›

Should OHMSS have been made after Thunderball?

13»

Comments

  • SharkySharky
    Posts: 266
    From reading the posts on here i wouldn't want a 1967 OHMSS film directed by Lewis Gilbert with a Bored Connery and a daft OTT script. I heard that Connery was getting Bored of Bond because of the direction they were taking the character with the gadgets and bigger is better mentality. What i wouldn't mind seeing though would be a faithful adaptation (ala the 1969 version) of OHMSS directed by Hunt with a fit intrested Connery which maybe they could've done after TB, because if they offered Connery the OHMSS with a faithful adaptation from the novel he may not of been bored of playing Bond and kept in shape and gave a great performance, as i have already stated though i still would've wanted Peter Hunt to direct. But i love the way OHMSS turned out so i'm not complaining.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,061
    007RogerMoore wrote:
    No. The reason Blofeld and Bond don´t recognize each other must be because they both lost the brain cells responsible for the memory of each other. Or that they changed actors between YOLT and OHMSS.

    Yes! Or 007 is a code name. Or maybe "Blofeld" in YOLT is an early clone. That's why he says, "You only live twice." Because he's a clone!

    Or something about the four elements...

  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I came across a quote from Playboy (November 1965) where Connery is asked what Bond films will follow after Thunderball. His reply: "On Her Majesty's Secret Service and possibly You Only Live Twice. They would like to start On Her Majesty's Secret Service in Switzerland in January, but I'm not sure I'll be free in time and I don't want to rush it, although they say the snow will be at its best then. I'm not going to rush anything anymore." An interesting read if anyone's interested...
    http://seanconneryonline.com/art_playboy1165.htm

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,352
    That also seems to show Connery may have stayed for a sixth film. I only wish On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed Thunderball.
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    I would have rather they waited to do OHMSS in '69, Idled and planned a release for '71 or '72. This would have given them time to find a suitable replacement, or finally bring Moore in, but also would show Sean he wasn't moving on to anything bigger or better and he'd still want to come back as he did with Diamonds.

    Win Win. You get the same scenario for Sean to come back, and if you don't, you've had plenty of time for a replacement.

    But oh well.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    The whole argument about "Thunderball on skis" has never registered with me. I mean yes, I realize that with TB there was the whole underwater element that carried the movie and with OHMSS it's the snow/mountain element, but considering how successful Thunderball was, why wouldn't they try their luck again?
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    OHMSS was originally planned to follow GF but the issue with McClory and TB took precedence. There were some conflicts and winter shooting was not feasible in 1966.
    OHMSS is fine where it ended up and the way it turned out.
    The decision to follow the source novel so closely (not since FRWL had a movie so adherred to the novel) and play to the younger and more physical Bond's strengths (using his wits and fists instead of gadgets to get out of a tough spot) was a wise move.
    There was the plot hole of Bond and Blofeld not recognizing each other but this is easily forgotten.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Samuel001 wrote:
    That also seems to show Connery may have stayed for a sixth film. I only wish On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed Thunderball.
    Indeed, as Connery states that after the end of his contract: "The only condition for making any more would be one million dollars plus a percentage of the gross."

    It seems that money was always a sticking point between the producers and Connery and his asking for a percentage of the gross has to be the main reason why he didn't make OHMSS after his contract was up and so they replaced him with a cheaper alternative. Cubby and Saltzman made a mistake and would have been better if they had allowed Connery to continue under his terms. After all, what he was asking back in 65 is now the norm in modern productions. I think it was Terence Young that advised the producers to make Connery a partner in the Bond productions. If only they had listened.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,352
    bondsum wrote:
    Samuel001 wrote:
    That also seems to show Connery may have stayed for a sixth film. I only wish On Her Majesty's Secret Service followed Thunderball.
    Indeed, as Connery states that after the end of his contract: "The only condition for making any more would be one million dollars plus a percentage of the gross."

    It seems that money was always a sticking point between the producers and Connery and his asking for a percentage of the gross has to be the main reason why he didn't make OHMSS after his contract was up and so they replaced him with a cheaper alternative. Cubby and Saltzman made a mistake and would have been better if they had allowed Connery to continue under his terms. After all, what he was asking back in 65 is now the norm in modern productions. I think it was Terence Young that advised the producers to make Connery a partner in the Bond productions. If only they had listened.

    The only downside to that, is say Connery did about ten films, would another actor have been able to come in and carry on afterwards? I like to think so.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    Samuel001 wrote:
    The only downside to that, is say Connery did about ten films, would another actor have been able to come in and carry on afterwards? I like to think so.
    It's not an easy one to answer, Sam, but I agree with you in that James Bond would have continued afterwards in some way shape or form had Connery extended his contract and made Bond movies well into the 70's. It's an interesting thought as it creates a completely different timeline and probably one that wouldn't include Roger Moore as 007... maybe Michael Billington instead?
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,061
    I think the "Thunderball on skis" comment was referencing similarities in the villainous plot: nuclear/biological warfare blackmail.

    I wouldn't want a lazy Connery in a 1967 OHMSS over the OHMSS we got.

    Sometimes things work out the way they are meant to.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    @bondsum
    I have to side with Cubby and Salzman. Why make him a partner? I'm sure that they hated having to share their millions with each other, why bring in a third partner?? Each one is thinking "I only get half, now I'm suppossed to settle for one third?"
    echo wrote:
    I think the "Thunderball on skis" comment was referencing similarities in the villainous plot: nuclear/biological warfare blackmail.

    I wouldn't want a lazy Connery in a 1967 OHMSS over the OHMSS we got.

    Sometimes things work out the way they are meant to.

    You are spot on Bro!
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    echo wrote:
    I think the "Thunderball on skis" comment was referencing similarities in the villainous plot: nuclear/biological warfare blackmail.

    I wouldn't want a lazy Connery in a 1967 OHMSS over the OHMSS we got.

    Sometimes things work out the way they are meant to.

    You know, I honestly think that I would have taken a dull 1967 Connery over the pathetic and inexperienced George Lazenby. His performance just doesn't make the grade at all in OHMSS. It's quite a downer for me, I can never get past it. The only compensation for his role as 007 were the fist fights he delivered, which were pretty awesome. Other than that, not much to say.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    echo wrote:
    I think the "Thunderball on skis" comment was referencing similarities in the villainous plot: nuclear/biological warfare blackmail.

    I wouldn't want a lazy Connery in a 1967 OHMSS over the OHMSS we got.

    Sometimes things work out the way they are meant to.
    Well, this whole thread is hypothetical and is all about alternative timelines with different outcomes. Though I am one of OHMSS biggest fans and have been ever since it was first released, I still wonder what might have been if Connery had been more involved in the whole process and had got to make OHMSS in the way he wanted to. I personally don't think Connery was lazy on YOLT, more a case of fed up with press and fan intrusion coupled with the outlandish screenplay he was given, and I think it showed in his performance. As Connery states in his '65 Playboy interview:

    "But we have to be careful where we go next, because I think with Thunderball we've reached the limit as far as size and gimmicks are concerned. In Thunderball we have Bond underwater for about 40 percent of the time, and there is a love scene underwater, and attacks by aquaparas from the sky, and two-man submarines under the sea, and Bond is menaced by sharks. Instead of the Aston Martin we have a hydrofoil disguised as a cabin cruiser, and Bond escapes with a self-propelling jet set attached to his back. So all the gimmicks now have been done. And they are expected. What is needed now is a change of course--more attention to character and better dialog."

    When you read this you realise Connery was right and what he was proposing wasn't at all unreasonable. In fact it has now become 'de rigueur' after Bond goes too far and becomes too outlandish for his own good.

    Like you, I am happy that Lazenby's OHMSS exists and that it was made by Peter Hunt and his brilliant team. Even if I disliked it (as 00Beast clearly does) there's nothing that can be undone now. The film is justifiably a classic.

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited July 2012 Posts: 13,352
    With that in mind if makes one wonder how You Only Live Twice turned out like it did.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    @bondsum: Thank you for the kind mention in your post! Hahahaha.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    00Beast wrote:
    @bondsum: Thank you for the kind mention in your post! Hahahaha.
    That's quite all right, 00Beast. Sorry to have been a little heavy-handed with you on a past post of mine. :-*
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    edited July 2012 Posts: 4,813
    I'm happy to see that Connery wanted exactly what OHMSS delivered- when I think about it, it is a bit of a shame because he undoubtedly would have been more excited in the role and he would have really been BOND, like he was in the first four films...

    But then again, lets not forget that in 1967 he looked like this:

    http://gallery.celebritypro.com/data/media/566/sean_connery_you_only_live_twice_3.jpg

    http://pics.livejournal.com/rpowell/pic/003e90p1/s640x480

    Plus I do like Lazenby, so perhaps it worked out for the best (now if only he stuck around for one more)
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,061
    bondsum wrote:
    What is needed now is a change of course--more attention to character and better dialog."

    When you read this you realise Connery was right and what he was proposing wasn't at all unreasonable. In fact it has now become 'de rigueur' after Bond goes too far and becomes too outlandish for his own good.

    Like you, I am happy that Lazenby's OHMSS exists and that it was made by Peter Hunt and his brilliant team. Even if I disliked it (as 00Beast clearly does) there's nothing that can be undone now. The film is justifiably a classic.

    This is an interesting quote. If only Connery had stuck to his guns about the character and insisted that Bond be more brutal and less comical in DAF.
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    bondsum wrote:
    00Beast wrote:
    @bondsum: Thank you for the kind mention in your post! Hahahaha.
    That's quite all right, 00Beast. Sorry to have been a little heavy-handed with you on a past post of mine. :-*

    It's all right, I'll let it slide just this once......hahahahaha. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.