Why Connery could never have done OHMSS

I happen to think Lazenby was a fantastic Bond and it is the saddest thing he didn't do a second or a third film. His film retained the tone of the early Bond films after the silliness of YOLT. It's a shame we didn't get more serious films instead of the camp of DAF and silliness of some of the films that came after.

I've seen quite a few critics and fans suggest that if Connery had done OHMSS it would have been the defining Bond film. It would have been the Bond film that had everything, perhaps surpassing Goldfinger as the highmark of the series.

I would have to disagree though. I just watched the film and there is no way in hell I could see Connery in OHMSS. At least not in 1969. Connery's Bond kind of had a superhero kind of feeling going on by YOLT. I can't imagine him playing a more flawed, vulnerable Bond in OHMSS who falls in love. I can't imagine Connery in that All The Time In The World montage scene with Tracy falling in love. Or doing the ending scene at all.

I think, if anything, Connery would have hurt the film. I love Sean and he was fantastic, but I can't simply see him doing this material. I think Lazenby managed to pull it off quite well. Such a shame we didn't get to see him Diamonds Are Forever.

OHMSS even kind of reminds me of Skyfall in a way. Lazenby's Bond seems much more human and interesting after the rather flat dull character in YOLT. Plus it seems a return to form after the excess of YOLT with a much more human, flawed Bond. The scenes with Bond and Blofeld are quite great in this film. Much better than they were in YOLT.

Couldn't agree more. Lazenby managed to pull off vulnerability and emotion, yet never for a second let it cloud the fact that he could still beat the crap out of anyone who messed with him. In that regard, he's the best Bond of the lot. Dalton lacked the physical strength, while Craig's romantically emotional stuff was awkward and poorly written. Lazenby's performance in OHMSS is one of the series' best leading man accomplishments in that Bond works and completely succeeds in all three elements of a three dimensional character.

I think had he had the enthusiasm and energy for OHMSS, it would have been great. He's a better and more charismatic actor than Lazenby.

If OHMSS has been made earlier in the series, then I can see Connery doing it. But not in 1969. No way.

Had it come after Goldfinger as originally planned, it could have worked. If the weather had cooperated after Thunderball and they had been able to film in for 1967 as planned, then possibly. It could have had decent results. Connery's Bond was still interesting and new. You knew he was going to save the day but were on the edge of your seat wondering how.

By You Only Live Twice, his Bond character had just become a cardboard superhero jumping into hollowed out volcanoes. It would be hard to take it seriously seeing his Bond in one film doing stuff like that, then in the next holding hands with his lover to the tune of "We Have All The Time In The World." It's too drastic a change. Sure, they did it with MR/FYEO but that didn't come anywhere near the emotional content of OHMSS.

It would be like watching Craig in Bond 24 surfing a CGI wave. It would just seem incredible odd.

OHMSS following THUNDERBALL would have been better because (assuming they stuck close to the novel) it would given Connery something new to do with Bond. TB also had some nice foreshadowing of a more weary Bond and I always cite the moment he has to deliver the bad news to Domino as proof that he had the chops to pull off the tender moments. YOLT was a major step down in quality (story, character, ect) that I can't blame him for being so bored with the series getting gimmicky. Also, YOLT should have never been made before OHMSS. It never made sense to do that.

The problem with having Connery do OHMSS us that he was clearly bored with the role halfway through TB. If EON had made DN and FRWL, then skipped GF and made TB as the third film and jumped straight to OHMSS as the fourth, things might have been different. He probably would have been bored three films in, but I think the character arc if OHMSS would have reinvigorated him. Especially since he never got to do CR.

I definitely agree with everything I read.

Walecs wrote:

I definitely agree with everything I read.

A model citizen.

THE OFFENCE, for one, shows that Connery has much greater acting ability than one might suppose purely from a viewing of YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE. I think he could have done OHMSS and that he could have been terrific in it.

As Python says: "I think had he had the enthusiasm and energy for OHMSS, it would have been great." It would have been a very different performance as Bond to his performance in YOLT, of course. Would audiences have found the contrast too jarring ("I want Connery to give me escapism and superheroics - what's he doing mired in all this heavy drama and emotion?"), or would OHMSS have made them embrace Connery all the more (Connery's so versatile! He can do "silly" Bond and "serious" Bond, and like Peking duck and Russian caviar I love 'em both!)? Or would Joe Public not really have minded about the difference or even noticed it much (after all, there is still plenty of escapism in OHMSS - it's basically still an action romp and is by no means a sombre, small-scale domestic drama)?

I'm sure audiences, while initially taken aback by the shift in tone, in the end would have come to really respond to it positively. Like "wow, I didn't expect a Bond film could move me like that", the kind of thing Micolli has been aiming for the last couple of years.

And I disagree with PM's opinion that Connery looked bored in TB as much as I disagree with anyone that claims he looks bored in DAF. Provide me an example of him losing interest. I don't think it's there and that's because it was helmed by Terence Young, who Connery had great respect for. It's also one of the two films that Connery always cited as his favorite Bond films.

Python wrote:

And I disagree with PM's opinion that Connery looked bored in TB as much as I disagree with anyone that claims he looks bored in DAF.

Absolutely Connery's attitude to YOLT may be up for debate, reading around the making he was frustrated by the lack of development and continual intrusion of the press to filming I think did take their toll ableit he is still a terrific presence. However TB and DAF are imo incredible and defining performances.

Moore wrote:

I happen to think Lazenby was a fantastic Bond and it is the saddest thing he didn't do a second or a third film. His film retained the tone of the early Bond films after the silliness of YOLT. It's a shame we didn't get more serious films instead of the camp of DAF and silliness of some of the films that came after.

I've seen quite a few critics and fans suggest that if Connery had done OHMSS it would have been the defining Bond film. It would have been the Bond film that had everything, perhaps surpassing Goldfinger as the highmark of the series.

I would have to disagree though. I just watched the film and there is no way in hell I could see Connery in OHMSS. At least not in 1969. Connery's Bond kind of had a superhero kind of feeling going on by YOLT. I can't imagine him playing a more flawed, vulnerable Bond in OHMSS who falls in love. I can't imagine Connery in that All The Time In The World montage scene with Tracy falling in love. Or doing the ending scene at all.

I think, if anything, Connery would have hurt the film. I love Sean and he was fantastic, but I can't simply see him doing this material. I think Lazenby managed to pull it off quite well. Such a shame we didn't get to see him Diamonds Are Forever.

OHMSS even kind of reminds me of Skyfall in a way.  Lazenby's Bond seems much more human and interesting after the rather flat dull character in YOLT. Plus it seems a return to form after the excess of YOLT with a much more human, flawed Bond. The scenes with Bond and Blofeld are quite great in this film. Much better than they were in YOLT.

Moore wrote:

If OHMSS has been made earlier in the series, then I can see Connery doing it. But not in 1969. No way.

Had it come after Goldfinger as originally planned, it could have worked. If the weather had cooperated after Thunderball and they had been able to film in for 1967 as planned, then possibly. It could have had decent results. Connery's Bond was still interesting and new. You knew he was going to save the day but were on the edge of your seat wondering how.

By You Only Live Twice, his Bond character had just become a cardboard superhero jumping into hollowed out volcanoes. It would be hard to take it seriously seeing his Bond in one film doing stuff like that, then in the next holding hands with his lover to the tune of "We Have All The Time In The World." It's too drastic a change.

Python wrote:

OHMSS following THUNDERBALL would have been better because (assuming they stuck close to the novel) it would given Connery something new to do with Bond. TB also had some nice foreshadowing of a more weary Bond and I always cite the moment he has to deliver the bad news to Domino as proof that he had the chops to pull off the tender moments. YOLT was a major step down in quality (story, character, ect) that I can't blame him for being so bored with the series getting gimmicky. Also, YOLT should have never been made before OHMSS. It never made sense to do that.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The problem with having Connery do OHMSS us that he was clearly bored with the role halfway through TB. If EON had made DN and FRWL, then skipped GF and made TB as the third film and jumped straight to OHMSS as the fourth, things might have been different. He probably would have been bored three films in, but I think the character arc if OHMSS would have reinvigorated him.

I tend to agree with the above.

The reason we would never have gotten that definitive OHMSS with Connery people want is not just that Connery was bored with the role, but because by YOLT the whole thing had gone into pure comic book territory.

The reason we got the OHMSS that we did was because with the recasting the producers were willing to experiment and try a different style and let Peter Hunt make the movie he wanted to make. If they'd done it with Connery after YOLT it probably would've been another Lewis Gilbert Epic and I bet most of the love story and it's teeth would've been done away with.

The only way you'd get that definitive OHMSS we all pine over is in some alternate universe where you let Terrence Young do DN, FRWL, TB and then OHMSS like he wanted to and basically just had a nice consistent SPECTRE arc over the original films (maybe with Eric Pohlmann as Blofeld?). Then you do YOLT after OHMSS, like the good Fleming intended, instead of before like a crazy man.

Amis says as much himself in The James Bond Dossier at one point.

He could have, just look at any of the films he did with Sidney Lumet for reference, including what may be his best performance in The Hill.
The only trouble is, it could have only happened at the end of the decade. There was no way the producers or audiences would have fully bought a strict adaptation of OHMSS even after the Goldfinger phenomenon.

There's no denying that Connery can act but, in the case of a Connery OHMSS, his charisma in the role would have worked against him. A smugness had set in arguably even before his ultimate smug-Bond performance in GF. Even by the end of FRWL he was comfortable and too assured in the role. Lazenby brought a rawness, a vulnerability, and importantly a non-smug demeanour which endeared us to Bond and his romance in the film. Lazenby made us care for him when he was stuck in a corner, whereas with Connery we all knew the drill; Bond gets cornered, either acts smug, gets let off by the villain or pulls a gadget out. There's not a single instance across all seven of Connery's Bond films which suggests he'd be right for the humanly vulnerable and romantic Bond of OHMSS. Even in the beach scene with Domino in TB, he just puts his shades on, the guard stays up and we don't see a thing from him by way of emotion, he doesn't even bother consoling the girl or asking if she's okay. OHMSS required what Lazenby brought to the table.

Oh my, have I missed you gents.

I'm in the middle of a Bondathon at a local cinema. It's curated by a dude who calls himself Canada's Bond Expert... that's his website and twitter handle. Anyway, not only did he introduce Goldfinger as the best and a perfect film, but when introducing On Her Majesty's Secret Service said that it was ok but would have been a great film with Connery.

GAH! :evil: 

Then tonight there is some university dude who gives this talk about some surveys he did with Bond fans. Somewhere in the middle he refers to OHMSS as the worst of the lot.

Clearly, neither of them have come to this forum or MI6.... Shame too.

I have to say though... There is nothing - NOTHING - like On Her Majesty's Secret Service on the big screen. Legs Lazenby looks magnificent. The scenery shines. You can really get into it so much more. Everything is bigger - no kidding, eh?

Sadly, the same goes for the silly movies in that the silliness is amplified and makes me realize that there are some Bond outings I won't watch again...

We see OHMSS again on Sunday. They are missing a few of the movies but playing 20 - NSNA is one.... we skipped that tonight.

Lazenby. wrote:

There's no denying that Connery can act but, in the case of a Connery OHMSS, his charisma in the role would have worked against him. A smugness had set in arguably even before his ultimate smug-Bond performance in GF. Even by the end of FRWL he was comfortable and too assured in the role. Lazenby brought a rawness, a vulnerability, and importantly a non-smug demeanour which endeared us to Bond and his romance in the film. Lazenby made us care for him when he was stuck in a corner, whereas with Connery we all knew the drill; Bond gets cornered, either acts smug, gets let off by the villain or pulls a gadget out. There's not a single instance across all seven of Connery's Bond films which suggests he'd be right for the humanly vulnerable and romantic Bond of OHMSS. Even in the beach scene with Domino in TB, he just puts his shades on, the guard stays up and we don't see a thing from him by way of emotion, he doesn't even bother consoling the girl or asking if she's okay. OHMSS required what Lazenby brought to the table.

^^^ This exactly. Daniel and I were saying this right after seeing it this week. No way Connery would have fit it. In addition to all you've said about smugness... he was simply too old and grey.

I'm one of those who thought Lazenby was too green. I feel like in the book, this Bond should have been much more of a vet who's become world weary and Connery would have pulled it off. As I said, it would have been different with Connery but that doesn't mean it would have been just another Goldfinger smugfest. I also just can't see this so call charisma a lot of Lazenby admirers see in him, especially when paired next to Diana Rigg who just eats him alive as an actor.

Rigg is a superior actor and I know they had issues working together, but enjoy the chemistry that's there.

I thought about this a lot after the showing and came to the conclusion that I prefer the first outing for all the Bond actors (first two for Connery) to any others they did - if they did more. Maybe I like them a bit green.  

When I say Connery was old, he just looked worn out and tired. Too much of something - and not in a Bond excess way.  His hair was thinning and I simply cannot see Tracy falling for old Connery. He'd have been Draco's peer, not his son-in-law

Edited: Maybe Dr. No or FRWL Connery could have done it... but after Thunderball, no way.

retrokitty wrote:

Rigg is a superior actor and I know they had issues working together, but enjoy the chemistry that's there.

I thought about this a lot after the showing and came to the conclusion that I prefer the first outing for all the Bond actors (first two for Connery) to any others they did - if they did more. Maybe I like them a bit green.  

I think he certainly holds his own. I love the scenes between Lazenby and Bernard Lee. The only gripe I had with Lazenby was the delivery of some of his lines were a bit wooden at times. I still think he is more enjoyable to watch than some of the other Bond actors. His Bond character had so much more to it than the others, it makes for a much more interesting viewing experience. OHMSS is 2 hours + of learning new things about Bond. You get get more development in 2 hours + of Lazenby's one film than you do in the entire run of Roger Moore. With Roger, it was full on cardboard hero with the very rare glimmer (references to Tracy in TSWLM/FYEO) that showed that maybe there was more to Bond than the robotic superhero.

In the end, I think Lazenby was best for this film. As was said earlier in the thread, it's the first time (and perhaps only time) we've ever seen a truly 3D portrait of James Bond. Connery was fantastic, but played it more of a cardboard superhero.

With Lazenby you genuinely feel that he could fail, that he's a human being, that he could fall in love...hell, in the scene when Blofeld's men are hunting him after the ski chase and he is at the skating rink, Bond looks scared/afraid: it looks like he realizes his number is up, that he's done for. I can't imagine that with a Connery Bond (gets shots in Thunderball and seems pretty cool about it).

I do agree with Python that Lazenby was a little too young for it. In the book Bond is pushing forty, he's weary and tired and that factors into his depression and his desire to settle down.

That being said, I agree with everything everyone's said about Lazenby's performance. He has fantastic chemistry with Rigg, great scenes with Blofeld and M, a great performance all around.

Unfortunately Connery had put such a stamp on who Bond was at that point that Lazenby's character feels almost like a totally different guy -- that and the fourth wall breaking in-jokes don't help when I have to argue against "it's a codename" morons.

I think in an alternate universe the Bond films I would've liked to have gotten would be DN-FRWL-TB-OHMSS-YOLT, the end, all directed by Young and starring Connery.

As it happened, the fact that Connery left after YOLT was the best thing for OHMSS because recasting allowed the producers the leeway to feel like they could experiment and try something new and that meant letting Peter Hunt direct it the way he wanted to, and thus we got a near-masterpiece out of it all.

Any Bond fan who can't appreciate OHMSS is a fool.

Also, I tend to agree with retro about Bond actors' debut performances being their best -- although I think I prefer Craig in Skyfall...

Also, welcome back retro!

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Any Bond fan who can't appreciate OHMSS is a fool.

Agreed.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

Also, welcome back retro!

Thanks!

The comments about the cardboard superheroes, Moore, are spot on.  And what I also notice great about On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Lazenby in particular was that he looked as if he could take the villains or henchmen. Even when he showed fear or worry, he was completely capable - he knew it and we knew it.  

The other thing about Lazenby and the fights - more about the quality of directing than Lazenby maybe - is that, unlike a few of Connery's films and all of Roger Moore's films, the fight scenes maintained their intensity through each fight. Rarely did the fight start with the henchmen seeming to be a worthy opponent, and then soon after turn into a bumbling keystone cop.  

While watching many of the movies, I kept thinking, why would a villain hire such incompetent fighters?

I get that we are supposed to know that Bond is superior but that comes across more if he's superior to good fighters and brilliant villains than idjits who don't know what they are doing.[/quote]

Great to have you back, retrokat. :) 

Is Daniel done with forums, or could he sign up? Just sayin', cos we need new posters.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Great to have you back, retrokat. :) 

Is Daniel done with forums, or could he sign up? Just sayin', cos we need new posters.

I won't say he'd never sign back in, but he keeps himself busy with a lot of other stuff these days so there isn't a load of time for forums.

Though this Bondathon has made us both yearn to read the books through - again for him... I've only read the first four and bits of the others. So he may want to discuss those as he goes through them.

I was going to wait until the Bondathon was done to talk about it here... but the "Bond expert" and others doing talks through the series at the cinema pissed me off too much. I had to find peeps who knew something about Bond. :o 

Lazenby. wrote:

There's no denying that Connery can act but, in the case of a Connery OHMSS, his charisma in the role would have worked against him. A smugness had set in arguably even before his ultimate smug-Bond performance in GF. Even by the end of FRWL he was comfortable and too assured in the role. Lazenby brought a rawness, a vulnerability, and importantly a non-smug demeanour which endeared us to Bond and his romance in the film. Lazenby made us care for him when he was stuck in a corner, whereas with Connery we all knew the drill; Bond gets cornered, either acts smug, gets let off by the villain or pulls a gadget out. There's not a single instance across all seven of Connery's Bond films which suggests he'd be right for the humanly vulnerable and romantic Bond of OHMSS. Even in the beach scene with Domino in TB, he just puts his shades on, the guard stays up and we don't see a thing from him by way of emotion, he doesn't even bother consoling the girl or asking if she's okay. OHMSS required what Lazenby brought to the table.

Very well said, sir.