Should OHMSS have been made after Thunderball?
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 395
    Although the version of the OHMSS script written by Richard Maibaum at the time (1966) was.... interesting, to say the least, with a proper rewrite it could have been made into a serious and well done Bond film, like the OHMSS we know today.

    My personal opinion on the matter:
    OHMSS '67 PROS:
    Sean Connery
    Order of books not reversed
    Bond canon not messed up (I'm talking about YOLT with this, not OHMSS '69)
    Lewis Gilbert might have done better with the love story, and would have directed a great final battle at Piz Gloria, knowing his style
    Connery's Bond getting married would have probably had a greater impact on audiences

    OHMSS '67 CONS:
    The Piz Gloria lair we know today might have not been used, which would be an absolute shame
    The score might have been different, which would have also been an absolute shame
    Connery would have been, most likely, just as bored in this as he was in YOLT
    Might have been extremely over-the-top and nonsensical like YOLT
    Peter Hunt wanted to make OHMSS an accurate adaptation, while Gilbert probably wouldn't care either way

    Your thoughts?


  • DarthDimiDarthDimi
    Posts: 5,991
    OHMSS had been planned for some time but due to certain issues, it couldn't be made until the end of the decade. I certainly would have liked the order - OHMSS before YOLT - intact because that's how the novels had it. Possibly, YOLT could have been a serious revenge film, the one we've been talking about for years, the one DAF should have been but wasn't, the one QoS pretended to be but wasn't. Also, Connery in OHMSS might have given him something to look forward to: a new approach to the character he made so famous. The lighter toned Bond of GF and TB versus the hard edged Bond of OHMSS, sure, why not.

    On the other hand... I don't think I'd tolerate a different OHMSS. I love the film, starring George Lazenby, directed by Peter Hunt. The film works on every basic level, making it one of the series' best entry for me.
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan
    Posts: 1,744
    Though a Connery OHMSS sounds interesting, I'm kinda happy with how things turned out as they did. A 1967 OHMSS may have resulted in Blofeld launching the Intruder rocket from Piz Gloria. The Bond knockoffs that year from Flint("In Like Flint") and Helm("The Ambushers") both have outerspace themes and I figure Bond '67 would've too regardless of what title EON used for the film. OHMSS '69 benefits from Lazenby's relative youth and energy in the role IMHO.

    This is an interesting "what if?" article about a Connery OHMSS:

    http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 395
    PrinceKamalKhan said:

    http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/

    I remember reading that article before, it was well written, and made good points. But I don't agree with making Yul Brynner Blofeld. Either Charles Grey or Max Von Sydow should have played Blofeld in OHMSS '67.

  • gaz4007gaz4007
    Posts: 71
    I am glad that it turned out the way it did...Connery was getting bored with the role and had aged between TB & YOLT,to me he had lost his edge after TB and i am not sure that he would have had the hardness it had with George.
  • echoecho
    Posts: 1,185
    Dr_Metz said:

    Although the version of the OHMSS script written by Richard Maibaum at the time (1966) was.... interesting, to say the least, with a proper rewrite it could have been made into a serious and well done Bond film, like the OHMSS we know today.

    My personal opinion on the matter:
    OHMSS '67 PROS:
    Sean Connery
    Order of books not reversed
    Bond canon not messed up (I'm talking about YOLT with this, not OHMSS '69)
    Lewis Gilbert might have done better with the love story, and would have directed a great final battle at Piz Gloria, knowing his style
    Connery's Bond getting married would have probably had a greater impact on audiences

    OHMSS '67 CONS:
    The Piz Gloria lair we know today might have not been used, which would be an absolute shame
    The score might have been different, which would have also been a absolute shame
    Connery would have been, most likely, just as bored in this as he was in YOLT
    Might have been extremely over-the-top and nonsensical like YOLT
    Peter Hunt wanted to make OHMSS an accurate adaptation, while Gilbert probably wouldn't care either way

    Your thoughts?




    I think your cons are all very likely to have occurred (except for maybe Barry's score) and would have resulted in a weaker OHMSS than we got.

    Would Gilbert have deviated from the novel as much as he did with YOLT? Although, to be fair, they couldn't find a proper Japanese castle for the climax. Would we have never had a volcano in the Bond canon? Kind of unthinkable.

    I also remember reading that the producers thought OHMSS too similar to TB, "a Thunderball on skis." From the perspective of Blofeld blackmailing the world with destruction (nuclear, bioweapons), they may have been right.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    I probably would have liked it better in 1967, because for one, if Lewis Gilbert had directed OHMSS '67, then it probably wouldn't have been as boring. Secondly, had Sean Connery come back, then he certainly would have been better than George Lazenby. Thirdly, as mentioned by Dr_Metz, the series wouldn't have been messed up as far as Blofeld and Bond's meeting is concerned.
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    00Beast said:

    I probably would have liked it better in 1967, because for one, if Lewis Gilbert had directed OHMSS '67, then it probably wouldn't have been as boring. Secondly, had Sean Connery come back, then he certainly would have been better than George Lazenby. Thirdly, as mentioned by Dr_Metz, the series wouldn't have been messed up as far as Blofeld and Bond's meeting is concerned.


    I'm not so sure he would have been better than Lazenby. Connery, as many have already stated, was bored with the role. Also Lazenby has some great fight sequences in the movie that I don't think Connery could have duplicated.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,911
    No, I don't agree. The straight DN, FRWL, GF, and TB Connery's 4 are a mean set of films, possibly the best 4 all in a row. I wouldn't want to miss out on the brilliance that is TB, even if it meant OHMSS with Sean. I just can't see it. When I look at Sean's Bond I find that he is a man who loves women, but wouldn't commit to a marriage of any kind. I hope I'm not the only one that just can't see Sean's Bond getting marriage. He just wasn't the type.
  • connerybondconnerybond
    Posts: 125
    I am not sure about Sean Connery coming back to OHMSS. I had just finished the university then, having read a few Bond novels before they were filmed, read this on a travel, and thought about Connery who was making the news then. The film experience was disappointing for me then, having by then seen 5 of Connery Bond films. I was not happy that Connery was not the Bond, and Peter Hunt I thought would have done more with Connery. But over the years , having watched the film many times over, I think Lazeby did a good job, and it is a pity he screwed his future up so bad so soon after completing the film.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 395
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    I wouldn't want to miss out on the brilliance that is TB, even if it meant OHMSS with Sean.

    But you wouldn't. I'm talking about if EON should have made OHMSS after making Thunderball, not making OHMSS in place of Thunderball.

  • Agent007391Agent007391
    Posts: 3,575
    Well, I loved the final product with OHMSS, and, honestly, since Connery was known for the action of the previous films, he might not have done well with the love scenes in OHMSS (which I think Lazenby did extremely good).

    It's too bad we'll never know, because maybe OHMSS after TB and before YOLT would have been good.
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    I really think Lazenby was reving up to be a good Bond. Replacing an icon like Sean Connery is hard to do and, like I said before, every acotr plays their first time out of Bond pretty safe.
  • echoecho
    Posts: 1,185
    Lazenby, despite his faults, gets credit for being the first Bond to try to "step into the shoes" of Connery. Every Bond since then didn't have the same pressure of replacing the original. Moore gets credit for being the first one to do it successfully.

    I think the brilliance of the novel OHMSS would have been squandered in a film version with a bored Connery in the role.

    I'll take a flawed Lazenby and a faithful adaptation over a bored Connery and compromised story any day.
  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 281
    Just a point about thunderball i wouldn't call it one of the lighter Bonds it was one of the most violent films of it's time.and yes i wish sir sean could have had a chance at a deeper Bond.
  • gaz4007gaz4007
    Posts: 71
    "I'll take a flawed Lazenby and a faithful adaptation over a bored Connery and compromised story any day."

    Great comment........i think Connery would have done the love scenes very well but after TB as had been stated he was pretty much done with the role....Now Dalton in the role and doing DAF right after it,..now there would have been a set of films lol
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 395
    echo said:

    I'll take a flawed Lazenby and a faithful adaptation over a bored Connery and compromised story any day.

    But what if OHMSS '67 was a faithful adaptation, with the only drawback being a bored Connery? It's not like they had to go down the route they did with YOLT.

  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan
    Posts: 1,744
    Dr_Metz said:

    Although the version of the OHMSS script written by Richard Maibaum at the time (1966) was.... interesting, to say the least, with a proper rewrite it could have been made into a serious and well done Bond film, like the OHMSS we know today.



    Can you give a quick rundown on Maibaum's 1966 script, i.e., how was it different from the script that was eventually used for the 1969 OHMSS?

    Dr_Metz said:

    My personal opinion on the matter:
    OHMSS '67 PROS:
    Lewis Gilbert might have done better with the love story, and would have directed a great final battle at Piz Gloria, knowing his style



    Indeed. Although I'm happy with the OHMSS final battle we've got from Hunt, I'm sure the director who gave us the YOLT/TSWLM/MR final battles would've done a terrific job with it.
  • gaz4007gaz4007
    Posts: 71
    Yes it does need trimming a little bit however the reason that the film is so faithful to the book os they needed a new film for a new Bond,if it did come after TB i agree with other comments that it perhaps might have been taken in a different direction.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 395
    PrinceKamalKhan said:

    Can you give a quick rundown on Maibaum's 1966 script, i.e., how was it different from the script that was eventually used for the 1969 OHMSS?


    Maibaum went through many rewrites with OHMSS between 1964-1968, but around 1966 the script was around the idea that Blofeld should be Goldfinger's half brother, with Blofeld being played by Gert Fröbe himself, and that Bond kills Blofeld and Bunt at the end by toppling a statue on them. Also, Bond escapes a place with the help of a chimpanzee. And, on top of that, Bond marries Tracy in a truck, with M as best man (or something like that). It's very weird. There was also supposed to be an amphibious Aston Martin à la TSWLM at one point.

  • gaz4007gaz4007
    Posts: 71
    No disrespect but i would still rather have the version we have now for all it';s flaws....i have always thought though that a fit interested Connery ala FRWL in that role with Hunt directing etc would have given the perfect film.
  • Agent007391Agent007391
    Posts: 3,575
    Dr_Metz said:

    around 1966 the script was around the idea that Blofeld should be Goldfinger's half brother, with Blofeld being played by Gert Fröbe himself, and that Bond kills Blofeld and Bunt at the end by toppling a statue on them. Also, Bond escapes a place with the help of a chimpanzee. And, on top of that, Bond marries Tracy in a truck, with M as best man (or something like that).



    My Lord, these insane ideas make DAF look like a true masterpiece.
  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 977
    I agree with some of the above posts who say that Connery's Bond really wasn't the 'marrying type.' He may have surprised us, but they way he played the role from DN-TB, Connery's Bond wouldn't have gotten married IMO.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi
    Posts: 5,991
    I would have loved to see Connery perform the last scene though. With almost scientific interest, I keep thinking what it would have been like. A livid Bond, yet seemingly calm with his dead wife's corpse in his arms... And Connery, among the Bonds the paragon of pride, masculinity and sexual superiority, involved in a serious romance. I have seen films with Connery pulling it off well. First Knight for example: Connery walks in on the adultery, turns around visibly hurt yet most determined to keep his anger under control for now, only to make use of it later. I honestly believe the man might have surprised us all in OHMSS.
  • echoecho
    Posts: 1,185
    Dr_Metz said:

    PrinceKamalKhan said:

    Can you give a quick rundown on Maibaum's 1966 script, i.e., how was it different from the script that was eventually used for the 1969 OHMSS?


    Maibaum went through many rewrites with OHMSS between 1964-1968, but around 1966 the script was around the idea that Blofeld should be Goldfinger's half brother, with Blofeld being played by Gert Fröbe himself, and that Bond kills Blofeld and Bunt at the end by toppling a statue on them. Also, Bond escapes a place with the help of a chimpanzee. And, on top of that, Bond marries Tracy in a truck, with M as best man (or something like that). It's very weird. There was also supposed to be an amphibious Aston Martin à la TSWLM at one point.



    Good lord, that sounds awful. They seem to have kept going back to the "Goldfinger brother" concept. If I recall correctly, that idea was also floated for DAF. And in a way, the brothers-in-crime would have been more believable than Blofeld creating doubles of himself.

    Why was Maibaum working on it for so long? Did they want to turn OHMSS into a movie quickly because the book was a recent bestseller?
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 395
    echo said:

    Why was Maibaum working on it for so long? Did they want to turn OHMSS into a movie quickly because the book was a recent bestseller?

    That, and because after Goldfinger, EON was actually planning to film OHMSS (at the end of Goldfinger, it originally said "James Bond will return in On Her Majesty's Secret Service"). The only reason OHMSS wasn't made in '65 was because of Kevin McClory allowing EON to make a film adaptation of Thunderball.

    Actually, the treatment Maibaum wrote in '64 for OHMSS stuck to the book for the most part, unlike his 1966 screenplay. In the '64 treatment, the reason Bond doesn't resign is because Moneypenny has money on him to be the first one to sleep with Mary Goodnight, and Bond proposes in a Zurich hotel room rather than a barn. Also Blofeld fakes his death, but it's not as bad as it sounds. Campbell's role was more important, as he is given truth serum which makes him give away Bond's identity, then later on, Bond uses the same truth serum on Blofeld to find out his plan.

    DarthDimi said:

    I honestly believe the man might have surprised us all in OHMSS.

    I don't get it when people say Connery couldn't have shown emotion like what was needed in OHMSS. If OHMSS was filmed in 1967, and Connery actually was interested in the project, he would have given a great performance.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    I always got the impression that everyone uped their game for OHMSS because of the fact that they didn't have Connery to draw in the audiences. Had Connery starred I got the impression that it would've been an average effort on everyone's part and a below average effort by Connery who at the time just wanted out of the role. So I say OHMSS works best during 1969. Maybe a different actor in the role would've made it better but Connery after TB had already lost his edge.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,052
    licensetoforum said:

    00Beast said:

    I probably would have liked it better in 1967, because for one, if Lewis Gilbert had directed OHMSS '67, then it probably wouldn't have been as boring. Secondly, had Sean Connery come back, then he certainly would have been better than George Lazenby. Thirdly, as mentioned by Dr_Metz, the series wouldn't have been messed up as far as Blofeld and Bond's meeting is concerned.


    I'm not so sure he would have been better than Lazenby. Connery, as many have already stated, was bored with the role. Also Lazenby has some great fight sequences in the movie that I don't think Connery could have duplicated.



    I'll give it to you on the fight sequences, because Lazenby was better, but Connery would have been the better actor. Even though I am not a big Connery fan, the movie would have been better had Connery been Bond, that is, if his performance was better than his bored YOLT performance.
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    00Beast said:

    licensetoforum said:

    00Beast said:

    I probably would have liked it better in 1967, because for one, if Lewis Gilbert had directed OHMSS '67, then it probably wouldn't have been as boring. Secondly, had Sean Connery come back, then he certainly would have been better than George Lazenby. Thirdly, as mentioned by Dr_Metz, the series wouldn't have been messed up as far as Blofeld and Bond's meeting is concerned.


    I'm not so sure he would have been better than Lazenby. Connery, as many have already stated, was bored with the role. Also Lazenby has some great fight sequences in the movie that I don't think Connery could have duplicated.



    I'll give it to you on the fight sequences, because Lazenby was better, but Connery would have been the better actor. Even though I am not a big Connery fan, the movie would have been better had Connery been Bond, that is, if his performance was better than his bored YOLT performance.


    If anything I think his performance might've been worse. During and after the filming of YOLT he'd grown resentful towards the role and wanted out in a bad way. The only reason he had some renewed energy in DAF is because of that 4 year gap. But had he went on to do OHMSS just 2 years after his last movie, whether it was after TB or YOLT, his attitude would've been the same.

    However I remember hearing that he was frustrated with the lask of character development with Bond so maybe the OHMSS script would have interested him. But again if Maibuam penning it it'd would've probably been more of the same. Connery was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
  • gaz4007gaz4007
    Posts: 71
    There was a rumour a few years back that Brosnan was wanting to remake the movie..wonder how that would have turned out...and will they do it again with Craig now that they have rebooted the series
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,003
    gaz4007 said:

    There was a rumour a few years back that Brosnan was wanting to remake the movie..wonder how that would have turned out...and will they do it again with Craig now that they have rebooted the series



    That's true. He stated it during an interview where he said the film could've been great if it had a real actor. I guess Pierce Brosnan considers himself a real actor =)). Lazenby rightfully took offense to this comment and pointed out Brosnan's lack of masculinity.
Add a Comment

Categories

In this Discussion