It's interesting that George Lazenby usually bears the brunt of criticism for OHMSS's perceived lack of success, but Hunt's directing style shares at least some of the blame. One could argue he was ahead of his time in some ways, but his ultra-sped up fight sequences and quick zooms and his filming Lazenby from odd and oblique angles was a departure from previous Bond films.
I don't think this was a factor. None of the reviews I've come across complain about the editing or fast motion (which was used in earlier Bonds anyway), though several did praise Hunt's direction. Furthermore, the late 1960s were a time of artistic experimentation even in mainstream cinema--look at the editing in The Wild Bunch, which was released the same year and a great success. OHMSS was hardly avant-garde cinema.
I think the answer as to why he wasn't asked back to direct was reflected in his later films, which oddly are more conventionally directed but were mostly box office failures or unremarkable.
That only applies to the tail end of Hunt's career. Let's not forget that he directed two big-budget successful features with Roger Moore (Gold and Shout at the Devil). Furthermore, Broccoli had considered asking Hunt back to direct For Your Eyes Only.
"At the end of that film [OHMSS], they didn't know what they were going to do, whereas prior to that we had gone on, and on and on. But the team sort of broke up and went on to other things. Then Broccoli asked me to come back for Diamonds Are Forever, but at that time he and Saltzman were fighting and I was involved with something else. I told them that if they moved the production date I might be able to, but they couldn't and so they went with Guy Hamilton...Then, again, Cubby asked me when I was doing Death Hunt [1981], and I couldn't. So each time he came to me, I couldn't do it for one reason or another, although I would have liked to, therefore the cycle broke, as it were...If Lazenby had done Diamonds, then I may have done it, as well as the next two, and I wouldn't have done anything else and whilst I've often been disappointed about things I wanted to do that never came off, I've done some films that I'm awfully proud of which are out of the Bond idiom, away from the protected society of Broccoli and Saltzman and all that. It was very protective for me, and very nice and good, but I was able to go off and make my own films, like Gold and Shout at the Devil, both starring Roger Moore, which I'm proud of and which were very different from Bond."
It's hard to find contemporary reviews from the time to know for sure. The film has achieved such a high status among Bond fans, its reputation may influence modern perspectives. This guy writes from such, for instance, where the whole sped-up thing has become common, a la the Bourne films, but even he notes mixed results:
But if you were around in that era -- I'm a child of the 1970s and 1980s -- you'll remember people in general were turned off to the movie, at least here in the States. A lot of that had to do with Lazenby. A lot of people I knew also found it unwatchable, in part because of the weird editing and sped up action. These were the sorts of things viewers said when it came up on TV, or least that I heard from quite a few people.
But it was pretty obvious, too, the stylistic choices, such as odd angles and sped-up action, were tossed in favor of more traditional approaches, at least for 35 years until the Craig era. The Wild Bunch actually did the opposite -- Sam Peckinpah, in an attempt to make anti-violence statements, played up slow motion and blood bags to sicken his audiences. The film had the opposite effect. Stylistically ,OHMSS is more like Arabesque, which used a lot of camera trickery to make up for its thin script.
It's hard to find contemporary reviews from the time to know for sure.
There's a good selection in The Making of OHMSS book, and the Commander Bond message board also had a very useful thread compiling contemporary reviews of the film. I believe I've read most of the ones from the major national publications and I've yet to come across any that disliked the film's style. If anything, Hunt and the action's fast pace tended to get better reviews than Lazenby.
But if you were around in that era -- I'm a child of the 1970s and 1980s -- you'll remember people in general were turned off to the movie, at least here in the States. A lot of that had to do with Lazenby. A lot of people I knew also found it unwatchable, in part because of the weird editing and sped up action.
I certainly have no problem believing that Lazenby turned people off, since he never built up a popular following and the public assumed OHMSS must have been a failure because its lead actor never returned. Additionally the botched TV debut of the film made it look terrible for years to come--I suspect that probably put far more people off than the original editing. In any case, I'm inclined to take anecdotal evidence for no more than what it is.
But it was pretty obvious, too, the stylistic choices, such as odd angles and sped-up action, were tossed in favor of more traditional approaches, at least for 35 years until the Craig era.
Well yes, that's what one would expect when Hamilton and Gilbert were rehired to take the series in a more conservative direction by repeating past glories. By the time of QoS the series was desperately playing catch-up with modern editing, with results that people genuinely did find partially unwatchable.
When OHMSS came out I was 14 years old and had been a Bond fan since I saw FRWL in 1964. The problem I had with the film had everything to do with the fact that Sean Connery was not in it. That may have been forgivable, but Diana Rigg - wonderful as Emma Peel was a bit to strong for Lazenby's Bond. Telly Savalas was no help either - a disappointing follow up to the even more disappointing Donald Pleasence.
Decades later, it may be hard to understand the absolute lock Connery had with the character of James Bond. That could have been broken had Lazenby returned. But despite the many shortcomings I have with OHMSS today, none of them were relevant at all when the film came out ... the biggest deficit of the film was casting.
When OHMSS came out I was 14 years old and had been a Bond fan since I saw FRWL in 1964. The problem I had with the film had everything to do with the fact that Sean Connery was not in it. That may have been forgivable, but Diana Rigg - wonderful as Emma Peel was a bit to strong for Lazenby's Bond. Telly Savalas was no help either - a disappointing follow up to the even more disappointing Donald Pleasence.
Decades later, it may be hard to understand the absolute lock Connery had with the character of James Bond. That could have been broken had Lazenby returned. But despite the many shortcomings I have with OHMSS today, none of them were relevant at all when the film came out ... the biggest deficit of the film was casting.
Connery was the first Bond I knew, and even in the 1990s most people I knew still refused to accept anyone else as Bond, apart from the younger people who were Brosnan AND Connery fans. The other three guys didn't matter. It seemed like people who grew up after the Connery era at the time still placed Connery at number 1, and this made sense because Connery was still a relevant actor in the 1990s (I remember people going nuts over Entrapment). You didn't have to be around in the 1960s to feel the power of Connery. Though people accepted Moore more than they accepted Lazenby, Moore never replaced Connery. Only now with Craig has another Bond been able to compete with Connery's popularity.
Comments
https://www.rogerebert.com/far-flung-correspondents/on-her-majestys-secret-service
But if you were around in that era -- I'm a child of the 1970s and 1980s -- you'll remember people in general were turned off to the movie, at least here in the States. A lot of that had to do with Lazenby. A lot of people I knew also found it unwatchable, in part because of the weird editing and sped up action. These were the sorts of things viewers said when it came up on TV, or least that I heard from quite a few people.
But it was pretty obvious, too, the stylistic choices, such as odd angles and sped-up action, were tossed in favor of more traditional approaches, at least for 35 years until the Craig era. The Wild Bunch actually did the opposite -- Sam Peckinpah, in an attempt to make anti-violence statements, played up slow motion and blood bags to sicken his audiences. The film had the opposite effect. Stylistically ,OHMSS is more like Arabesque, which used a lot of camera trickery to make up for its thin script.
There's a good selection in The Making of OHMSS book, and the Commander Bond message board also had a very useful thread compiling contemporary reviews of the film. I believe I've read most of the ones from the major national publications and I've yet to come across any that disliked the film's style. If anything, Hunt and the action's fast pace tended to get better reviews than Lazenby.
I certainly have no problem believing that Lazenby turned people off, since he never built up a popular following and the public assumed OHMSS must have been a failure because its lead actor never returned. Additionally the botched TV debut of the film made it look terrible for years to come--I suspect that probably put far more people off than the original editing. In any case, I'm inclined to take anecdotal evidence for no more than what it is.
Well yes, that's what one would expect when Hamilton and Gilbert were rehired to take the series in a more conservative direction by repeating past glories. By the time of QoS the series was desperately playing catch-up with modern editing, with results that people genuinely did find partially unwatchable.
Decades later, it may be hard to understand the absolute lock Connery had with the character of James Bond. That could have been broken had Lazenby returned. But despite the many shortcomings I have with OHMSS today, none of them were relevant at all when the film came out ... the biggest deficit of the film was casting.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Connery was the first Bond I knew, and even in the 1990s most people I knew still refused to accept anyone else as Bond, apart from the younger people who were Brosnan AND Connery fans. The other three guys didn't matter. It seemed like people who grew up after the Connery era at the time still placed Connery at number 1, and this made sense because Connery was still a relevant actor in the 1990s (I remember people going nuts over Entrapment). You didn't have to be around in the 1960s to feel the power of Connery. Though people accepted Moore more than they accepted Lazenby, Moore never replaced Connery. Only now with Craig has another Bond been able to compete with Connery's popularity.