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 guess the idea is that Bond hasn't fallen in love with Tracy yet: he only realises once she rescues him. Which kind of suggests settling down is going to be pretty tough for him!
I do think their relationship is slightly ham-fisted though: she hates him, he grabs her, forces a montage on her, she loves him :D
It makes Blofeld all the more impossible to recognize Bond.
👍 Yes.
It is interesting to think about whether it really would have worked, long term. In the book he has that nightmare about being a farmer (?), and consoles himself by deciding getting married doesn’t have to mean quitting his job. So, we already know he wouldn’t have given up his exciting life as a spy. Would he really have been able to give up sleeping with other women, even for her? Maybe Blofeld was just saving us from a follow up where he turned down the mission to Japan because the divorce was too much to deal with.
But Lazenby was not a good actor and Bond doesn't have superpowers.
The change of voice works better in DAF.
Well, at that time in the films, it's their first time attempt at inserting an interesting deep romance in a Bond film and it didn't lasted for long, because by the time Lazenby quit, it went back to Bond being promiscuous.
It's not explored in the Connery Era either, so, it's interesting to see.
Well, it did happened in the books long before OHMSS, with Bond being unable to do the job because Bond was just fresh from his break up with Tiffany Case.
After the events of Diamonds Are Forever, Bond brought Tiffany Case to his flat in London and started cohabitation, but not long enough, she left her to marry an American Marine, Bond was left heartbroken in the next book, From Russia With Love, actually that's all the more strange, he's suffering from a heartbreak then went to have sex with Tatiana Romanova.
What good actor? Superpowers? What do you mean? The change of voice was necessary because he's in disguise, and it worked well in that regard, because the voice that he's using was the man he's trying to copy.
And what are you talking about superpowers? Are we watching the same film?
The change of voice in DAF was because of a device, but here, it's different that he's trained to imitate a different man, a different personality, it's a matter of training, practice, spies really doing that, they're having trainings in order to imitate voices.
Actually the voice impersonation device in DAF was a bit too far.
I'm not sure about that, it's not pretty obvious, and again, it's necessary, because if they didn't have that voice over, the disguise wouldn't clearly have worked.
If someone may ask why Blofeld didn't recognized Bond, it's one of the reasons, to make Bond far from recognizable.
If we're shown to Bond taking vocal lessons to impersonate, it might take time as the film was already longer.
As for the Piz Gloria scenes, it’s one of the things that I find lets OHMSS down and is one the reasons it’s slipped a bit in my personal rankings. Lazenby isn’t playing Bond posing as Bray for chunks of the film, but he’s playing Bray. Lazenby isn’t able to effectively convey that duality, and I think this is one of the reasons for the bizarre dubbing. Bond in effect isn’t present for some of these important scenes.
But there's already the problem of people asking of "why Blofeld doesn't recognized Bond?" and it's getting annoying, really.
For me that disguise kinda worked, the dubbing was really needed, it's far better than Bond posing as say, Mikhail Arkhov in TWINE (that even Christmas Jones, the sassy bimbo scientist wasn't even sure towards him), or his disguise of James St. John Smythe in AVTAK, where man, he's pretty recognizable in those, or that clunky Japanese disguise in YOLT, the clown disguise in Octopussy was already pretty far off from Bond.
Playing Bray, yes that's it, it doesn't need duality, because Blofeld shouldn't recognized him, he needs to play an entirely different character, it's for me, a bit realistic, at least, it's Bond spying at best, not being himself.
He did some great camouflaging in there.
Exactly, my friend, very well said! 👏
It's a combination of all sorts, it's a film with complete package of humor, groundedness, romance, and action, it's complete of all tones.
And the voice (as for me) was made to stop people asking of "Why Blofeld doesn't recognized Bond?" Sentiment.
I imagine Roger Moore doing OHMSS and he would have made all of those Bray scenes work so well. You'd get plenty of him dropping the act for the camera as someone turns their back, and he'd tackle the comedy no problem and make it much more entertaining.
Obviously Sean would have no trouble with that either, but I think the film suits his Bond less.
I don’t really mind the ‘Blofeld doesn’t recognise Bond’ stuff. Most people don’t watch the early films in order. It is what it is, and sometimes with Bond you just have to go along with these sorts of plot holes.
I think you do need that duality when Bond is playing Bray. Personally I find it takes away some of the tension because Lazenby’s performance as Bray comes off as so distinct from his Bond one. Even if they’d kept the voice I don’t think it was something Lazenby was adept at. Connery was far better at portraying Bond playing someone else, even if he was using a silly voice.
I can imagine Moore doing it, yes.
Sure, you have no problem with it, but it gets asked in the Bond fandom many times that it becomes tiring now.
Blofeld not recognizing Bond is not a plot hole, Bond was in disguise far from his usual persona, how Blofeld would recognize him in that? It's not a plothole.
I liked that it's pretty different from his Bond, it means he played the disguise very well, there's that certain camouflage that makes me (in such a rare moment) buy Bond as a (competent) spy, not a man who says his real name many times and enemies already caught him in that moment.
It's the best when it comes to Bond doing better spying, Connery? I don't remember him doing disguises, aside from his Japanese make up in YOLT, he's mostly James Bond himself.
I liked Bond to be a convincing spy, not a clumsy one who always reveal himself in front of the suspectable people.
While the scenes in Piz Gloria were meant to be light, it's still need to keep Bond in his disguise, and I'm having a hard time imagining Moore in the disguise too, I think he would looked awkward in that, and he would've not possibly sell it, just in terms of believability, he would not be believable in that disguise.
And the confrontation with Blofeld when he's caught already, it's hard to imagine Moore in that either, I mean all of those confrontation scenes with Blofeld, just hard to imagine the guy, I'm having a hard time picturing Moore in the scene where Blofeld already knew who he really was, or the scene with Blofeld locking him inside of a ski cabin, it's hard to imagine Moore in those, because he's not adept at playing scenes with tension.
It's hard to imagine Moore in this film, while there are lighthearted moments, there's still the groundedness and seriousness injected into it.
Him dropping the act didn't get him caught in any of the other films! :)
And the Blofeld confrontation he'd have absolutely no issue with- he'd certainly be better than Lazenby who doesn't appear to know what to do with himself: his eyes are darting all over the place. Moore had no trouble confronting baddies in a series manner- just look at him talking to Zorin in AVTAK: he makes it clear he hates him. There's nothing in that film he would have had trouble handling, and he was much more adept at it than Lazenby.
I think the film would have been much better with Roger in the lead.
It shows the vulnerability of the character, not the confident one, the way Moore played such scenes were always very confident, that's why there's no tension, no danger felt.
I don't felt that his Bond was in danger at all, because all the time, with his confidence, he's almost in control of every situation.
There's no tension, nor danger at all, I just don't feel it.
Lazenby played it very well, there's that raw feeling in him, he's the Bond for this film, he played the Bond in this one very well, he's not confident, and with his rawness, he's sometimes a naive one, and I liked it because it makes things natural and realistic.
It's just his portrayal affects the viewers, with the look on his face well one may think that he's in real danger, thinking of how he could able to escape such situation, and I don't felt any of that in Moore's Bond, he's just the confident one.
I'm going as far as say that Moore is the most effortless Bond, the Bond with no efforts at all, he's just like that, he's fun to watch, but that's it.
I mean, it’s understandable it gets discussed. I’ve seen some people claim the inverse of what you said and say that Bond’s Japanese make up in YOLT makes him unrecognisable. Let’s be honest, his Japanese fisherman disguise amounts to a change in hairstyle, and even as Bray he’s simply wearing glasses and putting on a voice. He’d be recognised instantly. Like I said though sometimes you just have to roll with these things and accept that they’re films with often flimsy continuity. To be honest the change in lead actor helps separate Connery’s confrontation with Blofeld in YOLT with this. For me anyway.
If I’m honest, I don’t care about how good a spy Bond is when you think about it in theory. I just want an engaging film. With Lazenby’s performance I think it sucks some of the tension from the situation - that idea that Bond could be found out at any moment - because Bond gets a bit lost in favour of the more humorous Bray. That’s really my issue with it. If Bond were a perfect spy who made no mistakes he’d be a far more boring character.
Lazenby doesn't play these moments with vulnerability either. Are you talking about the Sir Hiliary scenes?
It's just his portrayal affects the viewers, with the look on his face well one may think that he's in real danger, thinking of how he could able to escape such situation, and I don't felt any of that in Moore's Bond, he's just the confident one.
I disagree there, there are plenty of moments it's clear he's in over his head and he knows it. In Octopussy alone you have the man hunt sequence (which is a silly scene, but Bond gets increasingly desperate) and the atom bomb climax where he comes as close as he ever gets to losing and he plays the tension extremely well. Think of FYEO with the death of Lisl, the ski jump lift, the mountain climbing etc. He'd have no problem with OHMSS, and would make the comedy and romantic moments much stronger.
A quote: ‘there’s “still a lot to do” before a new three-year contract is sealed.’— from Deadline.
Talks ended early yesterday (2pm), and will resume today.
The dubbing was necessary because of his limited acting ability. I also think it is the best solution given all the circumstances, and Hunt should be commended for that.
Once unmasked by Blofeld, Lazenby comes across as petulant, and that also works. (Again, how much of this was acting, and how much was just Lazenby?)
It's in the long but important exposition scenes with Draco where Lazenby is at his weakest, but Barry does his best to pull him and the audience through it, and I think he does.
So many of the people involved with OHMSS (Hunt, Maibaum/Raven, Rigg, Savalas, Barry, Steppat) brought their "A" game to this film, and it makes up for the acting deficit at the core.
Blofeld not recognizing Bond? Though OHMSS features references to previous Bond films to establish it as coming from the same producers, I always thought OHMSS was the first reboot of the series, much like the Craig era was. In OHMSS, like in the novel, Bond had not meet Blofeld before in person.
So when Dalton is mentioned as having been married, it’s not because he’s literally the same guy from OHMSS, but rather that he simply has that detail as part of his character background. All the Bonds more or less share a similar history. Perhaps Connery to Brosnan all had their own Vesper Lynd in their past. Perhaps the new Bond will already have had his Vesper (and perhaps Tracy).
I wish that those who keep insisting that Bond dying and maybe one day returning is a crime would have this intelligent and relaxed attitude. 👏
I very rarely feel a throughline even when watching the same Bond to be honest- I'm not sure I entirely believe that the guy meeting Willard Whyte is the same fella who met Honey Ryder on the beach. As you say, there's no narrative there, and the films seem to change in tone so much that's it hard to sit them next to each other. Also it's kind of odd that the Bond of Moonraker never mentions how this Drax guy seems very similar to fella he met under the sea a couple of years ago, only in space this time! So I'm not convinced he even remembers those events half the time.
That's the thing: nevermind a few narrative links (mostly about Tracy), the tone of these films is too different to even consider all of them as showing the same James Bond. Must we really assume that the hard-boiled Bond of LTK is the same guy who gave poor Solitaire lovers lessons and was chased by a racist sheriff Jay Double-yuh Peppah, despite having identical Felix Leiters (in looks) for an ally?
You can watch these films completely out of release order and they still make sense. Apart from the Craigs, Bond films are best viewed in isolation. There is no such thing as "one timeline" or a "Bond universe", only 20-ish standalone adventures and one era that does rely on continuity.
But still, he played those scenes with ease, I'm not convinced, Lazenby sold those scenes with rawness in it.
His facial expressions and reactions, those were natural.
Moore was not adept at playing those, yes, I've watched the scenes you've mentioned, but it's not just felt imo, it's not natural, I know he's trying to do his best, but him acting out those scenes was just on par with how Brosnan played such dramatic scenes in TWINE, or maybe even worse, I just couldn't take the guy seriously.
I do buy Moore as more calmed and experienced agent, the older one, so he fits that, but that's not the Bond shown in OHMSS (and it's for the better, too).
Romantic moments, the guy was not taking his conquests seriously (he's too soft and too flirty to his love interests that there's no deep sincerity in him, he's too much of a philanderer in the way he approached those romantic scenes), let alone buying him falling in love, there's no sincerity, he's not adept at playing sincere, literally, Moore's the Bond I just couldn't take seriously, he'd played it in The Saint, and in The Persuaders, and I still think he's playing the same as Bond.
Even in his non-Bond films, it's still the same, Moore just tend to play the same old thing again, and again, no matter the roles, no matter of the script, he just tend to play the same, no offence to Moore, I liked him as a person (he's quite nice in real life), but his acting was very one dimensional, and it doesn't felt natural, more like staged or faked, because the atmosphere or the feelings wasn't just there, so it didn't comes off as genuine.
Again, there's no way Blofeld could've recognized him in that scene, because as you've said, he's playing a character far from his different persona, and it worked in there, it's amazing to see Bond's ability to camouflage, that's all for the better of it, Bond could adapt different personalities and it's one of his more interesting abilities as a spy.
It's a bit weird that you're criticizing Bond being unrecognisable as Bray (because he's mainly playing as Bray), but calling Blofeld not recognizing him a plot hole?
I disagree about the spy thing making him boring, for me, it's about the plausibility, when it's just all about enjoyment, then what's the purpose of these Bond films for? Why are we putting Bond in some realistic and contemporary situations? Why are we thinking of his vulnerability?, I know about the fantasy, but that's it, if we only liked to see Bond being enjoyable, then better for him to stay as he was back then, no emotions, just pure fun and excitement, and putting him in a period piece doesn't really matter either.
Engaging film? Okay, but one should think about the main purpose, one could still make an engaging film but still having the character more believable to what he's playing, and I think OHMSS literally nailed it to a tee.
And it's for the better that we should consider Denise Richards as Christmas Jones one of the best Bond Girls, because the way she played that Nuclear Physicist was just so fun, it's enjoyable, even without any plausibility and believability.
That's the thing, we often gets hard on Bond Girls: we criticize their believability in their roles (Christmas Jones and Stacey Sutton), accept the clunkiness of their acting (Barbara Bach, Carole Bouquet), but we tend to ignore the former on Bond, and gets more harder when it comes to the latter on the Bond actors, just an observation.
And now, it's clear that Bond was in disguise, but people still asking that why Blofeld doesn't recognized him? Pure fool.
I mean this fandom as a whole, is really weird, the Bond fans are really weird, no? 😅