Connery himself opposed the technology/CGI direction the series was going in. But he did it begrudgingly.
Yes, Connery was opposed to more and more special effects. I myself agree that the films are at their best with more focus on characters/story. However, I also think Broccoli was wise to go the special effects/big sets route in the 70s. Otherwise the franchise would have been eaten alive by Star Wars and the like.
The spy craze had pretty much finished by the late 1960s -- the early 1970s were more the era of the gritty cop drama, started mostly with Steve McQueen's Bullitt in 1968. Several of the Bond parodies -- the third Flint film, the fifth Matt Helm -- even the fourth Harry Palmer were all cancelled as both the spy craze and the camp craze wrapped up. Eon may have decided to go a more campy route with the Bonds, and this did start with Diamonds are Forever, but they could easily have titled toward reality more. With the right actor playing the role, it could have worked.
I think Lazenby would have been that actor. The combination of his not being Connery and the dour ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service contributed to its performance at the box office, but it was by no means a failure. I think audiences would have gotten used to him, if the film itself was well done.
The comic qualities of Bond suited Moore well. I've read where people say he plays Bond differently than Simon Templar. Really? I've been watching The Saint lately, and although the earlier ones are more atmospheric and serious, for lack of a better term, the later episodes feature Moore very much playing his version of Bond. He's just younger and playing to a TV audience. It's no mistake that the Bond films lifted a lot of these elements when Moore took over the role.
In terms of the sci fi fantasy elements -- I was a child in the 1970s. We played with toys based on UFO, Batman, Star Trek, Space: 1999, the Six Million Dollar Man, Lost in Space, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, as well as war toys, like army men, GI: Joe, and the like. The whole sci fi fantasy thing had been around a good 10 years before Star Wars came on the scene. So had war. George Lucas just blended the two and threw in a lot of King Arthur and other historical and literary references. And that movie took everyone by surprise, even Fox, which had so little faith in the film it basically gave Lucas all the rights to the merchandising. It was a phenomenon that nobody that I knew could have predicted, and it would have happened whether Bond was serious or not. And Bond would have responded accordingly, just as so many other films did.
Had Lazenby continued, I think we would have seen a tougher edged Diamonds are Forever, and a more faithful rendition of the Moore films. That's not to say there wouldn't have been comedy. But it would have been secondary. The tone of the films would have been believable. Given that there wasn't any real spy movie competition in this regard in the 70s, I think it would have worked. Lazenby was a very physical actor -- imagine if the Bonds had continued with someone like him? They'd have been a bit like Craig's, only with the great talents that helped to produce the classic ones, meaning they would have been fuller, richer films as a production than what we've seen in the Craig era. By the time Star Wars came out, they would have had three such films completed, so they could have afforded to go lighter and more outrageous. Lazenby would have been old enough that I think he'd have been okay with some silliness for a while in the films.
I would gladly trade Moore's tenure (and even Connery's EON swan song) for Lazenby. If Lazenby had done everything from OHMSS through AVTAK, he would still have been about the same age as Moore was in LALD! Lazenby would have also added some weight to the revenge story in DAF that could have elevated that film in the series.
As much as I have liked Lazenby in OHMSS, I am sceptical that more Bond movies with him would have worked.
The 70s needed Moore's starpower and wit and together with Lazenby's lack of discipline it may have put the franchise into a deep crisis and probably ended his turn in the halftime of his contract.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree- time and the box-office have shown that to be right. Lazenby MAY have been able to carry a revengeful DAF, but the light touch Moore brought would have probably been beyond him (I can't envisage Lazenby in TSWLM or MR, for instance, two very very profitable movies).
At the time Moore was cast he had name value and starpower, which peaked around 1980-2. The Bonds do not always require a name star in the lead but there are times when it helps.
As much as I have liked Lazenby in OHMSS, I am sceptical that more Bond movies with him would have worked.
The 70s needed Moore's starpower and wit and together with Lazenby's lack of discipline it may have put the franchise into a deep crisis and probably ended his turn in the halftime of his contract.
I agree- time and the box-office have shown that to be right. Lazenby MAY have been able to carry a revengeful DAF, but the light touch Moore brought would have probably been beyond him (I can't envisage Lazenby in TSWLM or MR, for instance, two very very profitable movies).
At the time Moore was cast he had name value and starpower, which peaked around 1980-2. The Bonds do not always require a name star in the lead but there are times when it helps.
You in agreement with me?
Wow that's scary!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I would gladly trade Moore's tenure (and even Connery's EON swan song) for Lazenby.
I wouldn't trade Roger Moore for anyone. :007)
With the proper direction and right attitude I am almost certain George Lazenby would have improved. Even then, I don't believe he would have had the necessary screen presence or charisma to command enough of an audience to sustain a long run as 007. As Higgins stated, the 1970's needed Moore's "starpower".
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
Stating in advance that Moore isn't my favourite Bond (and no, Higgins, neither is Dalton):
As TP says, Moore was The Man, the right man at the right time. Immensely likeable, devastatingly handsome, well-established as a suave adventurer, able to carry off ridiculous lines and situations with style and panache... Lazenby, for all his good points (which outweighed his main fault, his lack of experience, which would obviously have improved as Moore Than said) could not have matched him.
What if Moore had been cast in OHMSS? Would it have worked? I think so. Moore could also play a more hard edge Bond if he wanted. He also looked great skiing. He could have done from OHMSS till MR. That would have been a great run. Six movies, like Connery. Then cast Dalton in 1981.
I would gladly trade Moore's tenure (and even Connery's EON swan song) for Lazenby.
I wouldn't trade Roger Moore for anyone. :007)
With the proper direction and right attitude I am almost certain George Lazenby would have improved. Even then, I don't believe he would have had the necessary screen presence or charisma to command enough of an audience to sustain a long run as 007. As Higgins stated, the 1970's needed Moore's "starpower".
Moore is the Bond I grew up with, and he definitely was the right Bond for the times. However, I think his take on the character has aged poorly. I think Lazenby would have brought an edge to it that would have stacked up against Connery, Dalton & Craig. Still, the argument that the series may not have survived the 70s with a more "Fleming-esque" Bond has merit.
What if Moore had been cast in OHMSS? Would it have worked? I think so.
I believe so. Roger had the necessary ability. He would have dealt with the emotional aspects such as Tracy's death convincingly. If anyone doubts this I invite them to watch The Man Who Haunted Himself, which was made around the same time as On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Arguably, Roger's best ever performance.
Roger and Diana Rigg would have known each other because The Saint and The Avengers were both filmed at Elstree Studios at the same time. It was a small community. I am almost certain they would have worked well together in OHMSS.
Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
I completely agree with this statement. The first time I saw OHMSS I was floored. It felt so different from all the Bonds before it- an increased level of grit. Lazenby is by far my favorite Bond but I am very biased. I think he could have been truly excellent if he had worked better with Peter Hunt. From what I have read it seems like it was an all around bad situation on set.
Lazenby was a very physical actor -- imagine if the Bonds had continued with someone like him? They'd have been a bit like Craig's, only with the great talents that helped to produce the classic ones, meaning they would have been fuller, richer films as a production than what we've seen in the Craig era.
Lazenby would have been the second best Bond (after Connery), perhaps up to Daniel Craig's performances. Not only would he have grown in the role, but the filmmakers would have learned how to write for him.
It appears this might be a minority opinion around here, but I agree with you. Lazenby shows a lot of promise in OHMSS, and I think he would have grown in the role. Also, not only does he handle the physicality and tender moments well, but he shows flashes of an edge that to me is more convincing than Moore's or Brosnan's (e.g. when roughs up Tracy a bit after she points his gun at him).
I agree he might have ended up brilliant, but he'd still not have exceeded Tim's take on the character IMHO. :007)
As much as I like Tim, I think there is a least a possibility that Lazenby would have been even better. (Imagine - no "misty-eyes" complaints from Higgins!) Alas, we'll never know.
I agree with that, but I also think Lazenby has a bit more natural charm than Dalton.
There was mentioned that the girls in EON's office where virtually falling off their chairs when Lazenby entered the room - I can hardly imagine this to happen with Dalton. And here you have the major difference in both actors besides .... (won't repeat it again today...)
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
Comments
Yes, Connery was opposed to more and more special effects. I myself agree that the films are at their best with more focus on characters/story. However, I also think Broccoli was wise to go the special effects/big sets route in the 70s. Otherwise the franchise would have been eaten alive by Star Wars and the like.
I think Lazenby would have been that actor. The combination of his not being Connery and the dour ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service contributed to its performance at the box office, but it was by no means a failure. I think audiences would have gotten used to him, if the film itself was well done.
The comic qualities of Bond suited Moore well. I've read where people say he plays Bond differently than Simon Templar. Really? I've been watching The Saint lately, and although the earlier ones are more atmospheric and serious, for lack of a better term, the later episodes feature Moore very much playing his version of Bond. He's just younger and playing to a TV audience. It's no mistake that the Bond films lifted a lot of these elements when Moore took over the role.
In terms of the sci fi fantasy elements -- I was a child in the 1970s. We played with toys based on UFO, Batman, Star Trek, Space: 1999, the Six Million Dollar Man, Lost in Space, and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, as well as war toys, like army men, GI: Joe, and the like. The whole sci fi fantasy thing had been around a good 10 years before Star Wars came on the scene. So had war. George Lucas just blended the two and threw in a lot of King Arthur and other historical and literary references. And that movie took everyone by surprise, even Fox, which had so little faith in the film it basically gave Lucas all the rights to the merchandising. It was a phenomenon that nobody that I knew could have predicted, and it would have happened whether Bond was serious or not. And Bond would have responded accordingly, just as so many other films did.
Had Lazenby continued, I think we would have seen a tougher edged Diamonds are Forever, and a more faithful rendition of the Moore films. That's not to say there wouldn't have been comedy. But it would have been secondary. The tone of the films would have been believable. Given that there wasn't any real spy movie competition in this regard in the 70s, I think it would have worked. Lazenby was a very physical actor -- imagine if the Bonds had continued with someone like him? They'd have been a bit like Craig's, only with the great talents that helped to produce the classic ones, meaning they would have been fuller, richer films as a production than what we've seen in the Craig era. By the time Star Wars came out, they would have had three such films completed, so they could have afforded to go lighter and more outrageous. Lazenby would have been old enough that I think he'd have been okay with some silliness for a while in the films.
The 70s needed Moore's starpower and wit and together with Lazenby's lack of discipline it may have put the franchise into a deep crisis and probably ended his turn in the halftime of his contract.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree- time and the box-office have shown that to be right. Lazenby MAY have been able to carry a revengeful DAF, but the light touch Moore brought would have probably been beyond him (I can't envisage Lazenby in TSWLM or MR, for instance, two very very profitable movies).
At the time Moore was cast he had name value and starpower, which peaked around 1980-2. The Bonds do not always require a name star in the lead but there are times when it helps.
I totally agree.
You in agreement with me?
Wow that's scary!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I wouldn't trade Roger Moore for anyone. :007)
With the proper direction and right attitude I am almost certain George Lazenby would have improved. Even then, I don't believe he would have had the necessary screen presence or charisma to command enough of an audience to sustain a long run as 007. As Higgins stated, the 1970's needed Moore's "starpower".
As TP says, Moore was The Man, the right man at the right time. Immensely likeable, devastatingly handsome, well-established as a suave adventurer, able to carry off ridiculous lines and situations with style and panache... Lazenby, for all his good points (which outweighed his main fault, his lack of experience, which would obviously have improved as Moore Than said) could not have matched him.
(And a couple of talented eyebrows )
Moore is the Bond I grew up with, and he definitely was the right Bond for the times. However, I think his take on the character has aged poorly. I think Lazenby would have brought an edge to it that would have stacked up against Connery, Dalton & Craig. Still, the argument that the series may not have survived the 70s with a more "Fleming-esque" Bond has merit.
I believe so. Roger had the necessary ability. He would have dealt with the emotional aspects such as Tracy's death convincingly. If anyone doubts this I invite them to watch The Man Who Haunted Himself, which was made around the same time as On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Arguably, Roger's best ever performance.
Roger and Diana Rigg would have known each other because The Saint and The Avengers were both filmed at Elstree Studios at the same time. It was a small community. I am almost certain they would have worked well together in OHMSS.
Anyone doubting Moore being able to handle serious stuff, just look at the PTS from FYEO when he visits Theresa's grave.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
It appears this might be a minority opinion around here, but I agree with you. Lazenby shows a lot of promise in OHMSS, and I think he would have grown in the role. Also, not only does he handle the physicality and tender moments well, but he shows flashes of an edge that to me is more convincing than Moore's or Brosnan's (e.g. when roughs up Tracy a bit after she points his gun at him).
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
As much as I like Tim, I think there is a least a possibility that Lazenby would have been even better. (Imagine - no "misty-eyes" complaints from Higgins!) Alas, we'll never know.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I agree with that, but I also think Lazenby has a bit more natural charm than Dalton.
:v
There was mentioned that the girls in EON's office where virtually falling off their chairs when Lazenby entered the room - I can hardly imagine this to happen with Dalton. And here you have the major difference in both actors besides .... (won't repeat it again today...)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yeah, they both are reduced to tears
and now Lazbians - run!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Why not go easy on us Timboys.
Where's the fun in that :v