Is OHMSS Better Without Sean Connery?

123457

Comments

  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 554
    I'm always torn on this subject. On the one hand, Connery could've played the world-weary Bond of the book very well on his fifth or sixth film. The emotional moments with the MI6 Regulars would've been even stronger since he'd had many scenes with them over the years. Seeing the first onscreen, Superman Bond' brought low like he is in OHMSS would be something to behold.

    On the other, I really enjoy Lazenby in the film. I like how his overconfident, chipper Bond at the beginning contrasts with the wreck at the end of the story.

    Connery's Bond always had a certain detachment even when he was scared for his life, whereas Lazenby really seemed at the end of his rope escaping Piz Gloria. Not that the former is bad. But I think the second approach works better for OHMSS.

    Would they have cast Diana Rigg opposite Sean? In all likelihood not, which would be a tragedy in itself.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,099
    Would they have cast Diana Rigg opposite Sean? In all likelihood not, which would be a tragedy in itself.

    It’s very possible she still would have been cast. After all, Honor Blackman was cast.

    Just because some of the previous Connery films had beauty pageant winners cast as leading women doesn’t mean Peter Hunt would have done that again, especially for casting Tracy Bond.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 554
    Would they have cast Diana Rigg opposite Sean? In all likelihood not, which would be a tragedy in itself.

    It’s very possible she still would have been cast. After all, Honor Blackman was cast.

    Just because some of the previous Connery films had beauty pageant winners cast as leading women doesn’t mean Peter Hunt would have done that again, especially for casting Tracy Bond.
    That's not why I think it's unlikely. Brigitte Bardot was visited by the producers to discuss the role, and told them she'd just signed on for a movie with Connery. If Connery wasn't doing that, she may well have been cast.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,454
    Would they have cast Diana Rigg opposite Sean? In all likelihood not, which would be a tragedy in itself.

    It’s very possible she still would have been cast. After all, Honor Blackman was cast.

    Just because some of the previous Connery films had beauty pageant winners cast as leading women doesn’t mean Peter Hunt would have done that again, especially for casting Tracy Bond.
    That's not why I think it's unlikely. Brigitte Bardot was visited by the producers to discuss the role, and told them she'd just signed on for a movie with Connery. If Connery wasn't doing that, she may well have been cast.

    Agreed, and no, just no. I just don't liked her (Bardot) for the role or in any of the Bond girl roles.

    Diana Rigg is one of the reasons why Tracy became one of my favorite Bond Girls, she truly owned the role, improved the character on the source material by her great performance. Brought charm, inner fire, warmth, toughness and sexiness into the role, she's almost a perfect Bond Girl to me!
    She's irreplaceable!
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    Personally, I liked GL in the role and would have loved to see him continue in it so, yes, OHMSS is batter without SC.

    As for the photos of Diana, have you seen her daughter?
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,454
    stag wrote: »
    Personally, I liked GL in the role and would have loved to see him continue in it so, yes, OHMSS is batter without SC.

    As for the photos of Diana, have you seen her daughter?

    Yes, and she would also make a good Moneypenny or even a Bond Girl.

    Rachael Stirling
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    I'm not sure Connery had the vulnerability to pull off OHMSS. I can't see it.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,019
    How about the vulnerability that Connery showed when his character momentarily broke down in The Offence, though? Ok, he did beat a bloke to death immediately afterwards, but...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,099
    We’ve seen moments of vulnerability with Connery as Bond. He’s not totally a super man.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,110
    I can't think of one. I can think of flashes of anger but I don't recall Connery seeming believably scared at any point. Maybe during the parade in TB.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 338
    talos7 wrote: »
    This may have been asked, but did Sean ever express any thoughts concerning OHMSS? I wonder if he had any regrets about not doing it.

    I think I read somewhere that Connery said that he had tired of the gadgets and how Bond had turned into Superman by the time of YOLT, but that he would have liked to have done OHMSS when he saw how it turned out

    I think a slightly ageing slightly disillusioned Connery could have chimed well with the slightly ageing slightly disillusioned Bond character in OHMSS. And it would have delivered a great character arch for Connery Bond to have resigned and got married, in an era before character arcs had been invented.

    A slightly different film perhaps, but could have been magnificent - Connery’s best
  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited August 2022 Posts: 674
    If Connery had done OHMSS it would probably have been a completely different film. The entire sequence at Piz Gloria would have to have been excised since his Bond and Blofeld had already met in the previous movie. They might have not followed the book at all, and just kept a few basic ingredients (locations and character names) and called it OHMSS, like with YOLT, DAF, and MR.

    That being said, if they could stick the book as much as possible, Connery would have been far better than Lazenby, and it would have been an even better movie than it already is. It's odd how people don't think he could have pulled off the final scene as well as Lazenby, as if Connery didn't have a ton of great dramatic performances to his name like The Hill and The Untouchables.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,454
    My concern in this was the female lead, if it's Connery, Rigg wouldn't be casted.
    That's all, folks!

    I wouldn't lose Rigg over Connery being cast in this one.

    Both Bardot and Deneuve, don't really liked them for this role, same for, like Angelina Jolie or Charlize Theron for the Vesper Lynd role.

    Diana Rigg really perfected it.

    And I think Lazenby worked because not only the vulnerability, but the naivety and raw performance that he gave, it really matched the film's tone.

    Connery was all about swagger and confidence, something that wouldn't fit into this film.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,099
    Peter Hunt was always going to direct this film and keep it faithful to the novel. I doubt he would have simply made another YOLT just because Connery was back.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 338
    As Connery hated the YOLT direction, having him onboard would definitely kept it as per the book

    As for Bond and Blofeld recognising each other, didn’t the book say that Blofeld had had plastic surgery? And, of course, Bond had a cunning disguise of glasses and a funny accent.

    Not forgetting Bond’s previous disguise as a a Japanese fisherman the last time they met
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,613
    If we could live in an alternative world were everything about OHMSS is the same, but have a committed Connery instead of Lazenby, then yes absolutely.
    Although as @MI6HQ said I wouldn't want to lose Diana Rigg because she is Mrs Tracy Bond
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,597
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If we could live in an alternative world were everything about OHMSS is the same, but have a committed Connery instead of Lazenby, then yes absolutely.

    Yep, agreed. Although I'd also happily take a Roger version too, and I think I might even prefer that.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 2022 Posts: 3,454
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If we could live in an alternative world were everything about OHMSS is the same, but have a committed Connery instead of Lazenby, then yes absolutely.

    Yep, agreed. Although I'd also happily take a Roger version too, and I think I might even prefer that.

    Agreed about Roger, and there's a higher possibility that Diana Rigg would likely to be cast too, but, again, because of some circumstances, I'm fine with Laz.

    Just not Connery, just let him with Bardot in Shalako (and they have no chemistry in that one either), what I want for Connery was not returning in DAF, he should have stopped after YOLT.

    Any actor with Rigg? Okay! 👍

    Connery, or any other actor with a different actress? No way! ✋
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If we could live in an alternative world were everything about OHMSS is the same, but have a committed Connery instead of Lazenby, then yes absolutely.

    Yep, agreed. Although I'd also happily take a Roger version too, and I think I might even prefer that.
    A Moore version would have the same thing of acting as a climax to the motifs and relationships Connery established, which is why it given a choice between the two I'd prefer Sean. As I've said though, I like George in it enough that I'm not fully sure.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited August 2022 Posts: 2,613
    .
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,613
    Double post sorry. Please delete
  • Posts: 1,708
    In DAF, SC's "where is Blofeld" always seemed silly and unbelievable to me. As playing the grieving widower never seemed convincing, I've always wondered if he would have brought the right tone to OHMSS.
  • Posts: 2,904
    But DAF never attempts to portray Bond as a grieving widower. The pre-credits sequence is intentionally ambiguous about whether Bond is out for revenge or just eager to corral Blofeld after his escape in YOLT. Connery's acting in the scene is similarly open to interpretation--either he's being coolly brutal and taunting for the hell of it, or he's enjoying a dish best served cold. It works either way.
  • Posts: 338
    Interesting. Never thought of it in that way.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,454
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If we could live in an alternative world were everything about OHMSS is the same, but have a committed Connery instead of Lazenby, then yes absolutely.

    Yep, agreed. Although I'd also happily take a Roger version too, and I think I might even prefer that.
    A Moore version would have the same thing of acting as a climax to the motifs and relationships Connery established, which is why it given a choice between the two I'd prefer Sean. As I've said though, I like George in it enough that I'm not fully sure.

    I'm not sure, Moore showed us that there's a life after Connery, he wanted to be different than him, he played Bond more as a romantic guy. He could've carry it, he's the first Bond who departed himself from Connery, although Lazenby attempted it but there's still some marks of Connery in him.
    My only complaint about Moore was the fight scenes, the stunts, I don't think he could've carry those fights like Lazenby did, that's why I'm still leaning on Lazenby.
    Or just any other actor from the 60's.
  • Posts: 15,950
    Revelator wrote: »
    But DAF never attempts to portray Bond as a grieving widower. The pre-credits sequence is intentionally ambiguous about whether Bond is out for revenge or just eager to corral Blofeld after his escape in YOLT. Connery's acting in the scene is similarly open to interpretation--either he's being coolly brutal and taunting for the hell of it, or he's enjoying a dish best served cold. It works either way.

    I tend to see Connery's physical appearance in DAF as the result of grieving. He's considerably older and not as trim. The grieving would've taken place off screen so when the gunbarrel opens we are presented with a Bond out for revenge yet ready to move on from Tracy and get back to plain solid work.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,099
    Revelator wrote: »
    But DAF never attempts to portray Bond as a grieving widower. The pre-credits sequence is intentionally ambiguous about whether Bond is out for revenge or just eager to corral Blofeld after his escape in YOLT. Connery's acting in the scene is similarly open to interpretation--either he's being coolly brutal and taunting for the hell of it, or he's enjoying a dish best served cold. It works either way.

    Yup. They leave it to viewers to interpret how they see it.

    I see it as being somewhere in the middle. I can see the connective tissue, but also acknowledge that the filmmakers were largely aiming DAF for audiences that likely skipped out OHMSS.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 1,215
    Would it have worked? Probably. Would it have been as good or better? I doubt it. Lazenby gets a bad rep, and sure he has his wooden moments and spent a good chunk of the film galavanting about with a kilt and a ridiculous voice dub, but his greatest sin for the casual moviegoer was that he wasn’t Sean Connery. OHMSS is a radical departure from the films that preceded and (mostly) followed it. It is a very different style of film with a very different story that requires a very different characterization of Bond. A characterization Lazenby was much better suited to. A film and a Bond that were way ahead of their time.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited August 2022 Posts: 554
    MI6HQ wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    If we could live in an alternative world were everything about OHMSS is the same, but have a committed Connery instead of Lazenby, then yes absolutely.

    Yep, agreed. Although I'd also happily take a Roger version too, and I think I might even prefer that.
    A Moore version would have the same thing of acting as a climax to the motifs and relationships Connery established, which is why it given a choice between the two I'd prefer Sean. As I've said though, I like George in it enough that I'm not fully sure.

    I'm not sure, Moore showed us that there's a life after Connery, he wanted to be different than him, he played Bond more as a romantic guy. He could've carry it, he's the first Bond who departed himself from Connery, although Lazenby attempted it but there's still some marks of Connery in him.
    My only complaint about Moore was the fight scenes, the stunts, I don't think he could've carry those fights like Lazenby did, that's why I'm still leaning on Lazenby.
    Or just any other actor from the 60's.
    I definitely think Moore could have handled it, I just think Connery would have added a little bit more subtext, which I would've liked.
    Revelator wrote: »
    But DAF never attempts to portray Bond as a grieving widower. The pre-credits sequence is intentionally ambiguous about whether Bond is out for revenge or just eager to corral Blofeld after his escape in YOLT. Connery's acting in the scene is similarly open to interpretation--either he's being coolly brutal and taunting for the hell of it, or he's enjoying a dish best served cold. It works either way.

    Yup. They leave it to viewers to interpret how they see it.

    I see it as being somewhere in the middle. I can see the connective tissue, but also acknowledge that the filmmakers were largely aiming DAF for audiences that likely skipped out OHMSS.
    I know you can read things into DAF that ties it into OHMSS more, but the films are so different tonally I can't really make it fit in my head.
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 904
    slide_99 wrote: »
    If Connery had done OHMSS it would probably have been a completely different film. The entire sequence at Piz Gloria would have to have been excised since his Bond and Blofeld had already met in the previous movie. They might have not followed the book at all, and just kept a few basic ingredients (locations and character names) and called it OHMSS, like with YOLT, DAF, and MR.

    I guess it would have depended on the year the movie would have been made: Connery's fifth film was always meant to be helmed by Gilbert and, if OHMSS was made in '67 with him as the director, I doubt it would have been really close to the novel (I think an early draft from the mid-sixties included a submersible Aston Martin in the PTS when Bond saves Tracy). If it was made in '69 with Hunt, I think the latter would have pushed for a more faithful adaptation, and Connery could have receptive to such prospect after YOLT.

    Anyway, even if I think Connery could have nailed the part in a faithful adaptation, I wouldn't want to lost Lazenby. Firstly because it pushed Eon to cast Rigg as Tracy, secondly, and maybe more importantly, because it gives a very particular flavour to this movie, something unique, that wouldn't have been possible if it was an actor's fifth or sixth instalment.
Sign In or Register to comment.