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
I thought Hopkins accepted the role of Carver. And that it wasn't until just before they were due to start filming, with the script was still being tinkered with, that Hopkins bailed out.
But I prefer to know accept that Hopkins turned them down because Dalton was no longer Bond. :D
I could see why Hopkins was interested in doing it with Dalton. Somehow, Brosnan does not seem the most compatible actor for someone like Hopkins who needs someone with severe acting chops like Dalton.
I myself never heard the rumour that Hopkins accepted TND and then bailed. He was approached but was not blown away with what was on offer. By 1996 he could pick and choose any role he wanted and doing Bond would not add to his career.
Not to general audiences so much but in terms of fans of Fleming and the early spirit of Dr No. Moore's films though very good did not make Bond look like a serious character.
But those who know how Bond should really be were more than satisfied with Dalton.
But no question, in terms of populism and path of least resistance, Moore was the public favourite. It is only recently in light of Craig that Dalton gets the true accolades he should have got over 20 years ago.
Why? Because the serious take is in fashion whilst the camp has been relegated to where it belongs as in the past.
The same thing happened with Batman Returns. It was too dark and Warner Brothers made Batman Forever as an apology to the similar complaints LTK got. Goldeneye is the Batman Forever equivalent in Bond lore. It was a fine film but a blatant compromise. Vivid and colourful mostly and occasionally dark like the scenes where Bond meets Alec for the first time in years.
But when you watch The Dark Knight, you have a serious smack in the face to familiarity. Batman is no longer this perfect hero who can save you so easily.
What can't be disputed is the fact that EON hadn't signed Lazenby beyond a one picture deal, which was an oversight and unthinkable regardless of whether the film was a huge BO hit or a flop. And let's not forget that TMWTGG was actually a bigger flop (if one can use the word) than OHMSS which almost ended Moore's run of 007.
Cubby's book goes into detail and gives a credible argument as to why Lazenby was already doomed even before the filming was finished. No one liked his attitude including the actors. Bernard Lee was pissed off with him. Even John Barry once said he rubbed people the wrong way and made Connery look humble.
True, Saltzman was clearly the man who liked Lazenby. But United Artists shared the same view as Cubby as in Lazenby was history. Connery was brought back at the behest of UA who were not in a gambling mood like Harry.
Just using pure logic, who would give an unknown a seven film contract? Connery was better known before Dr No and was signed to 5.
With a 7 film contract, say they needed to drop Lazenby after the second film bombs. Well, they would have to pay him for the other 5. Now, one thing I know about the film business is that they are ruthless and masters of the odds in their favour.
Moore was signed to three and he was a bigger star than Lazenby by miles. So that also tells me that Lazenby is economical with the truth.
Harry was not the most pragmatic and Cubby in his book shows how his partner would sometimes do things without the knowledge of the others involved causing huge financial havoc.
The plot was very clever as it followed Fleming's original very closely and I felt that it was all very lush and suave throughout. Thinking of the early scenes in the film I recall the whole casino and hotel stuff. Bond is back in his tucks looking splendid and the sets reflect this - classic 60's Bond that was totally lacking in my view from YOLT. Lazenby was also very convincing at being tough in those fights.
The mission is clear and enthusiastic - finish Blofeld, once and for all. Tracy is a very strong Bond girl and has a sort of classic English charm to her which was very exportable in those days. She is also quite beautiful but troubled. The photography in the film is stunning and here is where I slip up because I can't explain it from a technical point of view but the quality of the picture is far superior to YOLT. YOLT is dreadful, you can almost see the make up on some of the actors and the clothing department was pretty bad - very dated now. I can't say the same for OHMSS. The presentation of the OHMSS looks great in widescreen.
The music is Barry at his best. The alternate version of the main theme that plays when the baddies (still love that word) begin chasing Bond down the ski slopes still sends a shiver down my spine when the bass starts really rumbling. A rumble in the jungle, or at least up in the slopes. I don't have a problem with seeing Bond's more emotional side. I also like seeing him sh1t himself when he turns around into that bear. That whole seen is edited perfectly and you can really feel the sense of fear and panic in Bond amongst such an opposite setting - the Christmas celebrations. Then when Tracy comes and saves him it is just awesome.
The end still leaves me a little choked at times when I watch it too and I think that the makers of the film handled that, which could have been difficult, scene really well.
PS - I wish that source music heard briefly in the film was on the soundtrack. It is played briefly during the snow scenes when Bond is still in Hilary disguise. I bet it was written by Barry........
OHMSS is not a brilliant film because of Lazenby's performance. That much cannot be disputed. You are right even on these few indisputable facts like John Barry was phenomenal as was the supporting cast and the director who knew the franchise having been the editor of the earlier films.
Diana Rigg is without question one of the greatest Bond women ever.ironically in 1969 a woman's role was defined way better than in 2002. Put Rigg then into a film now and she is wow all the way!
Telly Savalas is outstanding too.
OHMSS was the whole Bond team putting their best foot forward and considering Lazenby acted like a moron on set, he is a fool to annoy everyone as well as upset them. Lazenby is a text book example of a man whose ego blinded his judgement. He was not 16 but 30 at the time. He should have known better.
But had the film performed phenomenally at the box office, then no doubt he would have been in line for another.
Connery was in fact signed up for six Bond movies as he reveals in an interview with Playboy magazine during the Thunderball promotion when asked how many more he's got to make. Here is an excerpt:
PLAYBOY: In any case, Dr. No turned out to be a hit, and you found yourself under contract for a series - exactly what you said you wanted to avoid.
CONNERY: Yes - but it allows me to make other films, and I have only two more Bonds to do.
PLAYBOY: Which ones?
CONNERY: On Her Majesty's Secret Service and possibly You Only Live Twice. They would like to start On Her Majesty's Secret Service in Switzerland in January, but I'm not sure I'll be free in time and I don't want to rush it, although they say the snow will be at its best then. I'm not going to rush anything anymore.
I think the reason why they would want to sign up an unknown on a long contract is for the obvious reason it would be cheaper and hopefully they would be grateful of this golden ticket, unlike Connery who manged to get out of his last Bond film. Let's not forget that Connery took to storming off set if Saltzman turned up on YOLT, which made his position untenable in the producers' eyes.
Also, United Artists did not share the same view as Cubby who still wanted to go with a lesser name and cast John Gavin in the role. Connery's comeback was all down to Arnold Picker who did all the work and presented Cubby & Saltzman with his decision. Gavin also was in fact slated to play Bond in 1973's Live and Let Die, but Harry Saltzman insisted on an Englishman even though he didn't agree with Cubby on his choice of Roger Moore who he thought was still seen as Simon Templar and not right for the role of Bond. I think the reason why Moore was signed to only 3 was that he was seen as a bigger risk than Lazenby as Moore still had The Saint image to contend with and being an unproven draw for cinemagoers.
I too think a 7 picture deal was maybe a stretch for Lazenby and probably think it was closer to 5. However, the fact that they cast a 30-year-old in the part makes me wonder whether they had their sights set on surpassing Connery's legacy. Of course, we know what happened next.
John Gavin was dropped by UA the minute Connery decided to come back for one more. It was an easy decision for UA. In their business, Connery was a proven star who made them a fortune.
Harry and Cubby themselves did not want Connery back. But the film studio being the financial backers said they would have to. It was only until Connery said emphatically no, that they looked for a permanent replacement.
Lazenby was good, but sadly Connery's legacy was too powerful for a man who had no acting experience. Had Lazenby been an actor for real, then he would have been a great Bond.
Ironically Lazenby did everything he could to ensure he would not last long. And UA would no way invest in someone who clearly saw no future in the role. Connery did have his differences with the producers, but Cubby said in his book, that once filming began, Sean was the total professional. And the crew loved him.
Connery's contract was for five films with an option for a sixth. Nowhere does he say in that interview that he was signed for six. I do not think any film studio would have allowed him to renege on the contract. He would have incurred a huge legal cost for not doing his sixth. Connery walked after YOLT because he had no contractual commitment anymore.
I guess my earlier point was to counter your belief that it was solely down to Cubby that Lazenby would not be making another Bond because he had personal issues with him - when in fact it was a joint decision that would have to include Saltzman, especially when we know that Harry still believed in his protégé and did everything he could to lure him back for DAF, hence all this talk of $1 million and a longer picture deal. The fact that Saltzman eventually gave up and turned his attention to his other movie projects and let Cubby takeover on DAF doesn't mean that no effort was made to entice Lazenby back.
Though I agree with you on the subject of Lazenby being his own worse enemy, I can still look beyond the backlot shenanigans and not let it spoil my overall enjoyment of the film, unlike others that allow it to cloud and spoil their view. If I was to apply the same rules to other movies with notable "difficult actors" then it would tarnish a hell of a lot of good pictures.
For me, OHMSS will always be a great movie and after all this backbiting from the Broccoli's years after the event it only makes me like it even more.
Eunine Gayson, who was first asked to play Moneypenny, has said her contract was for six films, for what it's worth.
I also believe Lazenby never signed a contract for Bond, only during filming did they want the four film contract signed, if not the official seven picture offer.
Anyway, as on page 2:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/2764/on-her-majestys-secret-service-very-overrated
Eight pages on the subject right there.
Harry badly wanted Lazenby to work out to show up Connery who he was on bad terms with. And true that Cubby was not the sole decision maker.
But Cubby had UA on his side and Harry trying to get Lazenby to sign a contract on the side would have contravened the partnership agreement. If you notice, Lazenby always says Harry was the one who was contract obsessed.
I think Lazenby did good in the film, but there is no way he made Harry's job easier with the money men. And the bad on set atmosphere which George caused was not something easily forgotten.
Connery once remarked that had Lazenby kept his mouth shut, it may have worked out different. But stupidity is not a virtue in the movie business. Lazenby is the biggest fool in showbusiness and sawed off the golden branch of opportunity he was sitting on.
And if you notice, DAF was almost like a u-turn on OHMSS. Like they were scrubbing the memory of the last film by going in the exact opposite direction.
Many of you are right on. I'm glad to see that I am not alone in my sentiments.
Definitely.
I believe that was meant to be the plan - a new direction. The documentary even says so. This meant out with the people of the last film including Hunt and in with humour and getting back to the Goldfinger vibe, the first Bond to acheieve massive success. That was the template. Connery, Hamilton, Adam and Bassey all came back along with Barry working his magic once again.
That final point may have been one of the reasons audiences had trouble with the film back in the day. Besides the trivial fact of the immensely popular Connery being absent from the role, there's OHMSS's lack of the same share of pleasantries and lightness the previous films had offered. In some respects, OHMSS is a downer and certain folks never like that. It seems that today, audiences have come to accept and even crave that level of gritty, dark and serious story telling for their Bonds but in '69, people wanted a different type of fun above everything else.
OHMSS was inappropriate for the audiences of the 60s but swiftly regained appreciation when the greyer 70s brought stark nihilism and painful depression to our cinemas. Hamilton's three Bonds in those days stood perpendicular to that mood swing; OHMSS would have been more intensely favoured then, rather than a few years before.
But no point arguing it now. Modern Bond fans, it seems, are vastly more into OHMSS and I for one am one of those.
Regards coggins .
Very good pre credits sequence in Portugal, fine Barry score and interesting titles sequence highlighting all the Bonds that came before it. Never was much of a fan of the Tracy character although Rigg was a fine actress, but it just didn't quite work for that. The Piz Gloria scenes drag on, but are componsated by Lazenby in his 'Hilary Bray attire' wandering between rooms and taking advantage of the girls. Decent action sequences, Savalas makes for a good Blofeld, and the late Ilse Steppat did very well as the creepy Bunt and stole some scenes
It was a good ending for the 1960s Bond, before they spoilt all that and started the next decade with Connery back in a near disaster of a picture. Most will remember it for 'Bond gets married' and the subsequent loss of his wife at the very end
Not one of my favorites, but definitely a 'season' Bond and doubtless will be played more often over the holidays this year. Pity Lazenby only got to do the one film
PS @Echo
It's not the best, I don't think it would even be in my Top Ten, but you can understand why some hold it in such high regard
Yep. Audiences that leave smiling are better for the box office. Better word of mouth & more repeat viewings. Looking back, I have to applaud the guts it took to decide to do the film so faithfully- that is, ending it with her death & not tacking on a different ending...
I don't want to see any Bond girl get killed, even (maybe) nasty types like King or Frost, but I think now, I'm liking it better when Bond arrives at the end of a movie without the girl, it's something some have got used to, and I don't mind that too much
Maybe it's just too many bad experiences with some of the actors, such as Moore with Roberts, Brosnan with Berry and Richards etc. Craig is a serious Bond, and I think he works better at the end without a girl to be truthful
I think SF is a bit of an apology for CR and QoS
Indeed it is. Though SF is a departure from the way a traditional Bond film is structured.
If I have one criticism of the reboot era is that they have changed directors in all three films. Each one looks stylistically different because how could they be the same when each director perceives the franchise differently.
Where Warner Bros has been smarter with the Batman reboot is they left all three in the hands of Nolan. But if Nolan did the first and then someone else took over, then I do not think The Dark Knight would have had the same impact.
Very much so. The only thing I wished they'd done was to incorporate Blofeld's appearance as per the novel.
@chrisisall, please refrain from posting too many of these 1-word or 'few'-word posts. They don't add much to a discussion and are regularly considered spam. Thank you. ;-)