OHMSS with Connery would have been terrible.

AlphaOmegaSin

By the Time of YOLT, Connery just looked bored with the Role. There are several Scenes where he is just Sleepwalking through it and it really distracts from a very good Entry into the Series. Now, some People say that if he had done OHMSS like he was originally supposed to then it would of probably been one of the best Bonds ever. I have to disagree with this. He would of been even more bored and fed up and just plain Laughable if he stayed on. DAF confirms this altogether. Could Connery have pulled off the Emotional Ending as well as Lazenby did? (Or even Dalton if he accepted the Role back in 67) Audiences had seen Bond with several other Girls in the previous five Films and then seeing Connery as Bond fall in real Love would make it seem a bit awkward.

Mr Mallory

Maybe with it's better plot snd less gadgets, it might have
Revived Connery's interest in the role.

AlphaOmegaSin

It might have, but I still don't think Connery would have had a huge Interest in continuing.

Thunderpussy

To be honest, I think Lazenby brings a vulnerability to the character of Bond, ( through inexperience
no doubt ) That Connery at that stage after playing Bond for so long IMHO wouldn't.

ZorinIndustries

The main issue I have with YOLT is Connery's performance, which was so off-an-on. Some scenes he seemed okay, but he mostly seemed to phone it in. I think Lazenby fit the role perfectly in OHMSS and I wouldn't want it any other way. Great post!

Dutchfinger

I disagree. I think one of the reasons Connery got bored with the role of Bond was that there wasn't enough character development.. This movie would have given him just that.
And I'm sure Connery would have been able to pull of the ending. Hell, Lazenby wasn't even an actor, he only starred in some commercials.. Connery on the other hand actually was an actor.

BIG TAM

I like Lazenby. He looks good & given he's a non-actor, carries a 140 minute film very well indeed. But Mr. Mallory has a point. With its more character-based story devoid of OTT gadgets OHMSS might have enticed Connery to give his best-ever Bond performance. But I'm more than happy with the film as it is.

Blackleiter

BIG TAM wrote:

I like Lazenby. He looks good & given he's a non-actor, carries a 140 minute film very well indeed. But Mr. Mallory has a point. With its more character-based story devoid of OTT gadgets OHMSS might have enticed Connery to give his best-ever Bond performance. But I'm more than happy with the film as it is.

I agree that the film is very good as is, but I have no doubt that Connery's version of OHMSS could have been just as good if not better. Those who suggest that he didn't have the emotional range to pull it off are underestimating Connery's skills as an actor. Those skills are not always fully displayed in the Bond films because quite frankly the scripts didn't provide many opportunities to show them, especially the later movies. But take a look at some of Connery's acting in DN or FRWL or even GF. There are emotional and character shadings in several scenes, and I believe Connery handles those scenes admirably. True, Connery's Bond probably wouldn't display some of the vulnerability that I think added a lot to Lazenby's performance, but that doesn't mean, for example, that the relationship between Connery's Bond and Tracey wouldn't have been interesting in its own right. Different, yes, but not boring or "laughable" by any means.

AlphaOmegaSin

Just want to remind everyone that this is my Opinion on the Subject, and I don't mean to offend any Hardcore Connery Fans {[]

Thunderpussy

Too late AlphaOmegaSin you have opened the gates of HELL. )

AlphaOmegaSin

I'll find a Fallout Shelter and learn some Prayers )

Gassy Man

If he got in shape, Connery would have been perfect for the role. He can certainly portray the vulnerability required. But what would have made his version of OHMSS work best would have been the contrast. By then, Connery was practically a superhero. The quieter and more emotional scenes in OHMSS would resonated even more for precisely the reason that no one would have been expecting them. I like Lazenby and wish he would have continued, but a Connery who is playing his A game would have knocked it out of the park.

Blackleiter

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Just want to remind everyone that this is my Opinion on the Subject, and I don't mean to offend any Hardcore Connery Fans {[]

No offense taken at all. Just a difference of opinion. {[]

MooseWithFleas

I think Connery has the emotional range and acting ability to pull off a more romantic and tragic performance. But the issue is that he has already personified his version of Bond as the cool suave agent who showed little emotional attachment to the women he slept with.

As an audience member, it would be hard for me to buy that change in the character he developed.

Manxman

OHMSS is my favourite Bond film and Lazenby is my favourite Bond, but I would love to enter an alternate universe and see the film with Connery as the star. If he'd played it as he did From Russia With Love or Thunderball, he could have pulled it off easily as he is a consummate actor. If he'd played it as he did Diamonds Are Forever… well, that is the stuff of nightmares. But even with Connery at his peak, the film would have been very different, as his Bond was far less playful, as well as far less insecure, than Lazenby's; in particular, the ending would have carried a completely different vibe. The film would also have been interesting with a young Timothy Dalton in the role; the one actor who couldn't have carried it off is Roger Moore, although I do like the majority of his films.

CmdrAtticus

Want the answer to this? Just watch him in Robin and Marion. He pulls off the lighter moments as he did in the Bond series as well as the more serious, romantic interludes - and with Audrey Hepburn no less.

Blackleiter

CmdrAtticus wrote:

Want the answer to this? Just watch him in Robin and Marion. He pulls off the lighter moments as he did in the Bond series as well as the more serious, romantic interludes - and with Audrey Hepburn no less.

That's a very good example. -{

AlphaOmegaSin

I know that Connery can pull of some good Performances, but Connery (In my Opinion) was just bored by the Time of YOLT.

Gassy Man

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I know that Connery can pull of some good Performances, but Connery (In my Opinion) was just bored by the Time of YOLT.

Yeah, but it's a dud. Two of my favorite actors mired in a movie that is as emotionally resonant as getting your teeth cleaned. He's given more meaningful range in Darby O'Gill and the Little People.

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

I know that Connery can pull of some good Performances, but Connery (In my Opinion) was just bored by the Time of YOLT.

He was playing Bond as world weary in that. X-(

Okay, he was phoning a lot of it in, but it LOOKS like he could be playing a world weary Bond. :007)

7289

I think you have to consider what SC was going through making YOLT. He was in Japan being mobbed day and night by rude obsessive fans. He was photographed on the toilet and subjected to out of control mobs. With working conditions like that it's not hard to see why he may have "phoned it in".

He was also dealing with producers that failed to properly compensate him for his contributions to the franchise. He must have felt like the horse that was "ridden hard and put away wet." Besides the bad script, with spaceships, volcanos, and a bald, pirate scarred super-villain is strictly comic book, even in 1967. Not much to get excited about.

OHMSS is a fine novel, and I'm sure SC would have done it justice. But I would not be thrilled to see him parading around Switzerland with that crooked, dead cat toupee.

chrisisall

7289 wrote:

I would not be thrilled to see him parading around Switzerland with that crooked, dead cat toupee.

I just don't see that. But then again, I've never seen it on Shatner either. I may have a rug blind spot... )

superado

Years ago I've longed to see the day when SC can be digitally imprinted onto OHMSS and I wouldn't be surprised to see it pop up any day now. But I somewhat agree with AlphaOmegaSin's premise that "as is," it may not work. Had SC been cast, however, it will be a different film if we're to consider the "Butterfly Effect" of SC's casting and how that would have had a direct influence on the casting of the supporting actors, the art direction and other aspects of the production. The attitudes of the producers would have also been key and if they've been paying attention to Connery's non-Bond roles and taking Peter Hunt's lead for a more serious, closer to the source Bond movie, it would have been a wise move to allow SC that room to better fulfill his acting potential. His age would have worked better too, considering Bond's situational setting in the novel.

But for indulgence's sake, if Diana Rigg still ended up in the role of Tracy (after competing with other actresses in screen testing for chemistry with the leading man), I think the interplay between Connery and Rigg would have been totally different and it would have been truly interesting to see that (I for one would be excited and expectant).

For those who haven't seen it and not to be confused with my own premise above, here's an interesting article that's been around that plays with the premise of a 1967 OHMSS with Connery: http://www.hmss.com/films/ohmss67/.

AirJordanFan93

One of the reasons I always heard Connery wanted out after YOLT was the lack of character development. I was found it kind of ironic that the first movie after his departure was OHMSS where they really delved into the Bond character more than the prior films had done. I am a Connery fan-boy Im not going to deny that at all so I would of love to of seen Connerys take on this one. I don't know how he would of portrayed the lighter side of Bond that Lazenby portrays throughout the film and I can't see Connery crying in the films final scene just doesn't seem like something Connerys Bond would do. Even in Thunderball when he tells Dommino her brother was killed he has that shaking in his hand then quickly puts his shades on to hide the emotion.

Sir Miles

AirJordanFan93 wrote:

One of the reasons I always heard Connery wanted out after YOLT was the lack of character development.

Really ? Can't say I've ever heard that...the real reasons were money and lack of privacy...anything else is just 'smoke and mirrors'...

Colonel Shatner

7289 wrote:

Besides the bad script, with spaceships, volcanos, and a bald, pirate scarred super-villain is strictly comic book, even in 1967. Not much to get excited about.

How could you NOT get excited about volcano bases launching space rocket swallowing rockets that gets attacked by a ninja army if you're twelve years old?! )

And while it's interesting to dwell on what could've been, I'm going to say that the current Bond movie franchise would be very different or not even be here today if You Only Live Twice didn't deviate a fair bit from the Fleming novel it was based on and if Lazenby didn't try to replace Connery.

chrisisall

Colonel Shatner wrote:

How could you NOT get excited about volcano bases launching space rocket swallowing rockets that gets attacked by a ninja army if you're twelve years old?! )

Or 22.

Or 42.

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

Colonel Shatner wrote:

How could you NOT get excited about volcano bases launching space rocket swallowing rockets that gets attacked by a ninja army if you're twelve years old?! )

Or 22.

Or 42.

Or 59!

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

Or 59!

So, you could walk like, 3 years before me. Big deal. )

7289

Colonel Shatner wrote:

7289 wrote:

Besides the bad script, with spaceships, volcanos, and a bald, pirate scarred super-villain is strictly comic book, even in 1967. Not much to get excited about.

How could you NOT get excited about volcano bases launching space rocket swallowing rockets that gets attacked by a ninja army if you're twelve years old?! )

And while it's interesting to dwell on what could've been, I'm going to say that the current Bond movie franchise would be very different or not even be here today if You Only Live Twice didn't deviate a fair bit from the Fleming novel it was based on and if Lazenby didn't try to replace Connery.

Easy, then as now I had read and enjoyed the novels. While the previous Bond's had deviated from the thrillers, YOLT took a wide left turn. I recall '67 very well, the horrifying Casino Royale and the disappointing YOLT. I was looking for the reveal of Blofeld, the mysterious dark haired man who was a combination of Anthony Dawson and Eric Pohlman. When the bald, scarred Donald Pleasence appeared, it was like watching an episode of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

Even today's "return to Fleming" is a pretty loose, though welcome adaptation. Surprisingly, these days I find Feldman's Casino Royale a much more entertaining film than YOLT.

AlphaOmegaSin

I think YOLT is a very good reveal for Blofeld, yes it would of been better if it had stuck closer to the Novel a bit more though.