Is OHMSS Better Without Sean Connery?

124678

Comments

  • edited September 2020 Posts: 3,275
    I don’t know if Pleasance was asked back, but Savalas actually was offered to come back for DAF. It didn’t happen because he asked for too much money so EON looked elsewhere.

    It would have been a bit weird if Savalas had turned up in DAF, because other than the pre-credit sequence, the camp Charles Gray Blofeld feels nothing like the Blofeld who killed Bond's wife in OHMSS.

    The script would have to be altered too. The dialogue between Bond and Blofeld is so light and friendly at times, it feels like they're almost long lost buddies exchanging good natured banter - `jealousy from you, Mr. Bond. I'm flattered'.....`If I were to break the news to anyone, it would be to you first. You know that....,' `we deeply sympathise', etc.

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    echo wrote: »
    "Is OHMSS Better Without Sean Connery?"

    Yes.

    However, based upon his YOLT performance, Connery would have been good at playing a hypnotized patient, though.

    =)) HARSH but funny.

    Look. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a wonderful film. I wouldn't change a hair on its glorious head (well... remove the "he had lots of guts" line. That's all, though). George Lazenby did a fine job in it, I don't even think of Sean Connery while watching him. He carries the role off quite well. Those who call him wooden need to look up again the definition of the term, it means someone who doesn't convey emotion, who comes off as robotic, unnatural. Lazenby conveys emotion well, especially in proposal scene and the crushing ending, and he's not at all robotic or unnatural, he's entirely human.
    Sure. Connery may have done a good job. He may also have come off bored and done with the part, as much or maybe more than he was in YOLT. It's a moot point because he wasn't in it, Lazenby was. The producers had to replace the unreplaceable and quickly. This was completely new territory they were in. Thankfully they got someone who could do the job, and continue the series, and it was good, damn good actually. It most definitely could have gone the other way, with someone who actually was wooden, all wrong for the part. Dodged that bullet. Right on Laz.
  • edited September 2020 Posts: 3,275
    echo wrote: »
    "Is OHMSS Better Without Sean Connery?"

    Yes.

    However, based upon his YOLT performance, Connery would have been good at playing a hypnotized patient, though.

    =)) HARSH but funny.

    Look. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a wonderful film. I wouldn't change a hair on its glorious head (well... remove the "he had lots of guts" line. That's all, though). George Lazenby did a fine job in it, I don't even think of Sean Connery while watching him. He carries the role off quite well. Those who call him wooden need to look up again the definition of the term, it means someone who doesn't convey emotion, who comes off as robotic, unnatural. Lazenby conveys emotion well, especially in proposal scene and the crushing ending, and he's not at all robotic or unnatural, he's entirely human.
    Sure. Connery may have done a good job. He may also have come off bored and done with the part, as much or maybe more than he was in YOLT. It's a moot point because he wasn't in it, Lazenby was. The producers had to replace the unreplaceable and quickly. This was completely new territory they were in. Thankfully they got someone who could do the job, and continue the series, and it was good, damn good actually. It most definitely could have gone the other way, with someone who actually was wooden, all wrong for the part. Dodged that bullet. Right on Laz.

    I like the fact that out of all the other actors who played Bond, Lazenby is the one closest to Connery in terms of physical looks. He really is Connery Mk 2, in the same mould and style.

    Lazenby's acting appears slightly wooden at times (looking bored during Hillary Bray exchanges in Blofeld's office, watching Ruby hypnotised, etc.) but this was down to lack of experience, nothing more. Had he done another few Bond's he definitely would have grown in the part.

    And as you said, certain scenes he actually nails it (particularly the tragic ending).

    I much prefer Lazenby to Brosnan, and probably even Moore too.



  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,834
    I think it would've also depended on if Connery and Rigg had good chemistry.
  • edited September 2020 Posts: 3,275
    edit - duplicate post
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.
  • Posts: 2,887
    While I would swap Lazenby out for another actor, that actor most certainly isn't Sean Connery. There is no way he could have pulled of the film by this time. His Bond style (or rather what started as Terrance Youngs take on Bond, which grew more ott after FRWL) was already set in stone.

    I don't think so. His Bond style changed for DAF for example, based on the demands of the script (increased humor and levity) and is different from his more serious style in the Young films. I have little doubt Connery would have changed his approach if a Bond film made genuine dramatic demands on him, and the Connery who played in Marnie, The Hill, and Woman of Straw would have likely welcomed this (especially if the producers had made him happy with a paycheck commensurate to his status).

  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.

    Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.

    Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.

    Yeah but he was able to golf, gamble and bone Lana Wood and Jill. Quite an experience he had. No wonder he wasn't grumpy.
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    edited September 2020 Posts: 4,247
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.

    Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.

    Yeah but he was able to golf, gamble and bone Lana Wood and Jill. Quite an experience he had. No wonder he wasn't grumpy.

    Lol, he's Bond after all.
  • Yes. And Diamonds are Forever would have been better with Lazenby resuming only because it would have been a sequel following on from the end of OHMSS. The director Peter Hunt said so himself that had Lazenby stayed he would have stayed for the next film.

  • DrClatterhandDrClatterhand United Kingdom
    Posts: 349
    OHMSS is a great film greatly marred by its central performance. It would have been spectacular with Connery firing on all cylinders. Simply put, Lazenby is a pants actor.
  • @MakeshiftPython I absolutely agree about Lazenby, and I've never understood those who say they think he's really great in the role. Not only wooden, but he plays Bond as if he were a chipper boy scout. Wayyyy off base.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited September 2020 Posts: 8,000
    @MakeshiftPython I absolutely agree about Lazenby, and I've never understood those who say they think he's really great in the role. Not only wooden, but he plays Bond as if he were a chipper boy scout. Wayyyy off base.

    It's his youthful Australian swagger seeping through. I feel it's the wrong performance for a story like OHMSS, which in the novel has Bond becoming weary after many years of service. Connery in 1969 would have easily played that up if Hunt had him stick to that aspect of the novel.

    I do think Lazenby would have been more perfectly suitable for a movie like LALD where it's mostly a fast pace action film. Nothing too demanding of an actor, he'd only have to play up the charm.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,053
    @MakeshiftPython I absolutely agree about Lazenby, and I've never understood those who say they think he's really great in the role. Not only wooden, but he plays Bond as if he were a chipper boy scout. Wayyyy off base.

    It's his youthful Australian swagger seeping through. I feel it's the wrong performance for a story like OHMSS, which in the novel has Bond becoming weary after many years of service. Connery in 1969 would have easily played that up if Hunt had him stick to that aspect of the novel.

    I do think Lazenby would have been more perfectly suitable for a movie like LALD where it's mostly a fast pace action film. Nothing too demanding of an actor, he'd only have to play up the charm.

    If Lazenby did LALD, I think he would have fit better in a more faithful adaptation. Have Peter Hunt direct and Richard Maibaum write both in the style of OHMSS. The LALD that we know is pure Guy Hamilton and Tom Mackiewicz camp in the style of Roger Moore. Have Lazenby’s dramatic Bond moment be Felix Leiter’s shark mauling. Possibly with James Earl Jones as Mr. Big.
  • @MakeshiftPython I absolutely agree about Lazenby, and I've never understood those who say they think he's really great in the role. Not only wooden, but he plays Bond as if he were a chipper boy scout. Wayyyy off base.

    It's his youthful Australian swagger seeping through. I feel it's the wrong performance for a story like OHMSS, which in the novel has Bond becoming weary after many years of service. Connery in 1969 would have easily played that up if Hunt had him stick to that aspect of the novel.

    I do think Lazenby would have been more perfectly suitable for a movie like LALD where it's mostly a fast pace action film. Nothing too demanding of an actor, he'd only have to play up the charm.

    I never thought about that before, but that's a damn good point. Older Bond for one of the later novels. Connery would have fitted that perfectly. Then youthful Bond in one of the earlier novels. I can see the Laz swagger working much better in LALD, now you come to mention it.

    Question is, would Lazenby have wanted the gig by the early 70's? It sounded like he was getting influenced by the hippy movement by the turn of the decade, and may have changed his priorities and goals by the time LALD came knocking. Who knows. All hypothetical stuff, but nice to chew over...
  • I do think Lazenby would have been more perfectly suitable for a movie like LALD where it's mostly a fast pace action film. Nothing too demanding of an actor, he'd only have to play up the charm.

    Although I'm a defender of Lazenby's performance in OHMSS, I readily admit that it would have been ideal to see him first in a more action-oriented installment, allowing him to make the role his own. Rather than in LALD, I would have been inclined to see him make his debut in an adaptation of TMWTGG as it was apparently a possibility on the table at the time. To be honest, that would probably have been ideal for the Lazenby fan that I am.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,342
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.

    Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.

    Yeah but he was able to golf, gamble and bone Lana Wood and Jill. Quite an experience he had. No wonder he wasn't grumpy.

    Did he bone Jill as well ? :)
  • Of course it isn't better without Sean Connery. Lazenby couldn't act and delivers a wooden performance. He openly boasts that he didn't take filming seriously and went out partying on nights before filming and only bothered to learn his lines in the car on the way to the studio. Connery could act and would have been superb in the closing scene. OHMSS is a strong Bond movie because of Fleming's source material, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas and John Barry.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,342
    EhdwK0BVoAMkao7?format=jpg&name=medium
    OR
    Diamonds-Are-Forever-Cream-Linen-Suit.jpg
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,567
    Is OHMSS Better Without Sean Connery?

    Yes, because if he was in it he would keep bumping into George Lazenby.

    However, flipping the question to Would OHMSS Be Better with Connery instead of Lazenby, the answer is possibly. But possibly not.

    Connery would have been amazing of course, but Lazenby's youthful swagger works well. Watching him in the film is an eye opener. How can an inexperienced actor look so comfortable?

    Case in point, when Lazenby enters the casino? He confidently glides in as if for all the world he belongs there. Compare it to both Dalton and Brosnan who both made the mistake of holding themselves ramrod straight, glancing hither and thither with mean expressions on their faces, acting their socks off and both looking like they'd never been near a casino in their lives before. And you wonder who the actual actor is? Later at the card table he equipped himself so very well and Connery is all but forgotten.

    I read that Lazenby was wooden? He had his moments indeed (some of his dialogue with Draco's men in the car was excruciating), but he was always expressive in an understated way (as cinema acting should be), and it was all there in his face - hiding from Bunt and her men, declaring love for Tracy, the final scene in the car.

    I do wonder how Connery would have played it. I'm sure he would have been excellent, but Lazenby pulls it off well enough for the question to be moot.

  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,382
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.

    Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.

    Yeah but he was able to golf, gamble and bone Lana Wood and Jill. Quite an experience he had. No wonder he wasn't grumpy.

    Did he bone Jill as well ? :)

    I heard he dated both while on set.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,342
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    GadgetMan wrote: »
    I don't know why the old movie stars had this insatiable taste for money, that they ended up losing out on what would have been a brilliant film and even a greater career path. You read film history and you come across such stars. Especially in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I think the stars then knew they weren't many like them, so they used that to their advantage by demanding for lofty salaries, compared to now where studios can easily replace an actor.

    Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.

    Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.

    Yeah but he was able to golf, gamble and bone Lana Wood and Jill. Quite an experience he had. No wonder he wasn't grumpy.

    Did he bone Jill as well ? :)

    I heard he dated both while on set.

    I read that Lana Wood said she had sex with him nothing about Jill yet.
  • Posts: 1,452
    Octopussy wrote: »
    cstm7hd7563c77b5bb4dc948428291_400x167.gif

    Steven Soderbergh wrote a great essay on this film....Check out this quote that I could'nt agree with more:

    Also, Lazenby has a vulnerability that Connery never had—there are scenes in which he looks legitimately terrified and others in which he convinces us that he is in love with Tracy (particularly in the final scene), which brings us to another reason OHMSS is so distinctive—it’s the only Bond film with a female character that isn’t a cartoon, and the only film in which Bond is so completely frustrated with his bosses he wants and tries to quit. In fact, everything about the film suggests a reboot before the idea of rebooting was even in the air,

    Lazenby could have been a movie star. He looked like an athletic Cary Grant.....he was handsome, sexy, a little more refined than Connery but very physical. He had great prowess. He made Bond more a 'gentleman spy'. He worked better than people expect....he was a genuine leading man.

    I think Peter Hunt directed him very well. He made sure that Lazenby looked like 007. George had a glint in his eye and something a little darker.

    I think Fleming would have approved....he was closer to Fleming's conception than Roger Moore.

    1257307.jpg

    +1

    +2

  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    edited September 2020 Posts: 776
    EhdwK0BVoAMkao7?format=jpg&name=medium
    OR
    Diamonds-Are-Forever-Cream-Linen-Suit.jpg

    BOTH.

    Oh, you meant which suit, not which actor. I definitely prefer Lazenby’s. Looking sharp with the
    pink shirt. A little more on this side of timeless, as opposed to Connery’s very much of the time ugly cream suit (and I like cream).
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,342
    EhdwK0BVoAMkao7?format=jpg&name=medium
    OR
    Diamonds-Are-Forever-Cream-Linen-Suit.jpg

    BOTH.

    Oh, you meant which suit, not which actor. I definitely prefer Lazenby’s. Looking sharp with the
    pink shirt. A little more on this side of timeless, as opposed to Connery’s very much of the time ugly cream suit (and I like cream).

    What about felix's tie ? How bad is that ? :)
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Awful, actually. I didn’t even notice Felix in that shot at first. I will never not be amused that while Bond stands out with charisma and style, Felix always look like the schlub carrying his luggage to his room, not a CIA agent. It took until Jeffrey Wright to get Felix into a real snazzy tuxedo, too. Anyway, off topic.
  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,342
    Awful, actually. I didn’t even notice Felix in that shot at first. I will never not be amused that while Bond stands out with charisma and style, Felix always look like the schlub carrying his luggage to his room, not a CIA agent. It took until Jeffrey Wright to get Felix into a real snazzy tuxedo, too. Anyway, off topic.

    Felix in Dr no and Thunderball is stylish and cool.
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 776
    Dr. No, yes. Thunderball, maybe only briefly, before the audience knows who he is.
Sign In or Register to comment.