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
Same
I do too - As much as Connery is the best Bond, I think he wouldn’t of made OHMSS as good as what Lazenby did.
But I can’t imagine him (or any other Bond actor for that matter, except maybe Dalton) in this particular film.
Lazenby not only owned the fight/action scenes but he also acquitted himself very well in the dramatic scenes. The ending alone puts him firmly in second place, behind only Sean.
I think Lazenby would have also been great in some of Connery’s outings, particularly From Russia With Love and to a lesser extent, Thunderball.
I still honestly think Roger would've been rather good in it. His more charismatic style I think would have worked for the emotional moments, he'd have played the comedy stuff with Hilary Bray very well, and he had the 'playboy on the cote d'azur' stuff down pat. The fight scenes would have been worse.
But without Lazenby, OHMSS would have not needed to stretch the 007 formula. Yes, under different circumstances, Connery would have made it a different kind of classic.
That doesn’t change the fact that Lazenby is pretty wooden in OHMSS. I’m sure there would have been differences with Connery, but with Peter Hunt’s persistence in staying true to the novel I have no doubt he would have managed to come close to what he ultimately did, and Connery would have felt reinvigorated with the stronger emphasis on character like he was with the earlier films.
+1
I think Connery would have preferred starring in OHMSS, as opposed to the more camp YOLT or DAF. He has said on record that he preferred the earlier films (FRWL in particular), so would have made the most of the material he had to work with.
Having said that, by 1969 he was done with playing Bond, and his heart was clearly not in it anymore. Maybe we would have had a rather pedestrian Connery performance had he been in OHMSS, more aligned to the carefree portrayal of Bond in DAF or NSNA, than the edgy Bond of Dr. No and FRWL.
I like OHMSS for what it is, as a one-off with Lazenby who physically looked better than Connery at that stage, even if his performance was more wooden.
Very well put, couldn't have said it better myself.
:))
Had Connery agreed to star in a Hunt-directed OHMSS, I don't have any doubt at all that he would have been engaged by the material and director and given a great performance. Connery was a superb actor and his performances in Robin and Marian and The Offence, demonstrate this beyond any doubt.
Yes, it was. Connery has said multiple times that gadgets were overshadowing the role of Bond--that's part of why he grew bored with the part. And part of why he did DAF was because he liked the "material"--he thought the script had a lot of humor. Connery hated being dogged by the Japanese paparazzi, but filming in a remote region of Switzerland on a mountaintop would have been a different experience. Had the producers offered Connery a better financial deal, he might have been game for OHMSS.
In any case, I can’t see Connery spending weeks at Schilthorn and watching Joanna Lumley, Julie Ege, Jenny Hanley, etc. knit between takes!
Can you prove that? By all accounts it was Peter Hunt that pushed for sticking to the novel, as he was owed for putting work into TB and YOLT.
OHMSS was one of the novels they had decided to honour from the beginning, due to it being a very strong story. They originally scoured Switzerland during the filming of GF for potential locations for OHMSS, which was pencilled in to be the next one, and Richard Maibaum worked on a script at that time.
However, Thunderball was filmed instead after the ongoing rights dispute over the novel hassle between Fleming and Kevin McClory. OHMSS was then due to follow TB, but problems with a warm Swiss winter and inadequate snow cover led to Saltzman and Broccoli postponing the film again, opting for YOLT instead.
I love OHMSS the way it is too, but I'm not sure EON would have done a massive U turn on the script of OHMSS, had Connery decided to play the role, throwing out all the work Maibaum had originally done, and giving us a light-hearted, gadget laden, camp 70's style romp instead. There is no evidence to suggest this, but there is evidence to suggest the film would have been more or less the same, because the script was already done years before.
Couple that with Connery dissatisfaction of the direction the Bond films were going after YOLT and it was probably EON's one bargaining chip they had left to entice Connery back one last time, to play Bond more in the old straight style, something resembling Connery's favourite Bond film - FRWL (well, other than a massive pay check). ;)
Yes.
However, based upon his YOLT performance, Connery would have been good at playing a hypnotized patient, though.
I sort of agree with this. While I would swap Lazenby out for another actor, that actor most certainly isn't Sean Connery. There is no way he could have pulled of the film by this time. His Bond style (or rather what started as Terrance Youngs take on Bond, which grew more ott after FRWL) was already set in stone. Though I do think that OHMSS would have worked better as a later film for a Bond actor, rather than their debut film.