follow the source novel as they did in 1968 and turning out an emotional film in 1965.

Your thoughts, concerns?

Comments

  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    I love OHMSS just the way it is, and I am personally glad Connery wasn't in it. Connery is an amazing James Bond, but George Lazenby fits the bill better as a realistic and emotional Bond for what OHMSS needed. Connery might have even given a good performance, but I don't think it would have been better than what Lazenby put on the table. I don't think any other Bond actor could have pulled off the emotional scenes as well; Laz was just perfect for that. Anyways OHMSS with Connery could have been interesting, but I doubt I would have liked it as much honestly.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    I'd be very interested to see any how any of the films would have turned out if Connery (in his Bond prime) was involved. I do enjoy OHMSS just the way that it is though so it's not that easy of a decision to make.

    There's so many questions that come to mind. Would Young be directing? Would the cast (minus Lazenby) remain the same? Probably not and it's difficult to imagine anyone else but Rigg and Savalas in the lead roles. That might be a deal breaker for me.

    Honestly, I think that TB was the perfect film to follow GF. In a perfect world I'd want OHMSS to come right after TB, followed by a YOLT that was more faithful to the novel.
  • WalecsWalecs On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    edited May 2014 Posts: 3,157
    Just like @ForxRox and @pachazo I love OHMSS as it is, there's nothing I'd change about it (except possibly replacing the dated James Bond theme during the climax with John Barry's "Battle at Piz Gloria").

    Plus, had the movie been made earlier, I wonder how much it would differ from it. It would have had a different story, most likely a different cast, and maybe Barry wouldn't have written that awesome score. No, I'm so glad they made OHMSS in 1969.

    My question:

    What if Lazenby accepted the 7-Bond-films contract?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    The movie would have been very good, but very different, with Connery in OHMSS done after Goldfinger. Say Young is the director, I would have had every confidence in him. I'm curious about his casting of Blofeld. Eric Pohlmann again, maybe?
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    @Walecs
    Answer to your question: What if Lazenby had taken the 7 picture deal? I think DAF would have been a more serious and darker tone. It would have been a revenge flick and we would have seen Blofeld and Frl. Bunt get their cummuffins.

    Would LALD have had a more serious tone as well? When and would the producers decide to lighten up the tone with Lazenby at the helm? Change would have been inevitable and eventually we might have been treated to the tongue in cheek approach.
    GL's tenue would have taken us up through FYEO.

    For the record, I also liked OHMSS the way it is. I do not think Lazenby was all that bad in the role. Just wish he had done more films. @Pachazo, I could not picture OHMSS without Rigg and Savalas either.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,525
    I wish Laz had done more too. He's one of my favorite Bond actors. Not that I hate Moore, but I prefer Lazenby
  • ThighsOfXeniaThighsOfXenia
    Posts: 1,596
    I think people forget that just because Connery didn't do a performance such as the one OHMSS required previously doesn't mean he wasn't capable of nailing it.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,348
    Well we'll never know how a Connery OHMSS would have turned out although composer John Barry at least thought that it would have been much better with Connery in the role rather than the eventual Lazenby. Personally, I think that Lazenby acquitted himself very well indeed considering all the difficulties in following up Connery and I wouldn't have the film any other way as it is my favourite of the series.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I have never found a Sean Connery that good as a romantic character, in Robin & Marian the romance gets carried by Audrey Hepburn and any man will invest in believing her. Heck even Robert Shaw is brilliant as spurned admirer.
  • fromswedenwithlovefromswedenwithlove
    Posts: 654
    I don´t really like DAF and I don´t like Connery´s preformance in it, ´cause I think he look´s old and bored, so I´m kind of glad that Lazenby got the part...
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    I hate OHMSS as it is, so yes, I would definitely be in favor of a Connery-led OHMSS following up GF in 1965. Connery's performance in TB was top notch, so should that have been the same with a '65 OHMSS, then things could have turned out far better than they did with the horribly awful Lazenby-led OHMSS.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    I'd be all for it, providing the film was as per the book. Although it would be hard to top OHMSS as it is, frankly.
Sign In or Register to comment.