Sean Connery as Bond in OHMSS

Bruce_007Bruce_007 Posts: 46MI6 Agent
No disrespect to George Lazenby, but I feel that with Connery in the title role of OHMSS it could have been better than any other Bond film hands down! First of all, Connery's bond getting married would've been great because it would make you remember all the women he personally had been with prior and now to think the player was finally settling down.:D Also, the PTS of DAF would have been sweeter because one could relate Bond's emotion far better if it was Connery's bond who had lost his wife. To me, the PTS of DAF reminds me of one man doing another's dirty work. My final point is the fact that armed with a good performance from Connery and arguably the best Fleming story, how can you beat it? What's your take on this subject?

Comments

  • Krassno GranitskiKrassno Granitski USAPosts: 896MI6 Agent
    Bruce_007 wrote:
    My final point is the fact that armed with a good performance from Connery and arguably the best Fleming story, how can you beat it? What's your take on this subject?
    My counter point is Thunderball. Connery's finest performance and a great Fleming story. OHMSS is a better film.
    I just feel that everyone from the studio to the camera man tried harder to make the film a success because of Connery's absence and had he been in the film it would have turned out to be another DAF or YOLT. Plus I have seen every film that Sean Connery has made, I do not think he could have pulled off the 2 most critical scenes in the film - proposal and tragic ending.
  • LazenbyLazenby The upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
    I've thought about this lots and have to disagree-- by 1969 Connery was looking old, worn out and was bored out of his with Bond whereas one of OHMSS' greatest assets is the youthful vitality and physical presence of George Lazenby. I also second those who wonder if Connery could have as successfully handled the romantic aspect of the movie.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    edited March 2007
    Plus I have seen every film that Sean Connery has made, I do not think he could have pulled off the 2 most critical scenes in the film - proposal and tragic ending.
    I think he could have. I think that Connery (by far the best ever actor to have played Bond IMO) could not only have handled those scenes, but could have handled them better than Lazenby. I loved Lazenby's handling of the final scene and I also didn't mind, but didn't love, his handling of the proposal scene. I think that Connery would have been great in those two scenes, however I'm not too sure that he would want to. I often dream about Connery doing OHMSS. OHMSS is seventh on my list, and if Connery had done it, it would most certainly be in my top five. I'm just not too sure that Connery would have wanted to play a more vulnerable Bond.
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • LazenbyLazenby The upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
    Fish1941 wrote:
    If he had done OHMSS in the 1970s or the 80s . . . maybe.

    Interesting point-- I've always marveled at how much better he looked in NSNA than DAF or, to some degree, YOLT. He certainly looked much more suited to the role than a similarly aged Moore in AVTAK.
    But I have doubts that he could have successfully handled the romantic aspects of OHMSS in 1966-1968.

    He definitely wouldn't have handled them in the same way as Lazenby, but if the same movie (with the same direction etc.) had been made with a FRWL to TB era Connery I have no doubts that Connery would have added his own unique charm to the romantic side of the story and possibly made it just as great-- just a little different.
  • Moore Not LessMoore Not Less Posts: 1,095MI6 Agent
    Sean Connery as Bond in OHMSS. It basically comes down to motivation. If Connery was properly motivated he would have been considerably better and considerably more convincing than George Lazenby in all aspects of the role, with the exception of the action scenes.

    However, if Connery was in YOLT mode (bored, dis-interested, makes no effort to hide it) then we are better off with Lazenby.
  • LazenbyLazenby The upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
    in all aspects of the role, with the exception of the action scenes.

    The action scenes were awesome, though. The opening fight on the beach, the "gatecrasher" fight, the fight outside Draco's office, the ski chases, the attack on Piz Gloria-- all of this was infused with a youthful magnetism and physical power that had waned considerably in the Connery of YOLT. I am always surprised at how many people complain about Lazenby's performance and then mention "oh, but he was good in the action sequences" as if they weren't really significant. The action in OHMSS was incredible (with that music, to boot)!-- and a huge part of what (to me) made that movie such a success.
  • bluemanblueman PDXPosts: 1,667MI6 Agent
    If they had filmed OHMSS when they intended, right after GF, then Connery would've been perfect. In '69, I kinda doubt it would've worked, not after his bored-to-death performance in YOLT.

    Connery in '65 would've been perfect for OHMSS. I blame McClory that we were robbed of this Bond performance that never was...I believe Catherine Deneuve was being considered for Tracy even? That paring would've done it for me.
  • LazenbyLazenby The upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
    blueman wrote:
    I blame McClory that we were robbed of this Bond performance that never was.

    If it weren't for McClory Thunderball would have been the first Bond movie, followed by, presumably, a 1963 OHMSS. Now that would have been something.
  • Dan SameDan Same Victoria, AustraliaPosts: 6,054MI6 Agent
    edited March 2007
    blueman wrote:
    Connery in '65 would've been perfect for OHMSS. I blame McClory that we were robbed of this Bond performance that never was..
    As much as I would have loved to have seen Connery in OHMSS, I'm happy he didn't make OHMSS in '65 as we would have been deprived of TB; IMO a superior film to OHMSS and the third best Bond film of all time.
    blueman wrote:
    I believe Catherine Deneuve was being considered for Tracy even? That paring would've done it for me.
    I like Deneuve, but regardlesss of whom played Bond, I would prefer to have stuck with Diana Rigg. She ws magnificent. :x
    "He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
  • John DrakeJohn Drake On assignmentPosts: 2,564MI6 Agent
    A tongue-in-cheek look at why Connery decided not to make OHMSS.

    1968 Eon Productions office.

    Cubby Broccoli and co-producer Harry Saltzman are meeting with their star Sean Connery to discuss preparations for the next James Bond film, the sixth in the series.

    Cubby: Now Sean, we’ve decided what your next mission as 007 will be.

    Connery: Ah great Cubby. What Ian Fleming novel are we adapting next? Could it be ‘Live and Let Die?' Or maybe. ‘The Man with the Golden Gun? Or ‘Moonraker’ I quite like that one.

    Cubby: It’s neither of those Sean. It’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

    Connery: Oh really, On Her Majeshty’sh Shecret Shervish,

    Cubby and Harry hit the deck laughing.

    Connery: Bashtardsh. That’s it. I’m going to America to star in ‘Shalako.’
  • LazenbyLazenby The upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
    Dan Same wrote:
    I'm happy he didn't make OHMSS in '65 as we would have been deprived of TB

    That's an interesting way to look at it.
  • Prince Kamal KhanPrince Kamal Khan Posts: 277MI6 Agent
    There's a good article on this topic here-

    http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/

    blueman wrote:
    If they had filmed OHMSS when they intended, right after GF, then Connery would've been perfect. In '69, I kinda doubt it would've worked, not after his bored-to-death performance in YOLT.

    Connery in '65 would've been perfect for OHMSS. I blame McClory that we were robbed of this Bond performance that never was

    In retrospect, I wonder if they would have been as faithful to OHMSS the novel, replete with its downbeat ending if it had been filmed in 1965. With the world going Bond and spy crazy at the time, and all the competitors coming out of the wood work(i.e., The Man From UNCLE, Derek Flint, Matt Helm, etc.), I have a feeling the 1965 Bond film would have been a gadget bedecked spectacle with a happy ending whether it had been TB, YOLT or OHMSS.
    blueman wrote:
    ...I believe Catherine Deneuve was being considered for Tracy even? That paring would've done it for me.

    I agree there. Miss Deneuve is the best-Bond-girl-that-never-was IMHO. As fond as I am of Dame Diana, Deneuve's Tracy probably would have been closer to the character as described in the original novel. However, Catherine Deneuve was only offered the role after George Lazenby took the role as EON thought a name actress would help the Box Office of an unknown Bond actor.
  • LazenbyLazenby The upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
    In retrospect, I wonder if they would have been as faithful to OHMSS the novel, replete with its downbeat ending if it had been filmed in 1965. With the world going Bond and spy crazy at the time, and all the competitors coming out of the wood work

    Indeed; that's why I've often thought a 1963 OHMSS would have been very interesting.
  • arthur pringlearthur pringle SpacePosts: 366MI6 Agent
    I think I'm in the minority but I'm glad Lazenby did OHMSS. I think having a young vulnerable Bond worked. Clearly Lazenby was never going to win an Oscar but I liked him. It makes the film more unique, and a bit more cultish by having the one-off Bond actor.
  • John DrakeJohn Drake On assignmentPosts: 2,564MI6 Agent
    I think I'm in the minority but I'm glad Lazenby did OHMSS. I think having a young vulnerable Bond worked. Clearly Lazenby was never going to win an Oscar but I liked him. It makes the film more unique, and a bit more cultish by having the one-off Bond actor.

    Agree. I think it suits the film and what happened to Lazenby after, his career just tailing off and becoming an entire missed opportunity, adds pathos to OHMSS.
Sign In or Register to comment.