Should Connery have returned in the first place?

AlphaOmegaSin

Watching DAFE once again, it's clear to me that Connery was just not giving a **** about the Role anymore. He had aged pretty fast in the five Years since YOLT and his Performance in the Film was that of a tired middle Aged Man, rather then an Agent in his Thirties. This is a Film that Lazenby should of been in.

I like the Film, but it's definitely Connery's worst Bond.

LastRatStanding

I wish Lazenby had done all 7 that he was offered to do.

AdamOmega

I really don't think there is a Bond film worse than Diamonds Are Forever.

Even the lousiest films of Roger Moore's Bond tenure, or even Die Another Day for that matter, had something to recommend them. Just about everything in Diamonds is rock bottom, and I feel like people are too quick to forgive it because "hey, it's Sean Connery!" As far as I'm concerned, everything that followed was a step-up.

Benjboi

Whilst I agree it has its bad points, Connery phoned in the role, camp assassins and an ending that has been mocked in every spy parody since. It does have 3 major pluses. Jill St. John, Lana Wood and the first genuine introduction of humour. There is only one bond I refuse to watch and that's die another day, a skid mark on the boxers of the franchise. Yes the first 40 minutes are good but the last hour is so awful.

No he shouldn't have returned but without him coming back the franchise might not have continued. It probably wouldn't have survived another lazenby. Think about how poor daf is and add in lazenby's portrayal and would the studio have authorised the next or would it have been chalked up as just another diminishing returns film series?

It was a required mistake!

AdamOmega

Benjboi wrote:

Whilst I agree it has its bad points, Connery phoned in the role, camp assassins and an ending that has been mocked in every spy parody since. It does have 3 major pluses. Jill St. John, Lana Wood and the first genuine introduction of humour. There is only one bond I refuse to watch and that's die another day, a skid mark on the boxers of the franchise. Yes the first 40 minutes are good but the last hour is so awful.

No he shouldn't have returned but without him coming back the franchise might not have continued. It probably wouldn't have survived another lazenby. Think about how poor daf is and add in lazenby's portrayal and would the studio have authorised the next or would it have been chalked up as just another diminishing returns film series?

It was a required mistake!

I agree with your points, especially about Die Another Day.

In hindsight, I should commend Diamonds Are Forever on giving audiences what they wanted rather than making great leaps and assumptions; in the case of Die Another Day, everyone on board basically threw all the cliched elements of Bond in there aimlessly and figured the result would suffice. I still prefer it to Diamonds Are Forever, but only by a margin (the pre-title sequence is the only saving grace).

Also there's a common consensus that Diamonds Are Forever has a sharp script. While I'm not sure that I agree, I did enjoy Tom Mankiewicz overall. He had a keen sense of humor.

(On a side-note, I read somewhere that he did an un-credited edit of The Spy Who Loved Me... can anyone attest to this?)

chrisisall

Benjboi wrote:

It was a required mistake!

I agree, and it was the first solidly in the toungue-in-cheek era. The Seventies were not ready for a 'serious' Bond movie. Even the fast and furious Eighties had to work up to it. Early Connery to Dalton to Craig required cushioning in between.

Mr_Sable_Basilisk

I think DAF would have been a far better movie with Roger Moore in the lead. It's campness suited him much more and he would have been two years younger for his first Bond. And a five movie run would have close his tenure with MR, which would have been perfect. The 80's
would have seen a new, younger and edgier Bond and the Bond movies between 1971 and 1985 would have benefitted from this all around.

AlphaOmegaSin

I agree, Maybe Moore would of done well in DAF.

Moore Than

Should Sean Connery have returned? My answer is yes, considering that the likely alternative was John Gavin.

Undoubtedly, Diamonds Are Forever is one of the weaker films in the series but I still enjoy it. I tend to believe Connery adjusted his performance to suit the tone of the film, he looks more interested than in You Only Live Twice. There are still moments of the old magic, such as the fight with Peter Franks. The one thing I will criticise Connery for was his weight, there was no excuse for that.

Blackleiter

I concur with most of your points. And for the record, I'd take DAF any day over any Roger Moore Bond film except perhaps FYEO.

Moore Than wrote:

Should Sean Connery have returned? My answer is yes, considering that the likely alternative was John Gavin.

Undoubtedly, Diamonds Are Forever is one of the weaker films in the series but I still enjoy it. I tend to believe Connery adjusted his performance to suit the tone of the film, he looks more interested than in You Only Live Twice. There are still moments of the old magic, such as the fight with Peter Franks. The one thing I will criticise Connery for was his weight, there was no excuse for that.

Moore Than

Blackleiter wrote:

I concur with most of your points. And for the record, I'd take DAF any day over any Roger Moore Bond film except perhaps FYEO.

Moore Than wrote:

Should Sean Connery have returned? My answer is yes, considering that the likely alternative was John Gavin.

Undoubtedly, Diamonds Are Forever is one of the weaker films in the series but I still enjoy it. I tend to believe Connery adjusted his performance to suit the tone of the film, he looks more interested than in You Only Live Twice. There are still moments of the old magic, such as the fight with Peter Franks. The one thing I will criticise Connery for was his weight, there was no excuse for that.

Are you trying to pick a fight?

Jimmy Bond

I think I'd take any Roger Moore film over DAF, except for AVTAK.

That said, Connery HAD to return, because without hm, Bond would not have survived as we know it. Then again, Connery himself created that position when he left, but he was bound to leave anyway.

In any case, DAF was destined to be silly. That Sean Connery stars in it adds to the curiosity factor - and is a stark contrast to the relatively serious NSNA (whihc, while also funny, was not parody-like in its mood).

Blackleiter

Who, me? Never! )

Moore Than wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

I concur with most of your points. And for the record, I'd take DAF any day over any Roger Moore Bond film except perhaps FYEO.

Moore Than wrote:

Should Sean Connery have returned? My answer is yes, considering that the likely alternative was John Gavin.

Undoubtedly, Diamonds Are Forever is one of the weaker films in the series but I still enjoy it. I tend to believe Connery adjusted his performance to suit the tone of the film, he looks more interested than in You Only Live Twice. There are still moments of the old magic, such as the fight with Peter Franks. The one thing I will criticise Connery for was his weight, there was no excuse for that.

Are you trying to pick a fight?

Agent82

Connery's return in DAF - which I actually do not loathe as much as some here - is not unlike Michael Jordan's lackluster returns to sport. Both could have went out on a high note as an untarnished legend. But I'm still a supporter, not a hater!

AlphaOmegaSin

Connery was offered a very large Sum of Money if he came back.

Bodie

I think Connery had to return to save the franchise. I serously wonder if the series would have survived if the producers had put another new face in after Lazenby

Its just a pity Connery had to return the way he did - overweight, badly wigged and looking like he didn't really give a ****.

For me DAF is where the rot set in and laid the groundwork for the RM comedies to follow.

Moore Than

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Connery was offered a very large Sum of Money if he came back.

Such was the desire to get Sean Connery back, he was offered over £1 million plus the backing to make any two films that he wanted to shoot.

IcePak

AdamOmega wrote:

I really don't think there is a Bond film worse than Diamonds Are Forever.

Even the lousiest films of Roger Moore's Bond tenure, or even Die Another Day for that matter, had something to recommend them. Just about everything in Diamonds is rock bottom, and I feel like people are too quick to forgive it because "hey, it's Sean Connery!" As far as I'm concerned, everything that followed was a step-up.

Absolutely agree.

StraightUpWithATwist

Seeing as how Lazenby left after just the one film, it was probably for the best that Connery return at least one more time to bring some semblance of normality to the Bond series for the general audience before going to Roger Moore. I think it was needed for the future of the franchise, because I don't know if Diamonds Are Forever would have been as successful as it was if they had got someone else aside from Connery after Lazenby.

bailorg

Even though DAF is a pretty mediocre Bond movie, Connery NEEDED to come back as a one off to save the series, as others have said, after the total box office flop of the far superior OHMSS.

It reestablished Bond in the 1970's and helped ease in the transition to the Moore era.

Colonel Shatner

Sean Connery was too good as Bond and one decent Bond replacement had already failed.

Diamonds Are Forever looked very tired and downmarket for a Bond movie (with poorly done and filmed car stunts, and a lurid yet dreary Las Vegas setting), with the creative and artistic rot set in fairly long before Roger Moore was cast (on hindsight he preserved the Bond franchise).

Silhouette Man

Agreed. Should have went to Lazenby, for a dark, gritty diamond smugglers film rather than the God-awful romp we actually got in the end-up!

DAF is the worst Bond apart from DAD. I intend to publish a new article entitled 'Diamonds Are Forever: A Very Nasty Little Film Indeed' on my blog soon.

zaphod

Silhouette Man wrote:

Agreed. Should have went to Lazenby, for a dark, gritty diamond smugglers film rather than the God-awful romp we actually got in the end-up!

DAF is the worst Bond apart from DAD. I intend to publish a new article entitled 'Diamonds Are Forever: A Very Nasty Little Film Indeed' on my blog soon.

Oh I don't know, it's bad, but it's no Moonraker.

Silhouette Man

zaphod wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Agreed. Should have went to Lazenby, for a dark, gritty diamond smugglers film rather than the God-awful romp we actually got in the end-up!

DAF is the worst Bond apart from DAD. I intend to publish a new article entitled 'Diamonds Are Forever: A Very Nasty Little Film Indeed' on my blog soon.

Oh I don't know, it's bad, but it's no Moonraker.

I've always liked Moonraker - apart from the silly space battle. a much better film than DAF. But each to their own and all that...

Colonel Shatner

Moonraker is widely disliked these days, despite being the most commercially successful Bond movie until GoldenEye. It is aggressively silly, Jaws was crassly wimpified, and ultimately took the character of Bond in the wrong direction, but seems to have more polish, entertainment value, and charm to it than the half-hearted, tawdry Diamonds are Forever (also if you had a madman today throwing the amount money on space travel that nation states have been throwing at failing banks, Hugo Drax's space station could be done, albiet the radar blackout would still be nonsense).

zaphod

Silhouette Man wrote:

zaphod wrote:

Silhouette Man wrote:

Agreed. Should have went to Lazenby, for a dark, gritty diamond smugglers film rather than the God-awful romp we actually got in the end-up!

DAF is the worst Bond apart from DAD. I intend to publish a new article entitled 'Diamonds Are Forever: A Very Nasty Little Film Indeed' on my blog soon.

Oh I don't know, it's bad, but it's no Moonraker.

I've always liked Moonraker - apart from the silly space battle. a much better film than DAF. But each to their own and all that...

As you rightly say 'each to his own' However truly flawed as DAF is and lets be clear it's a bad movie I can still recognise elements of the character as Bond. Moonraker was the beginning of the end when Bond finally became a brand as I for one cannot recognise anything Bond like or remotely credible.

Richard--W

I'm fine with Connery's return. He is the only thing that makes Diamonds Are Forever watchable. If Lazenby had stayed on, the problems with the film would be the same, because the actor is NOT the problem. The problem is in the directing and writing. I wish that Guy Hamilton had not returned to direct Diamonds Are Forever. With this, his second Bond film, he turned the Bond films into light-weight comedies and self-ridicule (and then Lewis Gilbert followed suit). This was the wrong approach and it just kills Diamonds Are Forever for me. I don't think Tom Mankiewicz was good for the franchise, either. Diamonds Are Forever and all the 1970s Bond films that followed have the wrong people at the helm.

chrisisall

Richard--W wrote:

I don't think Tom Mankiewicz was good for the franchise, either.

Tom's dialogue was delicious, it was the interpretation by the director that ran it into such camp.

Jarvio

As much as I love Connery (as bond) I would have rather had him not return. DAF is not one of the best bond films, and the comedy content just did not suit Connery at all. It wouldn't have exactly suited Lazenby either, but moreso than Connery IMO, and I would have liked Lazenby to do it so he would have 2 bond films under his belt, thus easier for people to form an opinion on him - hard to do that with just the 1 film...

CmdrAtticus

Jarvio wrote:

As much as I love Connery (as bond) I would have rather had him not return. DAF is not one of the best bond films, and the comedy content just did not suit Connery at all. It wouldn't have exactly suited Lazenby either, but moreso than Connery IMO, and I would have liked Lazenby to do it so he would have 2 bond films under his belt, thus easier for people to form an opinion on him - hard to do that with just the 1 film...

DAF was suited for Moore, not Connery. I'm one of those Fleming fans who dislike the slapstick and outlandish direction the films took. I supposed Lazenby could have done it, but I'd preferred if they had not even done the thing. No, it wasn't one of Fleming's strongest plots, but it still could have been done without Blofeld and the Austin Powers schtick.

AlphaOmegaSin

I wish they had followed up on Tracies Death with Bond going out for revenge.