So, how would Connery have done in OHMSS

jboy

To me, this is the most intruiging 'what if' surrounding the Bond franchise. As many know, the choice for the next film after Thunderball was OHMSS, but it turns out that the shooting schedule wouldn't have matched the weather requirements in the Alps, so it was decided to 'adapt' YOLT instead.

It would've been interesting if the producers would've held so closely to Fleming's work had they gone with OHMSS with Connery, or if they would've continued with the grandiose elements found in YOLT. I think this would've intruiged Connery and he would've been attracted to a more realistic and characer driven Bond.

What if...

Willie Garvin

I think Sean Connery would've given the performance of his career had OHMSS been made immediately after Thunderball.Connery had already talked about doing OHMSS, so he was probably aware of the story's content and the change in direction for 007 that it signaled.

And I suspect Connery would've also been interested enough in Bond to play the role again--in a considerably more faithful-to-the- novel version of Ian Fleming's You Only Live Twice.Connery's departure from being 007 would've been easier for the public to accept, had he done so after completing the entire Blofeld Trilogy.

With SPECTRE no longer appearing in the James Bond movie storylines,the next man(whoever he might be)would be able to start his period as 007 with a clean slate--and with his own distinctive villains.

Loeffelholz

Couldn't agree more. Connery, finishing his Bond run with TB, OHMSS and YOLT---in sequence---would have been great...and it might have altered the course of Bond in the '70s...

Then again, maybe not. It's hard to imagine anyone but Sir Roger ushering us through the Serendipitous Seventies...hang-glider lapels and all...

Kirk James Kirk

I honestly cannot fathom Connery as Bond in OHMSS. The subtleties of Lazenby's performance concerning the more emotional aspects of Bond's character make the film, in my opinion. Despite Connery being a far superior actor (or rather Connery evolving into a far superior actor), he would have missed the more serious tones of the movie. Sure, Connery can play the tough seriousness, but I can't seem to recall Connery showing any sort of vulneralbility in his Bond performances. OHMSS would have suffered from Sir Sean's pithy arrogance. Lazenby's naivety did nothing but improve the film.

Napoleon Plural

Not so fast! Early Lazenby script is written for Connery, and his heroic rescue of Tracy is more moving when it's a bona fide established hero we've seen in action before. All that mock arrogance around the hotel Lazenby serves up cold, with no hint of irony. Bond's masterful domination of Trace is pure Connery, but Lazenby actually seems younger and more naive than Rigg, so it spoils the dynamic.

Lazenby is very good looking pensive at Piz Gloria and in the closing scene.

Willie Garvin

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Not so fast! Early Lazenby script is written for Connery, and his heroic rescue of Tracy is more moving when it's a bona fide established hero we've seen in action before. All that mock arrogance around the hotel Lazenby serves up cold, with no hint of irony. Bond's masterful domination of Trace is pure Connery, but Lazenby actually seems younger and more naive than Rigg, so it spoils the dynamic.

Agreed.Just because we didn't see Connery in this film doesn't mean that he couldn't have played 007 in it--and with considerably more authority and charisma than Lazenby--along with much more poignancy in the final scene.Seeing the original 007, with his long established history of always succeeding against his foes, suddenly losing the most important person in his life to his archenemy's stray bullets, would've made the unexpected tragedy in the movie's climax all the more effective.

Dan Same

Assuming that Connery would have been interested, I think he could have done so easily. An OHMSS with a motivated Connery would have been *magnificent! OHMSS would have been released in 1967, YOLT could have been released in 1969 and Moore could have debuted two years earlier in 1971. It would have meant that we wouldn't have DAF (or at least the DAF that we know), which disappoints me, but I would accept it providing we could have had OHMSS with Connery.

*An OHMSS with Connery could have ended IMO as one of the big Four; along with FRWL, GF and TB. In its current form, OHMSS is IMO the sixth best Bond film of all time (after the first four and TSWLM.)

Kirk James Kirk

Yes, I think the point is whether Connery would have cared enough to deliver the proper performance. He phoned in his performance in DAF, and to some extent, YOLT, so it all depends on Connery's dedication to the role. Who knows, maybe it would have inspired Sean to stay on for another movie or two, as his horrendous experience in YOLT may not have happened.

7289

After "Thunderball" assuming Connery had continued in the role, I don't think it is a sure bet OHMSS would simply have been the film we know today with SC instead of GL.

Had Connery been involved, he may have raised a stink over appointing Hunt the director, and the whole notion of seriously marrying oo7 off. In interviews Connery displays a very dismissive attitude to Ian Fleming, and I think he has the attitude that he and Terrance Young were responsible for the success of the cinematic Bond. Fleming was irrelevant to him. I would put forward that OHMSS may have looked more like a funnier - big budget Goldfinger! (Yes I know Hamilton directed that one.)

I'll wager Peter Hunt stuck with a script based on the book because he was concerned about having a new oo7, and felt by emphasizing story over casting he could make up for the loss of SC.

Hunt was a former film editor and IMO more comfortable with the process of film "assembly" than with the "creative" or acting side of film making. Lazenby even speaks of this in one of the post-OHMSS interviews. So the "story" was more imprtant to this director than it would have been to a more seasoned and confident Guy Hamilton or Terrance Young.

Therefore I conclude that OHMSS with Connery would have been steered to humor and action and less to charecter. After all, Connery and Young are responsible for injectng humor into oo7 adventures, subtly at first, then becoming more OTT by DAF.

Further, by extension I don't think Roger Moore can be blamed for following down the path that Connery started. Knowing he was not as charismatic as Connery he went with his precieved strong suit - humor, and the rest is history.

Jarvio

Connery would have been excellent in OHMSS I think. But that's Connery - he's always excellent as Bond, no doubt about it.

However, rather than wanting Connery to be in OHMSS, I would have much rather kept Lazenby in OHMSS and had Lazenby in DAF too. I think that it was a shame that Lazenby only did one Bond film. It makes OHMSS stick out like a sore thomb. I think, that if Lazenby starred in DAF as well, it would have given him more of a chance to develop his persona as Bond.

Also, DAF has a bit of comedy in it compared to the other Connery films, I think it would have suited Lazenby quite well.

Having said that, I think Connery was so much better than Lazenby. But I still would have loved to see Lazenby in a second Bond film.

Kirk James Kirk

I think that OHMSS, as some say here, wouldn't have been as daring with Connery. The producers knew that a film with Connery would be big business, so I don't believe they would have tried as hard as they did to establish the film, as they were concerned about Lazenby's ability to carry the franchise. I too would love to have Lazenby in DAF, because I feel that DAF, and not OHMSS, is the one that sticks out, as the continuity is completely ruined forevermore with Blofeld.

Cocerning Roger Moore, Sir Rog didn't write the scripts, and he does have the ability to play the role more seriously, as we see from various moments throughout his Bond films. The producers, I believe, wanted to distance Roger from Sean, assuming they would save themselves the problem that Lazenby had with following Connery. Say what you will about Roger's movies, but at least they didn't keep the films the exact same as Connery's. That may have lessened the greatness of the first five films, if Roger's were exactly the same. You can't blame Moore just as you can't blame Brosnan for the change of tone.

7289

I doubt that that the various actors playing Bond have had a great deal of control over the scripts, casting and general tone of the films. While Connery was deeply involved bringing the charecter to life on the screen, its not clear that he was consulted regards other aspects of production or script (outside of changes made during shooting).

That said I believe that having cast Dalton influenced LTK as did Craig's casting in CR'06.

I'm not sure charecter, casting or tone were an issue with Moore or Brosnan - they seemed happy just getting the gig.

Willie Garvin

My own suspicion is that Eon in 1966-67,could've decided to be as true to the OHMSS novel as possible--aside for the ending.

It's entirely possible the producers might've prefered to see 007 and Tracy break off their engagement, either at Bond's or Draco's insistence,with one of them--more likely Draco--pointing out that if she was married to 007,she'd always be in danger from his enemies.Bond and Tracy would be parted, but there could always be the lingering hope that one day they might get back together.

It would still be a sad ending, but not something as tragic as Tracy dying in Bond's arms.007 would still be determined to bring Blofeld to justice and there'd be a closer to the novel version of You Only Live Twice as the OHMSS sequel.

I'm not at all sure Hunt would've even directed this--in fact,I suspect Eon would've turned to Terence Young.After all,it'd still be a big picture ala' Thunderball.Hunt might get YOLT.

7289

Willie,

Given that they passed on Miss Trench as a continuing "romance" why would the Producers want to bring Tracy back?

I feel Saltzman & Broccoli would have had no compunction killing off any charecter other than oo7 himself, not that they were so loyal to Bond that disfiguring him and trying to morph Connery into Lazenby didn't seem to outlandish.

Maybe that is where they got the idea for a team of Blofeld's in DAF?

Kirk James Kirk

OHMSS was a perfect film to introduce a new actor. The story contained all of the elements to have the audience relate to the new Bond: continuity to the previous films, Bond's "resignation" from service, a strong villain, a strong female lead, and of course the love story. I don't think OHMSS could be improved upon at all. In fact, had the producers advertised the film better, it could have been considered the best ever- well, it is by a lot of Bond purists, so that may prove its merit.

To add, Live and Let Die was the perfect beginning film for Moore, as the movie was really quite different from its predecessors, save maybe DAF.

Napoleon Plural

It's water under the bridge, but the ending would have depended on whether Connery would have come back for yet another film, DAF. After all, they included the death ending because Lazenby wasn't gonna be back again, he's admitted that during shooting (film shooting I mean).

The schedule was a bit overlong and involved, which Connery would not have liked, nor all the snow and ice etc, he's not keen on that.

Kirk James Kirk

Tracy's death in the PTS of DAF would have been sublime.

Dan Same

First, I would like to announce that I don't blame Moore for anthing! I thought he was a brilliant Bond and I consider several of his films (LALD, TSWLM, FYEO, OP) to be among the best Bond films of all time. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest; it seemed that this had the potential to turn into a 'I blame Roger Moore/Moore's films for ....' thread.

Back onto topic; I love OHMSS, however I think that having Connery play Bond would have brought it onto a whole different level. I am happy that Lazenby didn't do DAF (especially since I adored Connery's performance in DAF) and I really think that, the physicality and his handling of the final scene, Lazenby was extremely unimpressive in OHMSS. I've often wondered whether or not I would prefer that Tracey die in OHMSS, or I would accept her dying in the PTS to DAF. Truthfully, I do not know, however I think that it either could have been equally effective.

Osato

It's hard to say how SC would have done in OHMSS, or any film he wasn't in for that matter, simply because it would have borne no relation to the film that was made.

Writers completely re-work the screenplay once a change of lead actor is announced, tailoring not just the dialogue but the situations, even the plot itself to the strengths of the new lead. You can hear Tom Mankewicz on this subject in the Special Edition DVD of LALD, saying how he had to totally re-write the script due to Moore being so radically different a charcater to Connery.

Its also one of the reasons I am so unconvinced by NSNA: I see it as a "Bond film" written at the peak of Moore's popularity and bearing all the post-Moore Bond trademarks of excessive, overt humour, comic supporting cast etc, but starring Connery. Old Sean, a gruff, ageing, disinterested Scotsman seems so out of place in a 007 universe now informed by Roger's comedic interpretation.

Napoleon Plural

Yes, NSNA didn't play to Connery's strengths. I'd hoped it would be more a Dirty Harry type film, quite serious etc. But they bottled it.

Willie Garvin

The best and easiest way to do OHMSS as initially planned with Sean Connery, would've been make the film as faithful an adaptation of the book as possible--but to end it on an upbeat note, with 007 and wife driving off from Draco's estate.

However,OHMSS's sequel,You Only Live Twice would begin only instants after the marriage, with the unexpected death of Tracy--as she and 007 are driving away from the Draco estate.The picture then fades on a mourning Bond as the YOLT theme music and titles appear.Following the titles, we'd see 007 slowly recovering from Tracy's murder several months after the event--as in the YOLT novel.Once 007 discovers that Blofeld is still alive, a vengeful Bond undertakes the search that leads him to Japan where he exacts his final revenge.

I have no trouble visualizing Connery doing this.

jboy

well, I recently watched YOLT, and it's easy to see why Connery was disenfranchised with the role after that movie. It really is one of the weaker scripts/movies....

Slyguy3129

Yes it is a real shame that the Bond movies didn't follow the Bond books as they should have. As CR pointed out rather successfully it can be done.

As far as Connery playing in OHMSS I can't exactly be certain how he would have played it. In DN FRWL GF and TB he really seems to have the mentality of a reckless teenager, seeing Connery in OHMSS mirror the book would have been an excellent performance had Connery taken it seriously. I'm afriad by then Connery was sick of bieng 007 and would not have taken OHMSS quite as seriously as GL.

I honestly think it would have changed the whole 007 franchise. The reason I think another true adaptation to a book to film movie hasn't been made till CR is because OHMSS was not all that successful. Had they gotten Connery back, and he had taken it seriously and the adaptation true, then it is possible to have a true YOLT which would have finally completed Connery's Bond. Then the following Bond movie may have been more true to the books than they were.

That bieng said, I still enjoy GL performance in OHMSS and I can't honestly see Connery playing in it. But one can still dream.

Sweepy the Cat

This leads onto my fantasy alternate bond world.

Books
1953: Casino Royale - Ian Fleming
1954: Live and Let Die - Ian Fleming
1955: Moonraker - Ian Fleming
1956: Diamonds Are Forevor - Ian Fleming
1957: From Russia With Love - Ian Fleming

After the dissapointing ratings of Live and Let Die, Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forevor, Fleming kills Bond off in From Russia With Love. Not long after From Russia With Love is on theClinton's favourite books, so after a years rest he brings him back in 1959's Dr No.

1959: Dr No - Ian Fleming
1960: Goldfinger - Ian Fleming
1961: Thunderball - Ian Fleming and co.
1962: On Her Majesty's Secret Service -
Ian Fleming

1963: You Only Live Twice - Ian Fleming

After five more books Fleming puts Bond to rest for You Only Live Twice for the new film generation of Bond. Bond originally tried to get of the ground with Thunderball but due to rights etc It never happened till 1965. It was decided From Russia With Love was a good book to be adapted so in 1963 this was made leading onto a long running series.

1963: FRWL - Sean Connery
Same as original but blofeld is only
referred to by name and Bond's past is
explained with him being born during the
war, but his parents were Jewish and were
gassed, he is sent to live with his rich
aunt and when he learns of this in later
life he get's upset and angry, so he joins
the navy but is quickly promoted to MI6,
then a double-oh.

1964: GF - Sean Connery
Same. But Goldfinger works for SPECTRE and
heard talking to Blofeld over a radio.

1965: TB - Sean Connery
More of a shorter version of NSNA with the
traditional Bond marks (Gunbarrel etc.)
and we only get to see the back of Blofelds
head.

1967: YOLT - Sean Connery
Same, but with a few tweaks here and there.

1969: OHMSS - Sean Connery
Cut down 20 mins, Blofeld is played by
Telly Savalas after surgery who is seen
talking about Bond behind his back.

1971: DAF - Roger Moore
Same, except a little darker, Telly
Savalas reprises role of Blofeld and
appears midway through film. Is killed in a
quarry.

1973: LALD - Roger Moore
Less Voodoo

1974: TMWTGG - Roger Moore
More Serious. More of a finale at the end
with Scaramanga being shot once in the fun
house injuring him and four times on his
beach, Killing him. Bond is shot with
Golden Gun leaving him on the floor
unconcius in a cliffhanger.

1977: TSWLM - Roger Moore
Contains extra scene with bond in Health
Farm (30mins) and some better music.

1979: MR - Roger Moore
More serious and closer to the novel

1981: FYEO - Timothy Dalton
Different Pre-creds sequence and no cheesy
music.

1983: OP - Timothy Dalton
Cut down in places for pacing (and the
godawful Tarzan yell)

1985: FAVTAK - Timothy Dalton
Original title, new character, new plot
etc.

1987: TLD - Timothy Dalton
Same but the original SMERSH killing agents
plot is kept.

1989: LTK - Timothy Dalton
Same overall plot but more Bond and less
Miami Vice. (Also a tad less violent, not
squemish or anything but it just doesn't
fit in with the rest, maybe an edited 12
and UNCUT 15)

1995: GE - Pierce Brosnan
Same but slight trims in places for pacing
and Dalton reprises his role for pre-creds
sequence.

1997: TND - Pierce Brosnan
Less action, more plot!

1999: TWINE - Pierce Brosnan
Original Pre-creds scene is kept and boat
chase saved for later. Renard is more
prominent the Elektra.

2001: DAD - Pierce Brosnan
Keeps the quality of the first 60mins.

2003: Untitled - Pierce Brosnan
Starts with Bond being sent to play poker
with Le Cheriff (Private terrorist banker
for hire) Le Cheriff gets away with the
money and bond chases him to his private
island (Crab Key) and it ends like Dr No.
Bond announces his retirement to M over
walkie/talkie watch (FYEO) and it ends with
Bond and Honey Rider.

farscapeak

Its an interesting idea Connery in the film. I think he would have been great as the script was full of the things he wanted. He hated the gadgets and wanted to have a relationship with his bond girl rather than a few quips and a kiss. OHMSS has both of those things but i think lazenby did well stepping into some big shoes and his performance in the film is good.

a rogue AI

7289, can you be more specific on Connery's dissing of Fleming?


More or less, I'll agree with what has already been said by Mr. Garvin. Judging by how EON adapted into films the endings of MR and FRWL, I doubt Connery would have his bride murdered. Still, of all the what ifs concerning filmic Bond, that's the most interesting to me, and truly, I'd have prefered Connery doing the Blofeld trilogy as found in the original books. But even in that case, the series would still need its YOLT - you know, wild, bombastic pop 60s... craziness. Of all the Fleming books (to be used as a basis for such a film), I can't see which could serve that purpose.

I disagree with how OHMSS could be a great starting point for a new actor, especially for someone who isn't a very good actor, like GL back then. It would need a film before that with a sense of closure of sorts to the series, and besides it was already deep in continuity started by the previous films. I find it very unfortunate how they decided to remind us the previous films - which are synonymous with SC, to audiences both of that era and today's - in the titles (villains, ladies, gadgets) and in the office scene. It makes the viewer, at least me, imagine Lazenby's face retroactively cut and pasted over Connery in the previous films, and it's simply an embarassing affair, for Mr. Lazenby or whoever else might be in his position.

As for continuity in general, for reasons unknown to me, it's a term we can't seriously expect from past Bond films. Hopefully -and with films like the Bourne trilogy and the Nolan/Bale Batman films- things will change with CR and forward.


sweepy, do you suggest two lead actors in your version of GE? PTS with Dalton and the main film with Brosnan? That wouldn't make much sense.


All in all, this has been one of the most fascinating threads I've read in this forum. Keep it up, gents.