Would you rather watch Daniel Craig in Knives Out OR The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo?

1457910108

Comments

  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,918
    As others have said, this is a tough one. I’m pretty split on my decision here. But I do think I’d go with a second Lazenby film.
    I love Dalton, and his two films. However I have read the treatment for Bond 17, which would’ve been his third film. A lot of it doesn’t sound suited to Daltons Bond. It sounds more like a Roger Moore film too me.
    Whilst it’s possible and more likely probable that a second Lazenby film would be as great as OHMSS it’s not impossible.
    It would’ve depended greatly on the director and the script. Maybe if Peter Hunt returned and Tellly Savalas came back as Blofeld, we could’ve seen something really special. Sadly it’s something we’ll never know.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    I'd pick Lazenby's second film, a follow up to OHMSS and this is for the more important reasons:

    1. A proper closure to the ending of OHMSS (I'm still bothered by the unresolved ending of OHMSS, and as a result, it needs to be recreated many times, think of that in NTTD, with Lazenby returning, thus finishing the case of OHMSS once and for all, it doesn't need to be recreated in NTTD).

    2. Proper closure for Blofeld (With Bond avenging Tracy's death, killing Blofeld once and for all, it would've given not just Tracy a closure, but the Blofeld character, in this case, Blofeld doesn't need to comeback, we don't need that FYEO opening with Blofeld being thrown in a smokestack which still I heavily disliked! In case that McClory filed a demand to keep EON away from Blofeld/SPECTRE, EON would have a good reason to move on, since he's killed properly, thus maybe even wouldn't be that necessary for EON to but back the Blofeld rights and have him return in SPECTRE (2015), thus, we wouldn't have the Step Brother Blofeld thing, and the Craig Era would've likely to encounter a different villain).

    3. It would prove Lazenby for better (it's hard to judge Lazenby because he'd only done one film, and he's just a newcomer when filming OHMSS, now, with a follow up, if he was given a second film, he would've given a chance to prove himself and improve on it as an actor).

    4. It would make Diamonds Are Forever, for better (instead of the campy, silly and ridiculous one that we've got, it would've been better to have all them back; Peter Hunt, Telly Savalas and Gabrielle Ferzetti, and make DAF a more serious story instead of the Shakespearean comedy that we've got).

    I'll admit to this thought of mine: EON finding a satisfying resolution to OHMSS ruined the Craig Era with them trying to recreate it, it doesn't even helped that Blofeld's recurring appearance also ruined the later films (The FYEO PTS, and SPECTRE film).

    I'd liked to see Dalton do his third, why not, but like @Benny said, based on the drafts and early scripts, the quality was something I'm still uncertain about, if it's like that of Goldeneye style, maybe it would've been for the better, but still no one knows.

    With Lazenby's second, it's clear what would be the outcome, making Diamonds Are Forever a revenge sequel would've fix the Franchise in the future, avoid the silly re-appearances of Blofeld, redeem OHMSS and give it a closure, hence, no need to retcon it in the future Bond films.
  • mattjoesmattjoes At my most trollish behavior
    Posts: 6,878
    I would love either, but still, this is an extremely easy decision for me: third Dalton.

    Speak Lark.

  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,126
    Like most commenters, I find this a tough one: I love OHMSS and hate that the events aren't referred to at all in DAF (after all that effort they made to show us it was the same guy too!), but Dalton was ROBBED.

    Can we compromise? Can Tim do an OHMSS sequel as his third film? He does 'sad and angry' so well, after all.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,401
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Like most commenters, I find this a tough one: I love OHMSS and hate that the events aren't referred to at all in DAF (after all that effort they made to show us it was the same guy too!), but Dalton was ROBBED.

    Can we compromise? Can Tim do an OHMSS sequel as his third film? He does 'sad and angry' so well, after all.

    Great answer!
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,162
    Dalton's third without a doubt, because 1) a follow up to OHMSS would obviously change DAF, and I like the camp and sly DAF as is; 2) if EON were in the position to deliver us a third Dalton film, it's likely we would've also got a fourth.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,568
    Dalton's third without hesitation
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    QBranch wrote: »
    Dalton's third without a doubt, because 1) a follow up to OHMSS would obviously change DAF, and I like the camp and sly DAF as is; 2) if EON were in the position to deliver us a third Dalton film, it's likely we would've also got a fourth.

    But in doing so, it would cause Blofeld's reappearance in the future films and made EON to retcon it, I'm still not a fan of FYEO PTS and wish it's different instead, and I think what they've done with Craig's last two (SP & NTTD) was more of an OHMSS retcon, because that film remains unresolved.

    And there's no official death for Blofeld.

    What I'd liked to have is to avoid it, and give a closure to OHMSS and give Blofeld (and Irma Bunt) a proper farewell.

    Like @Agent_99 said, if only Dalton could've done it with his third film, then I'm in!

    Make Dalton's third film a sequel to OHMSS with him properly killing off Blofeld, only one can dream though.

    Or maybe just leave it vague, I just don't liked any of the Blofeld comebacks after DAF, just leave it where DAF left and it should never made a comeback whether in FYEO, in SP or in NTTD.
  • Posts: 3,208
    I do wonder just how much Lazenby reappearing would have changed this version of DAF. I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of the behind the scenes stuff, but it's possible the concept might have evolved to a similar place the movie eventually went (ie. more lighthearted/campy in places, similar plot elements etc.) I've briefly read of what was in the original treatments, and I'm not entirely sure much of it would have stuck anyway, no matter who the lead actor was.
  • Posts: 14,890
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do wonder just how much Lazenby reappearing would have changed this version of DAF. I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of the behind the scenes stuff, but it's possible the concept might have evolved to a similar place the movie eventually went (ie. more lighthearted/campy in places, similar plot elements etc.) I've briefly read of what was in the original treatments, and I'm not entirely sure much of it would have stuck anyway, no matter who the lead actor was.

    That's the thing: people assume a second Lazenby would have been a proper sequel to OHMSS, in the same tone. We can't assume this and I doubt anyone except Connery could have sold DAF (as much as I dislike it.)
  • DeathToSpies84DeathToSpies84 Newton-le-Willows, England
    Posts: 257
    A third Dalton Bond film, minus the robot fight scene in the early draft.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 3,208
    Ludovico wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I do wonder just how much Lazenby reappearing would have changed this version of DAF. I certainly don't know all the ins and outs of the behind the scenes stuff, but it's possible the concept might have evolved to a similar place the movie eventually went (ie. more lighthearted/campy in places, similar plot elements etc.) I've briefly read of what was in the original treatments, and I'm not entirely sure much of it would have stuck anyway, no matter who the lead actor was.

    That's the thing: people assume a second Lazenby would have been a proper sequel to OHMSS, in the same tone. We can't assume this and I doubt anyone except Connery could have sold DAF (as much as I dislike it.)

    It's worth noting (again, from my limited knowledge) that early treatments written for DAF that made it essentially a sequel to OHMSS were written before the film's reception. I get the sense this influenced them to take on that slightly more camp tone, not Connery's return. Perhaps with Lazenby it would have been slightly more connected to OHMSS but it's debatable whether it would have been a million miles away from what we got.

    Honestly, I personally think it's for the best Lazenby didn't return. Connery, phoning it in as he is at some points in DAF, has a wryness that sells the humour of that film, I agree. Moore had that ability too. Certainly both were better actors and much more commanding screen presences than Lazenby. As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 3,208
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

    Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

    I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

    I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

    Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

    I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

    I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

    The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

    They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

    Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

    And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

    And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

    It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

    But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

    I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

    And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

    What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

    The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
    The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
    Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
    Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
    But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited June 2023 Posts: 5,068
    Good stuff as always, this really brought out some interesting discussions and thoughts. I am curious what a Dalton 3rd film would look like. Given the scripts that were being worked on it's fair to say it would be a departure from LTK and I feel that a new director would have been brought on board. Could Dalton be a little less serious? This is why I would rather have had a third Dalton movie!

    Lets jump to another one, this one a little less serious or thought provoking:

    Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with "Another Way to Die" playing on a loop OR with "The Writings On The Wall" stuck on a loop?
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    edited June 2023 Posts: 468
    Do I have to stay awake until help's on the way? If not, The Writing's on the Wall, definitely, as it will put me to sleep.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,918
    What is your source for putting all this blame on Peter Hunt @SIS_HQ ?
    I've heard some of what you've claimed before, but I've never heard that Hunt only communicated via telephone, or only attended filming close to the film wrapping.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 3,208
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

    Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

    I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

    I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

    The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

    They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

    Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

    And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

    And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

    It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

    But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

    I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

    And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

    What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

    The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
    The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
    Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
    Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
    But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

    There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

    I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

    Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.
    thedove wrote: »
    Good stuff as always, this really brought out some interesting discussions and thoughts. I am curious what a Dalton 3rd film would look like. Given the scripts that were being worked on it's fair to say it would be a departure from LTK and I feel that a new director would have been brought on board. Could Dalton be a little less serious? This is why I would rather have had a third Dalton movie!

    Lets jump to another one, this one a little less serious or thought provoking:

    Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with "Another Way to Die" playing on a loop OR with "The Writings On The Wall" stuck on a loop?

    Another Way to Die. Always.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,666
    "Another Way to Die" or "The Writings On the Wall" while stuck in an elevator?
    450.jpg

    "Another Way to Die", only if these aren't available.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,401
    Benny wrote: »
    What is your source for putting all this blame on Peter Hunt @SIS_HQ ?
    I've heard some of what you've claimed before, but I've never heard that Hunt only communicated via telephone, or only attended filming close to the film wrapping.

    From the behind the scenes, as well at some of the interviews I've watched before.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

    Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

    I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

    I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

    The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

    They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

    Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

    And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

    And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

    It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

    But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

    I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

    And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

    What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

    The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
    The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
    Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
    Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
    But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

    There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

    I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

    Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

    I don't know what to tell you.

    What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

    Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

    Still, he's irresponsible for that.

    It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

    Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

    Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


    But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.


    thedove wrote: »
    Good stuff as always, this really brought out some interesting discussions and thoughts. I am curious what a Dalton 3rd film would look like. Given the scripts that were being worked on it's fair to say it would be a departure from LTK and I feel that a new director would have been brought on board. Could Dalton be a little less serious? This is why I would rather have had a third Dalton movie!

    Lets jump to another one, this one a little less serious or thought provoking:

    Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with "Another Way to Die" playing on a loop OR with "The Writings On The Wall" stuck on a loop?

    Writings On The Wall was great as an instrumental, only ruined by Sam Smith's vocals, the song would've been better had it was sung by a female singer (Demi Lovato is the one I had in mind now).

    Another Way To Die, even an instrumental, was still not that good because of it pretending and trying to be a heavy pop rock song blended with synthesisers, Alicia keys singing it alone could've made it a bit better, but it wouldn't still improve the song in general.

    So, if Instrumental (without the vocals), I'd go with Writings On The Wall.

    If combined with vocals, I don't know, I disliked both those songs, but I think I'd go with Alicia Keys and Jack White, I heavily disliked Sam Smith (that guy's an a**hole), don't liked him as a singer and as a person, Alicia keys and Jack White are more professional as a singers, and more pleasant as persons than Sam Smith.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,068
    In 1969 how could a director only provide direction through a phone? They would need to be on a LAN line. The director would need to phone the actor either when they were in their trailer, the director wouldn't be on set because he'd be likely to be on a phone.

    I have never heard that Hunt was only speaking to Lax through a phone.

    What I think has been well documented is that at the beginning of the shoot the two were thick as thieves. Then as the shoot went on Lazenby got more full of himself, by the end of the shoot Hunt was done with the antics of Lazenby and their relationship had deteriorated.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    thedove wrote: »
    In 1969 how could a director only provide direction through a phone? They would need to be on a LAN line. The director would need to phone the actor either when they were in their trailer, the director wouldn't be on set because he'd be likely to be on a phone.

    I have never heard that Hunt was only speaking to Lax through a phone.

    What I think has been well documented is that at the beginning of the shoot the two were thick as thieves. Then as the shoot went on Lazenby got more full of himself, by the end of the shoot Hunt was done with the antics of Lazenby and their relationship had deteriorated.

    I will find that BTS that I've read that featured that article, and one of the threads in this forum also featured that issue about Hunt only talking through telephone, I will also find that one, it's featured in one of the conversations in here.

    But the reason why Hunt never guided Lazenby was as he'd said: Lazenby would be a better Bond if he's alone.

    Now that's something I don't understand, why Hunt thought of that way, even telling the staffs and crews to stay away from him.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,713
    That's easy. I will take TWOTW over AWTD any day. Bang bang bang bang? No, at least Smith's song sounds good to me.
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 3,208
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

    Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

    I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

    I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

    The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

    They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

    Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

    And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

    And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

    It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

    But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

    I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

    And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

    What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

    The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
    The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
    Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
    Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
    But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

    There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

    I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

    Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

    I don't know what to tell you.

    What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

    Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

    Still, he's irresponsible for that.

    It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

    Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

    Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


    But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

    Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

    Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). Maybe Hunt thought isolating Lazenby would put him in the right state of mind during particular scenes needed to get the best performance. I don't know, it'd be interesting to read. With regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say). Sometimes a director can only do so much, and if something necessary to the film is out of an actor's capabilities then it becomes difficult. I suspect Lazenby's lack of acting experience (and, let's be honest, charisma) had an impact, and it fundamentally comes from casting the wrong person, which I believe is the case with him.

    Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,401
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

    So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

    Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.
    As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

    OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

    I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

    Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

    Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

    Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

    I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

    Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

    I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

    I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

    The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

    They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

    Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

    And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

    And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

    It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

    But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

    I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

    And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

    What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

    The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
    The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
    Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
    Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
    But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

    There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

    I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

    I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

    Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

    I don't know what to tell you.

    What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

    Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

    Still, he's irresponsible for that.

    It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

    Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

    Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


    But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

    Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

    Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

    Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

    I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

    In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

    As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

    I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

    And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

    Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

    And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

    And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    Who here have the unpopular opinion of preferring WOTW to the one made by Radiohead?

    I've heard it, and I think it's kinda messy, WOTW was bombastic in terms of instrumentals only Sam Smith's voice was misfit (in my opinion), but Tom Yorke's voice was really not that fit for a Bond theme.

    Have anyone here heard Radiohead's version of SPECTRE?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,918
    Nothing in any of the behind the scenes documentaries has ever suggested anything to what you elude @SIS_HQ which is why I questioned you on it earlier. It's fine to have an opinion on such things of course, and we all respect that. But I've never seen anything in any bts or anywhere else to suggest that Peter Hunt was harsh on George Lazenby or directed the film via a telephone.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited June 2023 Posts: 3,401
    Benny wrote: »
    Nothing in any of the behind the scenes documentaries has ever suggested anything to what you elude @SIS_HQ which is why I questioned you on it earlier. It's fine to have an opinion on such things of course, and we all respect that. But I've never seen anything in any bts or anywhere else to suggest that Peter Hunt was harsh on George Lazenby or directed the film via a telephone.

    Again, I will find it, I've read it somewhere, even in here.

    It's been a while since I've read it, but it's there.

    I will post it in the right thread when I found it (not here).

    I've read it in the behind the scenes, one of the discussions in here (years ago), so, it's not just came from one source.
Sign In or Register to comment.