If Lazenby was in DAF, there would most likely have been more Tracy References.
If Lazenby would have stayed on as Bond OHMSS would have ended with Bond and Tracy driving off after the wedding. DAF would have opened with the killing of Tracy as the PTS. At least this is what Peter Hunt says during the commentary and/or Inside OHMSS documentary.
If Lazenby was in DAF, there would most likely have been more Tracy References.
If Lazenby would have stayed on as Bond OHMSS would have ended with Bond and Tracy driving off after the wedding. DAF would have opened with the killing of Tracy as the PTS. At least this is what Peter Hunt says during the commentary and/or Inside OHMSS documentary.
I've always liked that Idea -{
And Connery wasn't really overweight in DAF, he looked similar in Body Weight as he did in DN. He just aged like the Rest of us.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
We all age, of course, but it's almost hard to believe this is the same guy, even ten years apart:
[The] Diamonds are Forever, [movie] for lack of a better term, also feels "middle aged" in tone, as though acknowledging that Bond is not the youthful guy of even four years earlier.
I find Connery seems older in DAF than Moore in AVTAK! I mean, Moore had the charm, he knew how to treat a lady (just not Andrea.). But Connery? Evidence: "You stupid twit..." Moore wouldn't say that to Stacy, would he?!?!?!
If Lazenby was in DAF, there would most likely have been more Tracy References.
If Lazenby would have stayed on as Bond OHMSS would have ended with Bond and Tracy driving off after the wedding. DAF would have opened with the killing of Tracy as the PTS. At least this is what Peter Hunt says during the commentary and/or Inside OHMSS documentary.
I've always liked that Idea -{
And Connery wasn't really overweight in DAF, he looked similar in Body Weight as he did in DN. He just aged like the Rest of us.
Interestingly, they actually did carry over the OHMSS bride slaying in the 1990 BBC Radio adaptation of YOLT starring Michael Jayston as Bond if you give it a listen, so the idea was carried through in the correct continuity in another medium. I'm glad OHMSS ended the way that it did though and they did not chicken out (so to speak) and leave it for the PTS of DAF, but I suppose if they have that would have been a very different film from what we eventually got in 1971!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Diamonds Are Forever shouldn't have been the way it was after OHMSS. We should have had a cold film, like LTK. It loses its effect when Bond moves straight to Tiffany in this film after Plenty.
For me DAF should have been filmed one of two ways.
1. By sticking close to the novel. The book has a great plot which would have made for a more serious and coherent film. Some scenes from the novel are just crying out to be filmed and would work well. Also if the back story of characters, especially Tiffany, would have been explored more deeply it would have given the film a depth that it just doesn't have. Bond versus the Las Vegas mobsters works just fine, it doesn't need Blofeld.
But the producers decided to bring Blofeld back, and why not. After the heartbreaking ending of OHMSS the set up was perfect for the ultimate Bond revenge film.
2. By bringing back Blofeld the only way this film could have worked is if they had given it a more serious tone, (after all this is the man who had Bond's wife murdered). A jaded and defeated Bond, the only thing on his mind to avenge his wife, bruised and battered eventually finds Blofeld and gets his revenge. The ending the audience wanted and Blofeld deserved. Crowds in cinemas worldwide applaud and cheer.
The film we ended up with doesn't seem to know what direction to take and in my opinion becomes a bit of a mess.
Don't get me wrong if somebody wanted to watch DAF tonight I would watch it gladly. There is plenty to enjoy, but when its over I sometimes wonder what might have been or if it was a missed opportunity.
We're looking at DAF from a 2015 viewpoint. Things were very different at the time it was made.
OHMSS was regarded a lot less favourably than it is now:
(1) It hadn't done as well at the box-office as previous Bonds. No Bond film has ever been a failure financially, but this was at the time the low point for the series. This was a serious concern for Eon and UA.
(2) The casting of a new actor was perceived as one of the major reasons for this.
(3) The more sombre tone of OHMSS was also a concern, as well as its relative length.
(4) There was a feeling that James Bond, a huge symbol of the 1960s, had become out of date in the 1970s.
The main thought behind the production of DAF was to "correct" these perceived issues. (1) and (2) could be solved at a stroke by re-hiring Sean Connery, whatever the expense. This was more UA's (David Picker's) decision than Eon's, who had reservations (Harry Saltzman).
Eon made a deliberate decision to lighten the tone after OHMSS, which has been often seen as leading to the increasingly light tone of the Moore films which followed (in the 70s, anyway), and to consciously recreate as many aspects of Goldfinger as possible- Connery being the most visible, but also Guy Hamilton returning to direct, Shirley Bassey singing John Barry's song, and even considering rehiring Gert Frobe to play Goldfinger's twin.
The whole idea was to produce a film which proved 007 was not out of date in the 1970s and significantly top the box-office returns of OHMSS, re-establishing the Bond series as a major (if not the major) franchise, a term which hadn't yet come into popular use.
And it succeeded. After all is said and done, that's what counts. If DAF had flopped, there wouldn't have been much demand for further Bond films given their decreasing returns.
I'd love to have seen a straight adaptation of the novel as suggested above. Hell, I'd still love to see it now. At the time, though, it probably wouldn't have worked. Part of the logic behind DAF was to ignore OHMSS as much as possible (Moneypenny's joke about a diamond ring, for example) and an avenging Bond was not what the producers were after.
Connery's return wasn't for the money (he gave that away, as is well documented) and certainly not for art's sake. His career needed a lift at this point, and he needed to maximise his clout. In this, he succeeded. It isn't his best performance as Bond, but he does seem to be enjoying the proceedings a bit more than in YOLT and of course dominates the film.
There's an argument to be made for critical points in the series- the difference between "just another film" and one that will make or break the validity of the whole thing. TSWLM is one, GE is another. DAF isn't quite on that level but does lean in that direction.
And I'm going to say it again... John Barry rules. Period. His score is a joy and, pardon the pun, shines like a diamond.
We all age, of course, but it's almost hard to believe this is the same guy, even ten years apart:
[The] Diamonds are Forever, [movie] for lack of a better term, also feels "middle aged" in tone, as though acknowledging that Bond is not the youthful guy of even four years earlier.
Amen, brother. -{
Thanks!
Something I just noticed in these two screencaps is one can see the difference in the lighting and cinematography. Dr. No is clearly more brightly lit, and Connery's skin tones are much warmer. He is not only darker in the Diamonds are Forever clip, but his skintone looks almost gray. Even allowing for differences in scenes -- indoor versus outdoor, night versus day, etc. -- these two screencaps rather accurately represent the differences in cinematography between 1960s and early to mid 1970s films.
We're looking at DAF from a 2015 viewpoint. Things were very different at the time it was made.
OHMSS was regarded a lot less favourably than it is now:
(1) It hadn't done as well at the box-office as previous Bonds. No Bond film has ever been a failure financially, but this was at the time the low point for the series. This was a serious concern for Eon and UA.
(2) The casting of a new actor was perceived as one of the major reasons for this.
(3) The more sombre tone of OHMSS was also a concern, as well as its relative length.
(4) There was a feeling that James Bond, a huge symbol of the 1960s, had become out of date in the 1970s.
The main thought behind the production of DAF was to "correct" these perceived issues. (1) and (2) could be solved at a stroke by re-hiring Sean Connery, whatever the expense. This was more UA's (David Picker's) decision than Eon's, who had reservations (Harry Saltzman).
Eon made a deliberate decision to lighten the tone after OHMSS, which has been often seen as leading to the increasingly light tone of the Moore films which followed (in the 70s, anyway), and to consciously recreate as many aspects of Goldfinger as possible- Connery being the most visible, but also Guy Hamilton returning to direct, Shirley Bassey singing John Barry's song, and even considering rehiring Gert Frobe to play Goldfinger's twin.
The whole idea was to produce a film which proved 007 was not out of date in the 1970s and significantly top the box-office returns of OHMSS, re-establishing the Bond series as a major (if not the major) franchise, a term which hadn't yet come into popular use.
And it succeeded. After all is said and done, that's what counts. If DAF had flopped, there wouldn't have been much demand for further Bond films given their decreasing returns.
I'd love to have seen a straight adaptation of the novel as suggested above. Hell, I'd still love to see it now. At the time, though, it probably wouldn't have worked. Part of the logic behind DAF was to ignore OHMSS as much as possible (Moneypenny's joke about a diamond ring, for example) and an avenging Bond was not what the producers were after.
Connery's return wasn't for the money (he gave that away, as is well documented) and certainly not for art's sake. His career needed a lift at this point, and he needed to maximise his clout. In this, he succeeded. It isn't his best performance as Bond, but he does seem to be enjoying the proceedings a bit more than in YOLT and of course dominates the film.
There's an argument to be made for critical points in the series- the difference between "just another film" and one that will make or break the validity of the whole thing. TSWLM is one, GE is another. DAF isn't quite on that level but does lean in that direction.
And I'm going to say it again... John Barry rules. Period. His score is a joy and, pardon the pun, shines like a diamond.
Good points, and I even recall as a child that when On Her Majesty's Secret Service was shown on TV here, a collective groan went out. As you say, it took years for the film to build the reputation it now has.
I think it would have been a different film. Still lighter than the predecessor, but more serious overall. And I think George Lazenby would have come to the film with more confidence and bearing and settled into the role of James Bond.
I think it would have been a different film. Still lighter than the predecessor, but more serious overall. And I think George Lazenby would have come to the film with more confidence and bearing and settled into the role of James Bond.
That's another universe. In THIS one, he would have become cocky and played Bond like a colossal dick IMO. He made the right choice to leave as his growing ego started to piss on the 'establishment' and embrace individualist rejection. And I'm all FOR individuality, but one must colour Bond within the lines. :007)
I think it would have been a different film. Still lighter than the predecessor, but more serious overall. And I think George Lazenby would have come to the film with more confidence and bearing and settled into the role of James Bond.
That's another universe. In THIS one, he would have become cocky and played Bond like a colossal dick IMO.
This kind of portrayal is why I can picture him in Connery's DAF.
I think it would have been a different film. Still lighter than the predecessor, but more serious overall. And I think George Lazenby would have come to the film with more confidence and bearing and settled into the role of James Bond.
That's another universe. In THIS one, he would have become cocky and played Bond like a colossal dick IMO.
This kind of portrayal is why I can picture him in Connery's DAF.
I think it would have been a different film. Still lighter than the predecessor, but more serious overall. And I think George Lazenby would have come to the film with more confidence and bearing and settled into the role of James Bond.
That's another universe. In THIS one, he would have become cocky and played Bond like a colossal dick IMO. He made the right choice to leave as his growing ego started to piss on the 'establishment' and embrace individualist rejection. And I'm all FOR individuality, but one must colour Bond within the lines. :007)
I'm not sure that's true. He made Universal Soldier around the same time and seemed fine. Lazenby arguably was difficult personally, but I don't know that had to come through in his performance.
He made Universal Soldier around the same time and seemed fine.
?:)
That was a 1992 film... you mean a different title?
It was actually 1971. I haven't seen that one, but I've seen Lazenby in some other films in the 70s and sometimes his cocky personality really did come out, like in The Man from Hong Kong, in 1975. But in 1972's Who Saw Her Die? he didn't act cocky at all, from what I can remember.
Truth be told, I find DAF Connery attractive. But in a fatherly way. When it comes to being a gentleman with expensive tastes, DAF era Connery is actually at its best. Dr. No era Connery was more of a young philanderer type.
I joke about Connery's girth (which was really not big at all), but that's not the issue. I just find that Connery (especially older Connery) isn't really suited for the tone of this revenge oriented movie.
Comments
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
If Lazenby would have stayed on as Bond OHMSS would have ended with Bond and Tracy driving off after the wedding. DAF would have opened with the killing of Tracy as the PTS. At least this is what Peter Hunt says during the commentary and/or Inside OHMSS documentary.
...where he didn't get a writing credit either ("Creative Consultant" was the vague compromise).
I've always liked that Idea -{
And Connery wasn't really overweight in DAF, he looked similar in Body Weight as he did in DN. He just aged like the Rest of us.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Amen, brother. -{
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Only his hair!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Interestingly, they actually did carry over the OHMSS bride slaying in the 1990 BBC Radio adaptation of YOLT starring Michael Jayston as Bond if you give it a listen, so the idea was carried through in the correct continuity in another medium. I'm glad OHMSS ended the way that it did though and they did not chicken out (so to speak) and leave it for the PTS of DAF, but I suppose if they have that would have been a very different film from what we eventually got in 1971!
1. Thunderball 2. FRWL 3. Casino Royale 4. TLD 5. OHMSS 6. SkyFall 7. GF 8. TSWLM 9. GE 10. FYEO
1. By sticking close to the novel. The book has a great plot which would have made for a more serious and coherent film. Some scenes from the novel are just crying out to be filmed and would work well. Also if the back story of characters, especially Tiffany, would have been explored more deeply it would have given the film a depth that it just doesn't have. Bond versus the Las Vegas mobsters works just fine, it doesn't need Blofeld.
But the producers decided to bring Blofeld back, and why not. After the heartbreaking ending of OHMSS the set up was perfect for the ultimate Bond revenge film.
2. By bringing back Blofeld the only way this film could have worked is if they had given it a more serious tone, (after all this is the man who had Bond's wife murdered). A jaded and defeated Bond, the only thing on his mind to avenge his wife, bruised and battered eventually finds Blofeld and gets his revenge. The ending the audience wanted and Blofeld deserved. Crowds in cinemas worldwide applaud and cheer.
The film we ended up with doesn't seem to know what direction to take and in my opinion becomes a bit of a mess.
Don't get me wrong if somebody wanted to watch DAF tonight I would watch it gladly. There is plenty to enjoy, but when its over I sometimes wonder what might have been or if it was a missed opportunity.
OHMSS was regarded a lot less favourably than it is now:
(1) It hadn't done as well at the box-office as previous Bonds. No Bond film has ever been a failure financially, but this was at the time the low point for the series. This was a serious concern for Eon and UA.
(2) The casting of a new actor was perceived as one of the major reasons for this.
(3) The more sombre tone of OHMSS was also a concern, as well as its relative length.
(4) There was a feeling that James Bond, a huge symbol of the 1960s, had become out of date in the 1970s.
The main thought behind the production of DAF was to "correct" these perceived issues. (1) and (2) could be solved at a stroke by re-hiring Sean Connery, whatever the expense. This was more UA's (David Picker's) decision than Eon's, who had reservations (Harry Saltzman).
Eon made a deliberate decision to lighten the tone after OHMSS, which has been often seen as leading to the increasingly light tone of the Moore films which followed (in the 70s, anyway), and to consciously recreate as many aspects of Goldfinger as possible- Connery being the most visible, but also Guy Hamilton returning to direct, Shirley Bassey singing John Barry's song, and even considering rehiring Gert Frobe to play Goldfinger's twin.
The whole idea was to produce a film which proved 007 was not out of date in the 1970s and significantly top the box-office returns of OHMSS, re-establishing the Bond series as a major (if not the major) franchise, a term which hadn't yet come into popular use.
And it succeeded. After all is said and done, that's what counts. If DAF had flopped, there wouldn't have been much demand for further Bond films given their decreasing returns.
I'd love to have seen a straight adaptation of the novel as suggested above. Hell, I'd still love to see it now. At the time, though, it probably wouldn't have worked. Part of the logic behind DAF was to ignore OHMSS as much as possible (Moneypenny's joke about a diamond ring, for example) and an avenging Bond was not what the producers were after.
Connery's return wasn't for the money (he gave that away, as is well documented) and certainly not for art's sake. His career needed a lift at this point, and he needed to maximise his clout. In this, he succeeded. It isn't his best performance as Bond, but he does seem to be enjoying the proceedings a bit more than in YOLT and of course dominates the film.
There's an argument to be made for critical points in the series- the difference between "just another film" and one that will make or break the validity of the whole thing. TSWLM is one, GE is another. DAF isn't quite on that level but does lean in that direction.
And I'm going to say it again... John Barry rules. Period. His score is a joy and, pardon the pun, shines like a diamond.
Something I just noticed in these two screencaps is one can see the difference in the lighting and cinematography. Dr. No is clearly more brightly lit, and Connery's skin tones are much warmer. He is not only darker in the Diamonds are Forever clip, but his skintone looks almost gray. Even allowing for differences in scenes -- indoor versus outdoor, night versus day, etc. -- these two screencaps rather accurately represent the differences in cinematography between 1960s and early to mid 1970s films.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
This kind of portrayal is why I can picture him in Connery's DAF.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
That was a 1992 film... you mean a different title?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
It was actually 1971. I haven't seen that one, but I've seen Lazenby in some other films in the 70s and sometimes his cocky personality really did come out, like in The Man from Hong Kong, in 1975. But in 1972's Who Saw Her Die? he didn't act cocky at all, from what I can remember.
I joke about Connery's girth (which was really not big at all), but that's not the issue. I just find that Connery (especially older Connery) isn't really suited for the tone of this revenge oriented movie.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)