Diamonds are Forever: overreaction to ohmss or overdue recalibration?

124

Comments

  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    DAF is easily Connery’s worst outing as Bond. He looked so genuinely disinterested nearly the whole movie that he felt like he was phoning it in. Add Charles Gray’s camp Blofeld, Jill St John’s wooden Bond girl (even if she does look good in lingerie), a nonsensical plot, and Kidd and Wint and you have a certified stinker.

    How they didn’t follow up with a revenge sequel to OHMSS absolutely baffles me.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Lazenby as Bond was a massive mistake and it's a real pity that Connery didn't get to make OHMSS. I like DAF. It's thoroughly entertaining, the series hit the rocks in terms of quality once we'd entered the era of safari suits and raised eye brows. I never met Roger but he seemed a really nice person and was a strong advocate for the series but he was never, ever a convincing Bond. In the end though, money talks, and Roger stumbled through 7 films over 13 years. David Picker, President and Chief Executive at UA at the time said had he realised how resentful Connery was getting regarding his treatment by Broccoli and Saltzman, then he would have acted sooner in addressing some of Connery's issues.

    Couldn't disagree with any of these points more. Obviously more Connery would have been good, but I actually think OHMSS was better without him. I think Connery as Bond had built up such an unflappable persona, to see him rattled by Blofeld and hopelessly in love would have been jarring for the audience. The film suited a new Bond.

    I actually it would have been perfect as Moore's first film. He always seemed to have a more tender relationship with his female co-stars than Sean. That being said, I love OHMSS exactly as it is.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    vzok wrote: »
    I thought Roger looked much heavier in his last 3 or 4 movies than Sean in DAF.

    In fairness Roger was over 10 years older there, than Sean was in DAF.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    Roadphill wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I thought Roger looked much heavier in his last 3 or 4 movies than Sean in DAF.

    In fairness Roger was over 10 years older there, than Sean was in DAF.

    Moore looked heavier in his final 3 movies - especially in AVTAK.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I thought Roger looked much heavier in his last 3 or 4 movies than Sean in DAF.

    In fairness Roger was over 10 years older there, than Sean was in DAF.

    Moore looked heavier in his final 3 movies - especially in AVTAK.

    Perhaps, but as I said, Moore was 54 (I believe) at the time of AVTAK. Sean was 41 in DAF.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    Posts: 3,262
    David Picker, President and Chief Executive at UA at the time said had he realised how resentful Connery was getting regarding his treatment by Broccoli and Saltzman, then he would have acted sooner in addressing some of Connery's issues.

    I think it was when Connery learned that Dean Martin was getting paid more for his Matt Helm spy spoof films(which Martin was also an uncredited producer on) than he was being paid for Bond that triggered much of those problems.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    David Picker, President and Chief Executive at UA at the time said had he realised how resentful Connery was getting regarding his treatment by Broccoli and Saltzman, then he would have acted sooner in addressing some of Connery's issues.

    I think it was when Connery learned that Dean Martin was getting paid more for his Matt Helm spy spoof films(which Martin was also an uncredited producer on) than he was being paid for Bond that triggered much of those problems.

    Could well have been. I think it's safe to say that Connery didn't part on good terms with Cubby and Harry. It's a shame that Sir Sean had to exit on such a dismal effort.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    Dismal effort? Always amazes me how people can't appreciate some of the finer points of this wonderful campy film! If it pretended to be serious I would say this is dismal. For example DAD tries to be a serious film and the tone just doesn't fit the action. Bond tortured and next we have an invisible car. DAF to me embraces the fun, Bond in a moon buggy, sure! Bond showing up M during the briefing! Sure!

    Speaking of which I love that whole scene and the eye roll from Bernard! Wonderful stuff!
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Overreaction? No. Sleazy, tacky and gaudy? Absolutely. How could they follow up the class and sophistication of OHMSS with... this.

    Those 4 years since YOLT did Connery no favours. They hit him like a wrecking ball, complete with Miley Cyrus aside it. People complain about Connery looking bored in YOLT, as if having nothing but $$$$'s in his eyes in DAF is any better. He didn't want to be there, and had to be paid too much money (he couldn't even be bothered to hide his disinterest).

    It will come as no surprise that DAF is a Bond film I only watch if I am having a Bondathon.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    thedove wrote: »
    Dismal effort? Always amazes me how people can't appreciate some of the finer points of this wonderful campy film! If it pretended to be serious I would say this is dismal. For example DAD tries to be a serious film and the tone just doesn't fit the action. Bond tortured and next we have an invisible car. DAF to me embraces the fun, Bond in a moon buggy, sure! Bond showing up M during the briefing! Sure!

    Speaking of which I love that whole scene and the eye roll from Bernard! Wonderful stuff!

    I'm glad you find so much to enjoy. Every Bond film has its charms, but they are in very, very short supply in DAF.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Overreaction? No. Sleazy, tacky and gaudy? Absolutely. How could they follow up the class and sophistication of OHMSS with... this.

    Those 4 years since YOLT did Connery no favours. They hit him like a wrecking ball, complete with Miley Cyrus aside it. People complain about Connery looking bored in YOLT, as if having nothing but $$$$'s in his eyes in DAF is any better. He didn't want to be there, and had to be paid too much money (he couldn't even be bothered to hide his disinterest).

    It will come as no surprise that DAF is a Bond film I only watch if I am having a Bondathon.

    I feel the same. It's the only time I can justify a rewatch.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    DAF is easily Connery’s worst outing as Bond. He looked so genuinely disinterested nearly the whole movie that he felt like he was phoning it in. Add Charles Gray’s camp Blofeld, Jill St John’s wooden Bond girl (even if she does look good in lingerie), a nonsensical plot, and Kidd and Wint and you have a certified stinker.

    I really don’t get how you think Connery looks disinterested or phoned it in. He was much more engaged with DAF compared to his practically catatonic performance in YOLT. He’s one of the joys of DAF along with the witty dialogue.
    How they didn’t follow up with a revenge sequel to OHMSS absolutely baffles me.

    Because it was felt doing a continuation of a film that underperformed at the box office and the starred an actor nobody liked was not in the best interest of the series at the time. You have to remember, OHMSS was for a long time considered by many to be the black sheep of the franchise. It didn’t get the kind of reverence it did until much much later.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Lazenby as Bond was a massive mistake and it's a real pity that Connery didn't get to make OHMSS. I like DAF. It's thoroughly entertaining, the series hit the rocks in terms of quality once we'd entered the era of safari suits and raised eye brows. I never met Roger but he seemed a really nice person and was a strong advocate for the series but he was never, ever a convincing Bond. In the end though, money talks, and Roger stumbled through 7 films over 13 years. David Picker, President and Chief Executive at UA at the time said had he realised how resentful Connery was getting regarding his treatment by Broccoli and Saltzman, then he would have acted sooner in addressing some of Connery's issues.

    Couldn't disagree with any of these points more. Obviously more Connery would have been good, but I actually think OHMSS was better without him. I think Connery as Bond had built up such an unflappable persona, to see him rattled by Blofeld and hopelessly in love would have been jarring for the audience. The film suited a new Bond.

    I disagree. The thing that would make it work with Sir Sean is that it would have felt EARNED to see his Bond be rattled and find love after seeing him through five adventures. The whole point of the novel is that Bond is becoming weary of his profession and that Tracy was his saving grace, only to be tragically taken away from him. It’s not a story that’s fitting for a 29 year old actor throwing his youthful swagger about. However, OHMSS works in spite of Lazenby thanks to the strong supporting cast and crew.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    I think Connery would have rocked in OHMSS. He could have done more of a "Marnie"/"Woman Of Straw" thing in OHMSS. I would have loved to see that part of his acting range surface in the Bonds.

    But I appreciate the wildcat in Lazenby and how he pulled off OHMSS.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    Roadphill wrote: »
    Lazenby as Bond was a massive mistake and it's a real pity that Connery didn't get to make OHMSS. I like DAF. It's thoroughly entertaining, the series hit the rocks in terms of quality once we'd entered the era of safari suits and raised eye brows. I never met Roger but he seemed a really nice person and was a strong advocate for the series but he was never, ever a convincing Bond. In the end though, money talks, and Roger stumbled through 7 films over 13 years. David Picker, President and Chief Executive at UA at the time said had he realised how resentful Connery was getting regarding his treatment by Broccoli and Saltzman, then he would have acted sooner in addressing some of Connery's issues.

    Couldn't disagree with any of these points more. Obviously more Connery would have been good, but I actually think OHMSS was better without him. I think Connery as Bond had built up such an unflappable persona, to see him rattled by Blofeld and hopelessly in love would have been jarring for the audience. The film suited a new Bond.

    I disagree. The thing that would make it work with Sir Sean is that it would have felt EARNED to see his Bond be rattled and find love after seeing him through five adventures. The whole point of the novel is that Bond is becoming weary of his profession and that Tracy was his saving grace, only to be tragically taken away from him. It’s not a story that’s fitting for a 29 year old actor throwing his youthful swagger about. However, OHMSS works in spite of Lazenby thanks to the strong supporting cast and crew.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think Connery would have rocked in OHMSS. He could have done more of a "Marnie"/"Woman Of Straw" thing in OHMSS. I would have loved to see that part of his acting range surface in the Bonds.

    But I appreciate the wildcat in Lazenby and how he pulled off OHMSS.

    I think you both make fair points, but I still stand by my assertion. As much as I love Connery, and more of him would have always been welcome, I think OHMSS suited a new Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,145
    For the record, I love OHMSS "as is" and I wouldn't necessarily suggest that the film would've been better with Connery. Its innate qualities seem bigger than the lead actor alone (versus, say, DN). But clearly, after YOLT Connery needed a strong acting job rather than just be the icon who smiles in the cameras. He could have gone deeper as an actor than he ever had before in a Bond film. It would have been a satisfying experience for him and us. So yeah, I believe he would have rocked in OHMSS.

    But Connery was not treated well, and so it's normal that he decided to walk away. Lazenby stepped in, and he was successfully guided through the film. I'm willing to bet that if he had stayed on board, he would have quickly grown as an actor. But Lazenby was given poor advice and Picker dropped on his knees for Connery. I like to think that we lost a few good films that way, but hey, the Moore era would soon come and I'm not displeased with how that went. :)
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    For the record, I love OHMSS "as is" and I wouldn't necessarily suggest that the film would've been better with Connery. Its innate qualities seem bigger than the lead actor alone (versus, say, DN). But clearly, after YOLT Connery needed a strong acting job rather than just be the icon who smiles in the cameras. He could have gone deeper as an actor than he ever had before in a Bond film. It would have been a satisfying experience for him and us. So yeah, I believe he would have rocked in OHMSS.

    But Connery was not treated well, and so it's normal that he decided to walk away. Lazenby stepped in, and he was successfully guided through the film. I'm willing to bet that if he had stayed on board, he would have quickly grown as an actor. But Lazenby was given poor advice and Picker dropped on his knees for Connery. I like to think that we lost a few good films that way, but hey, the Moore era would soon come and I'm not displeased with how that went. :)

    Absolutely. I would have liked to have seen George stay on for one or two more films, but in no way shape or form, would I sacrifice Sir Rog for more Lazenby.
  • Posts: 1,913
    Let's be realistic. Even if he was treated better or not or whether the part allowed him to act as never before as Bond, there is no way Connery at that time would've put up with the 8 or 9 months of filming Hunt took to get OHMSS in the can. His demands for shorter filming would've likely compromised the quality of the film and I wouldn't care for that trade-off.
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    DAF is easily Connery’s worst outing as Bond. He looked so genuinely disinterested nearly the whole movie that he felt like he was phoning it in. Add Charles Gray’s camp Blofeld, Jill St John’s wooden Bond girl (even if she does look good in lingerie), a nonsensical plot, and Kidd and Wint and you have a certified stinker.

    I really don’t get how you think Connery looks disinterested or phoned it in. He was much more engaged with DAF compared to his practically catatonic performance in YOLT. He’s one of the joys of DAF along with the witty dialogue.
    How they didn’t follow up with a revenge sequel to OHMSS absolutely baffles me.

    Because it was felt doing a continuation of a film that underperformed at the box office and the starred an actor nobody liked was not in the best interest of the series at the time. You have to remember, OHMSS was for a long time considered by many to be the black sheep of the franchise. It didn’t get the kind of reverence it did until much much later.

    Fair point - I think Connery peaked too early with Goldfinger. DAF just isn’t my cup of tea.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    For those that say he was out of shape or disinterested. I think you need to re-watch the film.

    He delivered the lines with aplomb and played off the cast. He was able to deliver the comedy extremely well and still brought a hard nose to the scenes that required it. Tell me the guy in the elevator fight is phoning it in? I don't see it. No stunt double needed here and the fight is better for it.

    As for the out of shape or older statements. He was attempting to do something with the character. This Bond is older and embraces it. Unlike in a AVTAK where a 50 plus man is attempting to seduce a 30 year old and is playing it straight. Connery gets bashed for not looking the part but he was doing something with the character. It's subtle, even his hair piece for this film was done to make him look older. Compare his look here and in the Anderson Tapes to see what I mean.

    Without DAF, no Roger. Cause it DAF failed then Bond would be limping and would very much not have survived and third actor in three films. DAF gave the template for LALD which then gave the producers 2 good commercial successes before the miss of TMWTGG.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,264
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think Connery would have rocked in OHMSS. He could have done more of a "Marnie"/"Woman Of Straw" thing in OHMSS. I would have loved to see that part of his acting range surface in the Bonds.

    But I appreciate the wildcat in Lazenby and how he pulled off OHMSS.

    I agree that Connery could have done it if his heart were in it. I just wish Connery had had more staying power/a better relationship with Eon through the '60s. Say OHMSS had happened around the time of TB (as I believe was intended). Four films seems too soon for Tracy to appear. Six feels about right.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    echo wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think Connery would have rocked in OHMSS. He could have done more of a "Marnie"/"Woman Of Straw" thing in OHMSS. I would have loved to see that part of his acting range surface in the Bonds.

    But I appreciate the wildcat in Lazenby and how he pulled off OHMSS.

    I agree that Connery could have done it if his heart were in it. I just wish Connery had had more staying power/a better relationship with Eon through the '60s. Say OHMSS had happened around the time of TB (as I believe was intended). Four films seems too soon for Tracy to appear. Six feels about right.

    The script for that film the 1965 OHMSS looks very different from the 1969 version. Aston Martins that go underwater and a slew of other gadgets. Based on what little I know about the project I am glad it never got filmed. I agree that 6 or 7 films into the series was the perfect time to bring it to the screen. My only quibble would be for it not to be the debut of an actor in the role.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    thedove wrote: »
    For those that say he was out of shape or disinterested. I think you need to re-watch the film.

    He delivered the lines with aplomb and played off the cast. He was able to deliver the comedy extremely well and still brought a hard nose to the scenes that required it. Tell me the guy in the elevator fight is phoning it in? I don't see it. No stunt double needed here and the fight is better for it.

    As for the out of shape or older statements. He was attempting to do something with the character. This Bond is older and embraces it. Unlike in a AVTAK where a 50 plus man is attempting to seduce a 30 year old and is playing it straight. Connery gets bashed for not looking the part but he was doing something with the character. It's subtle, even his hair piece for this film was done to make him look older. Compare his look here and in the Anderson Tapes to see what I mean.

    Without DAF, no Roger. Cause it DAF failed then Bond would be limping and would very much not have survived and third actor in three films. DAF gave the template for LALD which then gave the producers 2 good commercial successes before the miss of TMWTGG.

    Him being out of shape for Bond wasn’t exactly a conscious choice as he was brought back to Bond at the last minute. He wouldn’t have been able to quickly get back in his prime shape if he tried. However, the choice of grey toupee was definitely his choice as that’s how his hair was becoming and wanted that reflected with Bond. I always admired Connery for not being one of those actors who tried putting out a fake image for the public. He’d only wear toupees for certain roles when it made sense.
  • Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of DAF it is infinitely better than most of the Sir Roger attempts.What a weak, wet Bond, he was. Did he attempt even the most simple of stunts? . Apparently not. A taylors dummie of a Bond. It was all downhill after DAD. Recover only came with TLD.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited August 2020 Posts: 814
    It was all down hill after Die Another Day, which came out 25 years after The Living Daylights? I assume you meant LALD.

    Roger’s style of Bond has never been a favorite, but I love the guy, because, well, he’s so lovable. I do have some pretty big problems with virtually all of his films, though not really with him. To call him a tailor’s dummy is to insinuate that he’s wooden, I completely disagree. He’s damn good at what he does, and what he does is have fun, which the audience can feel. To me, the only Bond actor that could be called wooden is Brosnan, and even then, not all the time.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    It's rich that those who say Roger would have been a good Bond for OHMSS as he could pull off the emotional scenes. Slight problem is the fights! I can't picture the beach fight, or the one in the hotel being as gritty as it would require frequent cuts to stunt performers.

    I enjoy Roger movies and appreciate what he did, but he had some shortcomings that some can't seem to overlook.
  • It was all down hill after Die Another Day, which came out 25 years after The Living Daylights? I assume you meant LALD.

    I assume he meant DAF rather than DAD. But as the saying goes, "whenever you assume you make an ass out of u and me..."
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    thedove wrote: »
    It's rich that those who say Roger would have been a good Bond for OHMSS as he could pull off the emotional scenes. Slight problem is the fights! I can't picture the beach fight, or the one in the hotel being as gritty as it would require frequent cuts to stunt performers.

    I enjoy Roger movies and appreciate what he did, but he had some shortcomings that some can't seem to overlook.

    Have you seen the fights in OHMSS? There was a ton of cutting and speeding up the film! It would have made Sir Rog look like a fighter.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,381
    Yes I have seen the fights and yes there are cuts, however I can always see that it's George doing the fights. Compare it to the fights of Moore in TSWLM when it's obviously Martin Grace, or even MR when again Mr. Grace makes appearances in the fights.

    Fighting was not Moore's strength. He knew his limitations and played within them. But Moore's Bond was probably the least physical of any of the Bond actors. Lots of chases but not much rough and tumble action.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,830
    It was all down hill after Die Another Day, which came out 25 years after The Living Daylights? I assume you meant LALD.

    I assume he meant DAF rather than DAD. But as the saying goes, "whenever you assume you make an ass out of u and me..."

    @BeatlesSansEarmuffs. “Beth Olem” will never live that down 😊!

    FYI, Interesting factoid, according to IMDb, Jill Jaress (Ms. Olem) is the CEO of "Got A Laugh Entertainment." A writer and director, at one point she also starred with Pierce Brosnan in Tennessee Williams' play, "Red Devil Battery Sign", in London.

Sign In or Register to comment.