Would Diamonds Are Forever starring Lazenby ruined the series?

DangerMouse

After reading the "Would Dalton 17 have ruined the film series?" thread, it got me thinking...

What if they went ahead with Diamonds Are Forever as a revenge-themed flick with George Lazenby reprising his role as Bond, Terry Savalas reprising his role as Blofield and Peter Hunt returning as director. Given how poorly received OHMSS was at the box office, would this film, though tying up the loose ends set by the previous film, have ruined the franchise?

mrbain007

Its another of those big "what if" questions which is easy to speculate about in 2011 (and after 22 Bond films) but in 1971 (and after only 6 films) the situation was different

Looking back on it, it really is a shame that there wasn't a decent follow up to OHMSS. Personally I would have liked to see Laz in another film. I suppose at the time it was all about giving audiences what they wanted (Connery).

From what I've read Laz turned down the opportunity to reprise the role (big mistake) and the film still did reasonably well. Audiences still craved Sean though so it made sense to bring him back. They could have made it more of a follow up to OHMSS though - keep the continuety.

Shady Tree

DAF was a glitzy celebration of Connery's superstardom as Bond, rather than a sequel to OHMSS in any dramatic sense. Connery's return, playing Bond as a sexy light comedian, was a big event in its day - and I still find DAF immensely entertaining. The trick is to enjoy the movie on its own terms.

Reinstating Connery in such cool style was doubtless much better for the legend of Bond than if we'd had Lazenby back. (I can imagine Laz attempting to act vengeful rage but ending up making it look more like hurt petulance.)

OHMSS is all the more poignant and special for not having had a 'proper' sequel. In the popular imagination, Lazenby's Bond is memorable precisely because we DO part ways with him as he's grieving Tracy, moments after she's been shot... it's an iconic episode, undisturbed (and therefore unspoiled) by any serious attempts at further development.

Moreover, the recent CR /QOS cycle can be read, in part, as a successful compensation for any 'continuity-sensitives' among us who'd wistfully wished that the drama of a Bond bereft could have played out properly over two linked movies.

Shady Tree

7289

Properly done a second Lazenby Bond would have saved George's career, and probably done rather well. I believe the indifferent box-office was due to a deliberate attempt to "un sell" the Lazenby Bond as he was a "one off".

By the time 1971 rolled around a second Lazenby film would have been less of a shock, and done in a "revenge" style, could have been great.

I believe Peter Hunt gets too much praise for OHMSS. He did save the script from becoming another "volcano epic" replete with dozens of "big red explosions", but he seriously and I feel deliberately sabotaged Lazenby, by dubbing George's voice, putting him in a kilt and dressing him up in a "pansy" tuxedo. Hunt's trademark - sped up fight scenes - were jarring in 1969 and look even worse today.

cdsdss

I think if the history of the Bond franchise has taught us anything it's that no one actor can ruin the series. The closest the series came to financial ruin (1989-1995) had little to do with who was playing Bond, but rather the issue of rights, and the financial health of the studio--both of which are matters that go well beyond the lead actor.

Gassy Man

The very late 60s marked a significant turning point for films in general; the studio system was essentially dead by that point, and films were pushing hard and fast the nihilistic, anti-hero sentiments of "The Wild Bunch" and series such as Clint Eastwood's various "man with no name" films and small dramas or comedies like "Easy Rider," "Midnight Cowboy," or "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice."

They were cheaper to make and fit the counterculture sensibilities of what was perceived as the emerging audiences for films; at the same time many big budget movies were flops and seemed to suggest that the era of such films was essentially over.

Leading men looked less like Cary Grant or Gregory Peck and more like Warren Beatty or Robert Redford, and then later, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, or Robert DeNiro. Leading ladies looked less like Audrey Hepburn or Grace Kelly and more like Goldie Hawn, Katherine Ross, or Karen Black.

In some ways "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" reflected these changes -- it was certainly a less colorful movie than its predecessor and its downbeat, almost hopeless ending reflected some of the sentiments of the time. Even "Diamonds are Forever" seems a more muted version of the Bonds that were its immediate ancestors.

Would Lazenby have enjoyed a better career if he'd done "Diamonds are Forever," and would the Bond series have continued? I think so. In some basic ways, he resembles Connery, but Lazenby had a degree of vulnerability that Connery, as good an actor as he is, didn't really have, and I think that would have carried him through a follow-up that was a little less jokey and a little more hard hitting than what we got with the perversely-entertaining Guy Hamilton version. If Peter Hunt had directed, "Diamonds are Forever" might have retained some of its Las Vegas tackiness and largesses but I think the story would have been more rooted in the reality of Bond's revenge. Oddly enough, by the time "Live and Let Die" came along, Lazenby would probably have been ready for a bit more of a stretch, and Guy Hamilton probably could have got him to turn in a lighter performance than earlier.

Blood_Stone

I think if DAF was a solid film with its revenge theme, fans would've become more accepting of Lazenby and we wouldn't have gotten Roger Moore. At least for awhile.

jasper_lamar_crabb

DangerMouse wrote:

Given how poorly received OHMSS was at the box office

It was the second highest-grossing release of 1969.

blueman

Good points, all.

One thing, I doubt EON would've brought Hunt back to direct, but also not sure Hamilton would've gotten the nod. Had Laz continued in the role, I think we would've gotten a new director (Young back would've been awesome IMO, but also not sure that would've ever happened).

If a more revenge-themed DAF upped the BO from OHMSS (safe to assume), then LALD would've likely been a lot tougher IMO. DAF really changed what Bond could be on-screen, took a lot of years for EON to even half-heartedly try to step back from that. Would that Saltzman/Broccoli not panicked and attempted to force a 7-picture deal on poor Laz, things might've worked out differently (although Laz had his head pretty far up there too, lol). Weird times.

DangerMouse

jasper_lamar_crabb wrote:

DangerMouse wrote:

Given how poorly received OHMSS was at the box office

It was the second highest-grossing release of 1969.

Really? Just goes to show how realiable some sources are, eh?

jasper_lamar_crabb

DangerMouse wrote:

Really? Just goes to show how realiable some sources are, eh?

It was beaten by Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. It cost $7 million to make but took $87 million at the box-office, so still a huge hit, if not as successful as the films released at the height of Bond-mania in the mid-1960s.