@blackleiter I am not sure I saw that range in his Bond days. Granted he was perfection in "Finding Forrester."
Come on folks! Look a little deeper! I agree that Connery didn't have many opportunities to display his range in his Bond days, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable ("A Fine Madness " and "Marnie" come to mind). Anyway, it's not my intention to minimize the many pleasures of OHMSS just as it is. And of course we'll never know how it would have turned out had Connery been the star. I just happen to believe it could have been great. So sue me! (I know a great attorney if you need one!)
If Connery was in his 1962-65 mode, OHMSS would have been a perfect vehicle for him. Easily a better actor than Lazenby, and I agree with Blacklieter, the romance with Tracey, and his scenes with M, including his resignation from the service, would have had far more gravitas.
Granted, I don't mind Lazenby in the role, and all things considered I think he did a pretty good job. Having said that though, Connery in full flight would have been spectacular, and seeing his Bond resign, fall in love, confront Blofeld and lose his bride would have been quite something. I feel that this would have pushed OHMSS into the region of being the greatest Bond flick without exception. As it stands it's still great, and easily one of the best in the series, but when all is said and done, Connery would have made it better still.
P.S. he would have handled the romance aspect of it with ease.
If Connery was in his 1962-65 mode, OHMSS would have been a perfect vehicle for him. Easily a better actor than Lazenby, and I agree with Blacklieter, the romance with Tracey, and his scenes with M, including his resignation from the service, would have had far more gravitas.
Granted, I don't mind Lazenby in the role, and all things considered I think he did a pretty good job. Having said that though, Connery in full flight would have been spectacular, and seeing his Bond resign, fall in love, confront Blofeld and lose his bride would have been quite something. I feel that this would have pushed OHMSS into the region of being the greatest Bond flick without exception. As it stands it's still great, and easily one of the best in the series, but when all is said and done, Connery would have made it better still.
P.S. he would have handled the romance aspect of it with ease.
Fair enough to dream, and I admit it would be great to see Connery do a Bond of much more depth - I'm saying so many things would have to line up for him to do such a thing.
I see that he couldn't do it with the tone of the previous four Bond films (both in story and his portrayal) he'd also have to want to be there and not checked out. I could see it if OHMSS was his first film...
Seems to me that Connery demonstrated his ability to show depth in earlier Bond films, particularly FRWL, and I honestly don't believe anything in OHMSS was beyond his range as an actor. (As you can all see, my time away from AJB has changed nothing - I'm still firmly in the tank for Sir Sean!)
In total agreement with you ) I don't get the doubt about Connery.
I mean, he is Sean Connery. He is the reason James Bond is the most iconic character in cinema history. The traits of the character were first molded in him. James Bond is in the man's DNA. He is the most charismatic lead actor this side of the 60s. When James Bond confronts his arch nemesis, falls in love and then loses it all, he is the only man (at that time) who should be doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that he may not have been able to pull it off? The man is not only an oscar winning actor, he is also, quite simply. James Bond. I'll say that again. Sean Connery is James Bond. In the world of 1969, he is the only man worthy of doing that story.
Still, he passed on it and there you have it. Maybe the producers should have given him a better chop out and he would have stayed.
In total agreement with you ) I don't get the doubt about Connery.
I mean, he is Sean Connery. He is the reason James Bond is the most iconic character in cinema history. The traits of the character were first molded in him. James Bond is in the man's DNA. He is the most charismatic lead actor this side of the 60s. When James Bond confronts his arch nemesis, falls in love and then loses it all, he is the only man (at that time) who should be doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that he may not have been able to pull it off? The man is not only an oscar winning actor, he is also, quite simply. James Bond. I'll say that again. Sean Connery is James Bond. In the world of 1969, he is the only man worthy of doing that story.
Still, he passed on it and there you have it. Maybe the producers should have given him a better chop out and he would have stayed.
Sean had lost interest by the time he had finished YOLT and it showed as it was way down on the previous 4. I love YOLT and it's one of my favourites but if Sean had done OHMSS he would have put a DAF performance in - just going through the motions.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
@blackleiter I am not sure I saw that range in his Bond days. Granted he was perfection in "Finding Forrester."
Come on folks! Look a little deeper! I agree that Connery didn't have many opportunities to display his range in his Bond days, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable ("A Fine Madness " and "Marnie" come to mind). Anyway, it's not my intention to minimize the many pleasures of OHMSS just as it is. And of course we'll never know how it would have turned out had Connery been the star. I just happen to believe it could have been great. So sue me! (I know a great attorney if you need one!)
I am 100% biased. I know this ) It is one of the things that makes Bond fun. While some films are objectivly better than others people fall in love with each film and Bond for their own quarky reasons. I am sure Connery would have done a fine job. It just then would have been a different movie and I already think it is darn near perfect.
In total agreement with you ) I don't get the doubt about Connery.
I mean, he is Sean Connery. He is the reason James Bond is the most iconic character in cinema history. The traits of the character were first molded in him. James Bond is in the man's DNA. He is the most charismatic lead actor this side of the 60s. When James Bond confronts his arch nemesis, falls in love and then loses it all, he is the only man (at that time) who should be doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that he may not have been able to pull it off? The man is not only an oscar winning actor, he is also, quite simply. James Bond. I'll say that again. Sean Connery is James Bond. In the world of 1969, he is the only man worthy of doing that story.
Still, he passed on it and there you have it. Maybe the producers should have given him a better chop out and he would have stayed.
Sean had lost interest by the time he had finished YOLT and it showed as it was way down on the previous 4. I love YOLT and it's one of my favourites but if Sean had done OHMSS he would have put a DAF performance in - just going through the motions.
It's possible that the better story of OHMSS would have inspired him to do better. YOLT's and DAF's scripts aren't so inspiring.
@blackleiter I am not sure I saw that range in his Bond days. Granted he was perfection in "Finding Forrester."
Come on folks! Look a little deeper! I agree that Connery didn't have many opportunities to display his range in his Bond days, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable ("A Fine Madness " and "Marnie" come to mind). Anyway, it's not my intention to minimize the many pleasures of OHMSS just as it is. And of course we'll never know how it would have turned out had Connery been the star. I just happen to believe it could have been great. So sue me! (I know a great attorney if you need one!)
I am 100% biased. I know this ) It is one of the things that makes Bond fun. While some films are objectivly better than others people fall in love with each film and Bond for their own quarky reasons. I am sure Connery would have done a fine job. It just then would have been a different movie and I already think it is darn near perfect.
I understand completely and I appreciate the lively discussion. That's one of the things I enjoy so much about being a part of this terrific forum! -{
Yes- a wig is just artificial hair (maybe made from real hair, of course) which, say, an actor or actress might wear for a certain role, while a toupee is specifically to cover baldness.
Wigs are often obvious while toupees are theoretically not obvious.
Yes- a wig is just artificial hair which, say, an actor or actress might wear for a certain role, while a toupee is specifically to cover baldness.
Wigs are often obvious while toupees are theoretically not obvious.
You know a lot about artificial hair and baldness, skirt-man :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yes- a wig is just artificial hair which, say, an actor or actress might wear for a certain role, while a toupee is specifically to cover baldness.
Wigs are often obvious while toupees are theoretically not obvious.
You know a lot about artificial hair and baldness, skirt-man :v
Please forgive my poor english. i am shamed by my poor writing. I post here. i seen the on her magestys sectret service only for the first time last year. I did not like this film as i had only seen the daniel Craig films but when after i watched it again i liked it because i think that it is like the Fleming books of 007 what i listen to on the talking book. I think the Blofeld was good as a badie and George Lazenby was good as James Bond and I think there is not no bad parts about to this film now and I have bouht it to keep on the dvd disc.
Please forgive my poor english. i am shamed by my poor writing. I post here. i seen the on her magestys sectret service only for the first time last year. I did not like this film as i had only seen the daniel Craig films but when after i watched it again i liked it because i think that it is like the Fleming books of 007 what i listen to on the talking book. I think the Blofeld was good as a badie and George Lazenby was good as James Bond and I think there is not no bad parts about to this film now and I have bouht it to keep on the dvd disc.
Ohmss was much disliked in the past but has gathered a good following, it is a fairly honest reproduction of the novel and is hard to fault.
Kinda like Lazenby at Piz Gloria with the patients huh?
Not really, if anything they pursue him. He just seals the deal.
I honestly cannot imagine Connery's Bond falling in love, it sounds ludicrous. Lazenby's Bond on the other hand has enough humanity and vulnerability that I was sold on it. I would wager that if Connery stayed on the final screenplay would have looked very different.
Comments
Come on folks! Look a little deeper! I agree that Connery didn't have many opportunities to display his range in his Bond days, but that doesn't mean he wasn't capable ("A Fine Madness " and "Marnie" come to mind). Anyway, it's not my intention to minimize the many pleasures of OHMSS just as it is. And of course we'll never know how it would have turned out had Connery been the star. I just happen to believe it could have been great. So sue me! (I know a great attorney if you need one!)
Granted, I don't mind Lazenby in the role, and all things considered I think he did a pretty good job. Having said that though, Connery in full flight would have been spectacular, and seeing his Bond resign, fall in love, confront Blofeld and lose his bride would have been quite something. I feel that this would have pushed OHMSS into the region of being the greatest Bond flick without exception. As it stands it's still great, and easily one of the best in the series, but when all is said and done, Connery would have made it better still.
P.S. he would have handled the romance aspect of it with ease.
Ahhh......at last, a man of my own heart! {[]
In total agreement with you
I mean, he is Sean Connery. He is the reason James Bond is the most iconic character in cinema history. The traits of the character were first molded in him. James Bond is in the man's DNA. He is the most charismatic lead actor this side of the 60s. When James Bond confronts his arch nemesis, falls in love and then loses it all, he is the only man (at that time) who should be doing that. Are you seriously suggesting that he may not have been able to pull it off? The man is not only an oscar winning actor, he is also, quite simply. James Bond. I'll say that again. Sean Connery is James Bond. In the world of 1969, he is the only man worthy of doing that story.
Still, he passed on it and there you have it. Maybe the producers should have given him a better chop out and he would have stayed.
Sean had lost interest by the time he had finished YOLT and it showed as it was way down on the previous 4. I love YOLT and it's one of my favourites but if Sean had done OHMSS he would have put a DAF performance in - just going through the motions.
It's possible that the better story of OHMSS would have inspired him to do better. YOLT's and DAF's scripts aren't so inspiring.
I understand completely and I appreciate the lively discussion. That's one of the things I enjoy so much about being a part of this terrific forum! -{
Connery wore a wig
OHMSS ist the best 007 movie and Connery would have been bad in it!
Dalton sucked in both of his movies and it's good at he's gotten fired after LTK
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Two outta three ain't bad
More like ONE outta three! (And most of the time Big Tam's wig wasn't bad!
Wigs are often obvious while toupees are theoretically not obvious.
You know a lot about artificial hair and baldness, skirt-man :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Yup, strangely enough I do.
Better weepy boy! :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Obviously I am a testament to that claim not being true
In no way would Connery's Bond be believable as a romantic lead. He conquers women, he doesn't marry them.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
Kinda like Lazenby at Piz Gloria with the patients huh?
I honestly cannot imagine Connery's Bond falling in love, it sounds ludicrous. Lazenby's Bond on the other hand has enough humanity and vulnerability that I was sold on it. I would wager that if Connery stayed on the final screenplay would have looked very different.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier