The What if thread...M had been re-cast for CR 2006? page 60

1131416181961

Comments

  • I think all depends on whether or not he would have really turned up for it. He was pretty frustrated with the role by that point.

    If he'd done it and really given it 100% then it'd probably be even more highly regarded than it is now. I'd even say that it might generally be regarded as the all time best. Brilliant enough to appeal to fans and memorable enough (the one where he gets married) to sway the man on the street who otherwise would have just said GF.

    The one thing I've always been unsure of is, would Connery have been able to bring the vulnerability Lazenby did? He looks like he's genuinely scared for his life when escaping Piz Gloria for example. And if you'd asked me a couple of years ago I would have said no. But to be honest, after reading some interviews with Lazenby lately, I'm pretty sure that that aspect of his performance was entirely down to Hunt's direction. And Connery is a good enough actor to pull that off vulnerable human and romantic if needed, look at Robin and Marian.

    So yeah, I think if he'd done it and actually put the effort in, and if Hunt was still directing, then it'd be even better than it already is. That's what should have happened as well really. I like Lazenby but OHMSS would have been a perfect sendoff for Connery (I doubt he'd have done DAF if he'd done it). Imagine how powerful the ending would have been if it was the effortlessly cool bruiser we'd spent all the previous films watching breaking down like that instead of a new guy.

    Lazenby was good. And given the point Connery was at, I'm not sure I'd risk going back in time and changing it just in case he phoned it in. But peak Connery in OHMSS would have been perfect and it's a shame it didn't happen.
  • Posts: 1,879
    Everyone wants to imagine Connery's playing the dramatic scenes, but I'd really have liked to see him in those top-notch fights on the beach and in the hotel suite against Che Che, especially a Connery in top physical shape. Laz did those scenes proud, but Connery set the standard, so that's fun to think about.

    I wonder if Connery ever even glanced at the OHMSS script or if he just dismissed it outright no matter the quality of the story. My guess is he was DONE and didn't care by that point and never did. After all, this is the guy who claimed DAF was the best Bond script, unless he was just trying to play nice while he made and promoted the film.

    Has he ever commented about OHMSS?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    BT3366 wrote: »
    After all, this is the guy who claimed DAF was the best Bond script, unless he was just trying to play nice while he made and promoted the film.

    I think he simply enjoyed the process of collaborating with Mankiewicz, not that it was the best script overall. It's got some of the best dialogue in Bond films, which Connery seemed to have a ball with.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    If OHMSS would‘ve been made instead of YOLT (as originally planned) I am 100% sure it would have been a classic. After all it was a step away from „too much hardware“ and a down-to-earth spy adventure and greatly romantic story. He was in top shape 1965 and if they would‘ve done it in 1967 he would have been as well.

    But Connery starring in it after YOLT ... no. He was overly frustrated by the part and it would‘ve shown. It would be a lesser OHMSS than we have it today. But in „Thunderball-shape“ and such a classic, earthed script at hand and starring against Diana Rigg I am 100% sure it would be even better than it is today without a doubt.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 12,242
    One of the classic What-Ifs of the series. Definitely depends on a lot of things as to how good it would have been. As stated by others, if Connery had been in top form (DN, FRWL, GF, and TB level), then that's a great start. Even then though, we never saw him play a very emotionally-vulnerable Bond before. We'll never know if he could have pulled that off. If he had the interest level he had in YOLT, it would have hindered the film. Would Peter Hunt still be directing, as well as the same cast + crew in place? I think Hunt's direction, the script, and surrounding cast (in addition to Lazenby) are crucial parts of why OHMSS is such an excellent film. As much as I love Connery and Terrence Young's films with him, for example, I have my doubts they could have pulled off OHMSS as well as the crew that did. If you literally just inserted Connery in Lazenby's place with everything else still intact, then it would just be down to if Connery brought his A-game, and if he was able to be the human Bond that Lazenby was.

    I've always very much enjoyed and defended Lazenby's performance in OHMSS, and if given the chance to replace him with Connery in it, I wouldn't take it. Connery is the best James Bond, but Lazenby was the right one for OHMSS IMO.
  • SeanCraigSeanCraig Germany
    Posts: 732
    I never minded Lazenby‘s performance. But a Connery in A-form would have made this even better than it is already.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    OHMSS is a wonderful film as it is, but the hypotheticals are interesting.

    One thing that always seems obvious is the 'what-if'? scenario of Sean Connery being in the film. In my personal opinion, it may not have worked as well as it does. Now, taking nothing away from Sir Sean, he is a bonafide legend. Few would argue against him being the greatest 007. The Bond of OHMSS is markedly different from the Bond he portrayed previously, though.

    My issue with Sean being in it is somewhat two-fold. And keep in mind, I am not stating my opinion as fact, merely as I see it.

    Firstly, Sean's out and out tough guy persona. I think George Lazenby's comes across with a certain vulnerability in OHMSS, that is very authentic. Not, in all likelihood, because of any great acting chops. More likely because as a person, he was in a situation not familiar to him, and this showed on screen. Again, I don't know this but I'm guessing. I'm sure Sean Connery could have provided this too, he is a good actor for sure. It would, however, have been at odds and somewhat jarring with the cool, collected and tough persona we have come to expect from his Bond. I believe that sense of vulnerability is fundamental to making Bond's character work in this film.

    Secondly, I didn't ever really feel much tenderness in any of Sean's on screen relationships with his co-stars previous to OHMSS. Again purely opinion, but the rather brutish way he forces himself on to Pussy Galore in GF, or 'What do you do, when, where and how' first meeting with Domino in Thunderball don't lend themselves well to a more caring relationship with Tracy. As I stated before, Sean is an excellent actor, so he could, in theory, have pulled this off, but it would, again, be at odds with audiences expectations of what he brings to Bond.

    I think the far more, if you will pardon the pun, interesting hypothetical would have been if EON had pulled the trigger four years earlier on Sir Roger Moore. On the face of it, he projected probably even less vulnerability than Connery. His Bond did, however, seem to have a slightly softer and gentlemanly persona. I think this would have fit perfectly with the material in OHMSS, and pulled even more humanity out of Sir Rog.

    Now, not to suggest he is a better actor than Sean Connery, but again he seemed to have a somewhat sweeter(for want of a better word) relationship on screen with most of his leading ladies. This would have lent itself perfectly to Bond's relationship with Tracy. Also, with the benefit of hindsight of course, a fresh and young(ish) Moore would have benefited Diamonds Are Forever immensely. We probably would have got a proper follow up to the events in OHMSS that we all yearn for, but never really got...

    Apologies for the essay, and for the record OHMSS is near perfect as it is.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    I'd like to think after meeting with Hunt and seeing the script Connery would be in A shape and excited to play the part. But he was so upset with the treatment and his lack of involvement with creative process I don't think this would have been possible.

    I'd like to see his Bond against a physical Blofeld like the one Salvalas played. The bobsled fight would be pretty cool. Interesting how Connery's Bond was pitted against more cerebral Blofeld's. He looked like a giant up against Pleasance.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,333
    SeanCraig wrote: »
    If OHMSS would‘ve been made instead of YOLT (as originally planned) I am 100% sure it would have been a classic. After all it was a step away from „too much hardware“ and a down-to-earth spy adventure and greatly romantic story. He was in top shape 1965 and if they would‘ve done it in 1967 he would have been as well.

    But Connery starring in it after YOLT ... no. He was overly frustrated by the part and it would‘ve shown. It would be a lesser OHMSS than we have it today. But in „Thunderball-shape“ and such a classic, earthed script at hand and starring against Diana Rigg I am 100% sure it would be even better than it is today without a doubt.
    You’ve clearly not read Charles Helfenstein‘s excellent the Making of OHMSS book. The 1966/7 script of OHMSS that Connery was to have starred in had a submersible Aston Martin in it. I think it’s safe to say that it would not have resembled Fleming’s novel unlike the Peter Hunt version. And no, Peter Hunt wasn’t offered the directing job after the completion of TB was done, so without Hunt demanding they throw out all the gimmicks and strip it back to Fleming’s novel, we’d have had a bloated Lewis Gilbert version lacking the innovative beauty of the ‘69 version. The reason why OHMSS is so bloody good is it’s pretty much all down to Peter Hunt and him winning his battles with the producers and the studio who wanted it more fantastical, like what we got with DAF.

    Secondly, there’s the matter of a shortage of snowfall when they wanted to shoot the Connery version, hence why it was abandoned and they went for YOLT instead. Then there’s the matter of a completely different Piz Gloria, as the one used in the movie was still under early construction so could not have been used. Of course, OHMSS was originally intended to be made directly after GF, but as I stated above it would have introduced the submersible Aston Martin which we only know about due to Peter Hunt being handed this script and him demanding it be thrown out and completely rewritten.
  • Posts: 15,785
    I like the idea of a Connery 1969 era OHMSS. By that point he'd be quite suitable to the more weary Bond of Fleming's later books.

    Had he read Maibaum's script and understood the direction Hunt wanted to take perhaps his enthusiasm would have returned?

    I could see Connery's Bond being burned out and bored to tears with the hunt for Blofeld as in the novel.

    Still I love Lazenby and the film we have. I also love Connery's return in the next film.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Laz is awesome. I just doubt it would have been as good with Connery. Who knows.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Laz was good for a first time actor, but didn’t have enough charisma as a leading man. Weakest Bond.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 4,904
    I know some of said Roger would be able to play the emotional scenes but I have trouble seeing him looking convincing in the fight scenes. Moore and Che Che in the hotel room? I can just hear the "ooh" "oh" throughout.

    I think Connery could have the range to play a weary and emotional Bond. It would have been a great capper to his Bond can given him an emotional arc. I think it's one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.

    I can appreciate what Lazenby did with the material. I wouldn't take away from his performance. I would have loved to have seen Connery with the same material.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,598
    While I don’t have a lot to add to this discussion, I’ll add one point for consideration. In my opinion the issue boils down to public acceptance. While I think that while Connery – the actor – could have been great in OHMSS, the public may not have accepted “Connery’s Bond” in a more nuanced role. And that’s the key. By 1967, Connery’s Bond was a superhero of sorts (sans cape!), and the change to a more human 007 may have stuck some as phony. IRC, several critics at the time didn’t like Bond being frighten or the downbeat ending, and these criticisms many have been even greater with Sean. Sometimes having a new actor in the role – even one as inexperienced as Laz – allows the audience to accept that there are other aspects to even the most established character (007, in this case). Its' interesting to note that many of Connery's better post-Bond roles came after he had aged-out of Bond (net NSNA), and could be accepted as an actor, and not just Bond.

    In addition, don’t forget that the hiring of Diana Rigg was due, in part, to having an inexperienced leading man. In short, with Connery, maybe we don’t get Rigg and I think that she – in many ways – is the heart of OHMSS.

    As for Box Office, by 1969 the “spy-craze” was ending, and I think that while OHMSS would have done better with Connery, it still wouldn’t have done as well as YOLT.
  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    It is a classic, and it still would be with Connery.
    thedove wrote: »
    I know some of said Roger would be able to play the emotional scenes but I have trouble seeing him looking convincing in the fight scenes. Moore and Che Che in the hotel room? I can just hear the "ooh" "oh" throughout.

    I think Connery could have the range to play a weary and emotional Bond. It would have been a great capper to his Bond can given him an emotional arc. I think it's one of the biggest missed opportunities of the series.

    I can appreciate what Lazenby did with the material. I wouldn't take away from his performance. I would have loved to have seen Connery with the same material.

    I see your point. I'm guessing with the way Hunt shot and edited the fight scenes, he would have made Sir Rog look a better brawler then most have, though.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Dwayne wrote: »
    While I don’t have a lot to add to this discussion, I’ll add one point for consideration. In my opinion the issue boils down to public acceptance. While I think that while Connery – the actor – could have been great in OHMSS, the public may not have accepted “Connery’s Bond” in a more nuanced role. And that’s the key. By 1967, Connery’s Bond was a superhero of sorts (sans cape!), and the change to a more human 007 may have stuck some as phony. IRC, several critics at the time didn’t like Bond being frighten or the downbeat ending, and these criticisms many have been even greater with Sean. Sometimes having a new actor in the role – even one as inexperienced as Laz – allows the audience to accept that there are other aspects to even the most established character (007, in this case). Its' interesting to note that many of Connery's better post-Bond roles came after he had aged-out of Bond (net NSNA), and could be accepted as an actor, and not just Bond.

    In addition, don’t forget that the hiring of Diana Rigg was due, in part, to having an inexperienced leading man. In short, with Connery, maybe we don’t get Rigg and I think that she – in many ways – is the heart of OHMSS.

    As for Box Office, by 1969 the “spy-craze” was ending, and I think that while OHMSS would have done better with Connery, it still wouldn’t have done as well as YOLT.

    This is something I brought up earlier and countered it with the idea that audiences might not have rejected that notion on the account that Connery had already won more than enough goodwill from audiences to be open to the idea of his Bond meeting his match through Tracy. You pair him with a leading actress that would have believably brought out his vulnerability, especially if it’s with someone as talented and charismatic as Rigg. After five films, it would feel less phony and more earned to see this man show a different side. It would certainly help make Connery’s run feel like a journey. I personally think it would have felt more earned to see his character expanded in such a way, as opposed to watching an unknown male model propped up as a leading man with no acting experience.

  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,882
    I doubt that Connery could have pulled of OHMSS, even prime Connery. And after 5 films, it was time for a new Bond. Lazenby may not have been an actor at the time, but that also goes in his favour, as he came to the role with no baggage.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited November 2019 Posts: 8,000
    I doubt that Connery could have pulled of OHMSS, even prime Connery.

    afebfe18ce73af0ce2f8adee3200deab3a5a8e61.gifv
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 2,887
    Prime Connery pulled off several films more dramatically challenging than OHMSS: The Offence and Robin and Marian immediately spring to mind. Nor do I think audiences in 1969 would have rejected Connery in a more nuanced role--they would accept him in pretty much any Bondian capacity, and it's not like the Bond of OHMSS doesn't do all the usual Bond things--gambling, drinking, fighting sleeping around, etc.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I like the idea of a Connery 1969 era OHMSS. By that point he'd be quite suitable to the more weary Bond of Fleming's later books.

    Had he read Maibaum's script and understood the direction Hunt wanted to take perhaps his enthusiasm would have returned?

    Great point. A world weary Connery rejuvenated by falling in love with... well, it would have to be the right actress. I can see it though.
    I doubt that Connery could have pulled of OHMSS, even prime Connery. And after 5 films, it was time for a new Bond. Lazenby may not have been an actor at the time, but that also goes in his favour, as he came to the role with no baggage.

    A fresh Connery from DN and FRWL could've easily pulled this off imho. Despite his supreme confidence, there is still a naivete about him.
    thedove wrote: »
    I know some of said Roger would be able to play the emotional scenes but I have trouble seeing him looking convincing in the fight scenes. Moore and Che Che in the hotel room? I can just hear the "ooh" "oh" throughout.

    It's all in the editing. Some of his fight scenes fare better than others and it came down to creativity or a lack thereof. You're obviously right though that it's a handicap that they didn't have with Lazenby and a theoretical Connery.

    Dwayne wrote: »
    IRC, several critics at the time didn’t like Bond being frighten or the downbeat ending, and these criticisms many have been even greater with Sean.
    However, you could make the argument that it would've felt appropriate for Connery's Bond if seen as the conclusion to a long journey that we had gone on with him for many years. This time he lost and he had the acting chops to pull it off.

    BTW, I love OHMSS as is and wouldn't change it, but come on now, Connery could've done it justice.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,333
    Whilst I agree with you @Revelator that Connery pulled off a few (not several) more dramatic roles equal to OHMSS around the same period and could’ve delivered a *good* performance, those movies you cite were not popular with audiences and didn’t perform at all well at the box office. One could argue that Connery was more heavily invested in these other roles due to them being the complete antithesis of Bond, with the actor wanting to shrug off the 007 persona and show that he had more to offer than just Bond. Connery was tired of Bond and the way the producers had treated him. Let’s not forget that Connery had 2 more Bond movies after TB that he was committed to (as mentioned in his 1966 Playboy interview). Therefore, had Connery really wanted to appear in OHMSS, he could’ve done so. He wasn’t interested - good script or not. Period. He was done with it and wanted to move on, doing everything possible to get out of that final Bond movie he was obligated to make. Although you might’ve accepted an unhappy Connery in OHMSS, the producers didn’t agree and thought it better to let him go and find a replacement, which they thought at the time would be an easy task.

    As for Moore, he wasn’t interested in following directly on Connery’s heels by being the second Bond. He only agreed after Lazenby had popped that particular cherry and demonstrated that audiences would and could accept another face as Bond, hence why he bailed out of a possible 007 movie in 1968 and signed up for more of The Saint instead.
  • Posts: 11,425
    More interesting than Connery in OHMSS might have been a young Dalton.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Would have been interesting, though I'm glad he turned it down then. Way way too young.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,333
    Getafix wrote: »
    More interesting than Connery in OHMSS might have been a young Dalton.
    Dalton wasn’t even considered for OHMSS, that’s just a myth that’s continually put about on this forum by the ill-informed who get their sources from poorly researched websites. It was after Lazenby that Dalton was first approached not before, yet he still declined a screen-test for obvious reasons, one of them being he felt he was too young. The actors who were selected for OHMSS were all given screen tests for the role of James Bond in 1967 and early 1968. Dalton’s The Lion in Winter didn’t debut until October 30, 1968. Lazenby was announced as the new James Bond on 7th October 1968 at the Dorchester Hotel in London. How on earth could Dalton have possibly been considered for OHMSS when his big screen debut didn’t appear until a month after Lazenby had been first announced? Being a seasoned regular here, I expected more from you @Getafix than bringing up this half-baked old chestnut that’s factually and logistically incorrect.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 11,425
    Err.... I didn't say Dalton was in consideration for OHMSS. I said it's interesting to consider how he might have done in the film. In some ways as an actor he seems better suited than Connery.
    For my money, his on screen relationship with Kara in TLD is the most convincing since OHMSS (and up until CR). Connery doesn't really have any real emotional connection with any of his leading ladies which to me doesn't suggest he was the best actor for this film. All pure speculation of course (as all these comments inevitably are).

    By the same logic hadn't Connery ruled himself out of the role and therefore also was "logistically incorrect".
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,333
    The old and trusted “I didn’t say...” get-out-of-jail card. What’s the difference between being considered and not even being in contention? You could use the same proposal for Craig being James Bond in GE instead of Brosnan. After all he was young, had a few acting credits to his name (more than Dalton did in early ‘68) so why not Craig for Bond in 1995? It’s equally as daft, so why not?

    Yes, Connery did rule himself out which is why I don’t care to dwell on this topic, nor do I encourage it. However, Connery had at least been Bond before OHMSS, unlike Dalton, who’d only appeared in some small TV drama called Sat'day While Sunday that nobody’s seen or even heard of, including Cubby Broccoli, otherwise he’d have mentioned it. Realistically Dalton was being considered for DAF, not OHMSS. It’s just that some members here have a delusional belief that Dalton could’ve been Bond in OHMSS based on their dislike of Lazenby and not the true events. Your post just endorses that same misguided belief, which is why there’s a continuous plethora of “Dalton could’ve been Bond in OHMSS” posts almost monthly to the point where it becomes tedious. The worse case scenario is that some actually believe it.

    Theoretically, yes, Dalton could’ve played Bond in OHMSS as he was alive and acting at the same time, as was Craig when GE was in preproduction. The only obstacle, or fly in the ointment, is that no one had actually heard of Dalton until after The Lion in Winter came out almost an entire month after Lazenby had already been announced as the new Bond, by which time it was far too late, even if they had wanted him in the role.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 11,425
    Well if you don't like the premise of the thread there's an easy way to fix that. However, I think the rest of us are free to speculate on pretty much whatever we want.
  • edited November 2019 Posts: 3,333
    You sound like a big baby @Getafix. The topic if the conversation wasn’t about Dalton being Bond in OHMSS until you decided to turn it into one with your daily dose of Dalton adulation. Maybe you should change your moniker to Getalife?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Pot kettle black?
  • Posts: 3,333
    Alright. We’re both big babies. Happy now?

    Look, I’ve made my position abundantly clear on the ‘69 OHMSS subject on other threads besides this one. I believe the only realistic possibility of a Connery OHMSS movie was back in ‘65 before the producers struck a deal with McClory and opted for TB instead of their preferred choice. Had Terence Young directed OHMSS instead of TB and McClory made his independent version with the scrawny Lawrence Harvey in place of Connery, we’d be discussing a completely different Lazenby picture, possibly TMWTGG. Of course, we don’t know what the ramifications of two Bond pictures coming out simultaneously would’ve done to the franchise at such a crucial moment in its popularity. The detrimental effect of Charles K. Feldman’s Casino Royale coming out before YOLT did considerable damage to Eon’s box office takings just two months prior to their own release. My belief is we would’ve witnessed something similar between OHMSS and TB, only in ‘65 rather than ‘67. The fundamental difference being that McClory’s TB would not have been a satirical spoof unlike Feldman’s movie, but would’ve starred the alcoholic Harvey not at all flattering in his swimming trunks. Personally, I’d rather Harry & Cubby had successfully struck a deal between Charles K. Feldman (and not McClory) and filmed CR starring Sean Connery in place of YOLT, therefore not damaging their own release date that same year. This way they still would’ve had YOLT in reserve to film at a much later date. If OHMSS had been filmed in ‘65 as originally planned followed by CR, then that would’ve left Lazenby to make his own debut in YOLT in ‘69.
Sign In or Register to comment.