What would OHMSS been like with Connery? do fans wish he'd done it?

Andy007

Do fans regret that Sean walked away from OHMSS? bearing in mind he wasn't happy with the techno direction the series was taking, and himself being typecast, why not go out with possibly the best story in the novels. One that strips Bond back to basics, sees him married & we know the rest..what a pity Sean didn't see it through and end wity a classic rather than the slightly pathetic Diamonds Are Forever. This isn't intended to discredit Lazenby, who did a fine job fior someone who wasn't an actor and brought a more human side to the character which Connery possibly wouldn't have. But for continuity it has to be seen as an opportunity missed in the series. The film that deserved Connery didn't get him. DAF (the film that deserved none of the Bonds) got Connery!.

Bond44

Funny thing is I would have said yes. But after watching it last week I think it is fine as it is with Lazenby. Of course had he not cocked it up he would have been in the frame for DAF not Connery.

It's a funny old world but I think he (Lazenby) was fine for the role and made it his own as much as he could under the circumstances.

Cheers :007)

Barbel

At the time I really wished Connery had done it, but have mellowed on that over the years.

Thunderpussy

In my opinion Lazenby brought a level of vulnerability,
To Bond. Which I think really helped the story. Which
After YOLT, I don't think Connery would have.

Gassy Man

Connery could have done it. After all, only seven years had passed since his debut, and he still had the acting chops. His complaint was that they weren't using them. I'm pretty sure that had he done it, he would have given his all. It might well have been the greatest Bond film of all.

That said, Lazenby does a terrific job. He could easily have settled into the role as Bond, too, with another film.

Higgins

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43664/ohmss-with-connery-would-have-been-terrible/

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28948/so-how-would-connery-have-done-in-ohmss/

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28292/sean-connery-as-bond-in-ohmss/

Oakvale

Higgins wrote:

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43664/ohmss-with-connery-would-have-been-terrible/

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28948/so-how-would-connery-have-done-in-ohmss/

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28292/sean-connery-as-bond-in-ohmss/

Isn't it generally poor form to grave dig 10 year old threads?

Higgins

The first one is from 2014

Dirty Punker

Oakvale wrote:

Higgins wrote:

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/43664/ohmss-with-connery-would-have-been-terrible/

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28948/so-how-would-connery-have-done-in-ohmss/

https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/28292/sean-connery-as-bond-in-ohmss/

Isn't it generally poor form to grave dig 10 year old threads?

Literally (!)

Thunderpussy

Either way " one of us will end up gravely disappointed "

Number24

I don't think Connery could have played Bond as emotionally vulnerable at that time, so I don't think OHMSS would have been as good starring him.

superado

As I probably said in those other 3 threads dug up by Higgins, I would have loved it! But now, it's more of a curiosity for me. I don't doubt Connery's abilities in pulling off the emotional scenes, but if every other factor of the movie is a given except Connery, the dynamics of the scenes would be different, so much so that it would have been an entirely different movie at the risk of losing many of the good things of the original.

heartbroken_mr_drax

superado wrote:

As I probably said in those other 3 threads dug up by Higgins, I would have loved it! But now, it's more of a curiosity for me. I don't doubt Connery's abilities in pulling off the emotional scenes, but if every other factor of the movie is a given except Connery, the dynamics of the scenes would be different, so much so that it would have been an entirely different movie at the risk of losing many of the good things of the original.

100% agreed. Lazenby IMO makes OHMSS as special as it is.

Revolver66

I would love to see OHMSS with Connery. However, there is the chance he may have walked through it. If he was motivated and his performance was his 62-65 prime level Bond then OHMSS would probably be the best Bond film. I would pay big money to see that movie. There is always the possibility though that if they had of retained Connery the film may have turned out different to what it is now. Perhaps they would have made it more YOLT like. I love YOLT, but OHMSS deserved the adaptation it got. Lazenby is pretty good, and I think he did an admirable job, but prime Connery would have been brilliant. Definitely on my dream Bond film list -{

caractacus potts

by casting an unknown the film focuses directly on what Fleming wrote, rather than the charms of a famous actor

zaphod99

So far each time we get a new actor the bar gets raised from the film before. Not neccessarilly because of the actor, but the whole team raises it's game. It usually results in a raining in of the previous incarnation. As much as I love LTK for many it strayed too far from the established model and was re-set by GE for example.

Revolver66

Is there a thread where we can list and discuss dream/ alternate reality Bond films that we'd like to see?

Thunderpussy

There are a few, a search might turn up some. -{

The Red Kind

I love Lazenby in the role and think he did a great job. As said by caractacus potts having an unknown in the lead helped to focus on the source material.

Also agree with Revolver66 in that Connery may well have walked through it.

Lazenby was fresh, extremely physical and brought vulnerability to the role. The balance of secret agent machismo and panache along with a genuine sense of anxiousness, fear and obviously grief is spot on.

OHMSS with Connery would have still been a good film, I've no doubt about it. But despite Lazenby not being most fans' favourite or even second favourite Bond, the fact OHMSS rates amongst many as the best film in the series, above the likes of FRWL, GF, TSWLM, CR, says it all.

Further, I'll argue that Lazenby in the Prince of Wales check looks as damn fine as any Bond looking their best :007)

ToTheRight

I think Sean would have been great in OHMSS. The shooting schedule, lack of privacy and annoying reporters following him into the bathroom put a damper on his enjoyment with YOLT.
In addition he preferred the Bonds that were more character driven with less hardware, so a Hunt directed OHMSS with the clear intent on following the novel might have tweaked his interest and thus given us a throwback to his earlier performances.
That said, OHMSS did have a difficult shoot in the long run, so I imagine the schedule would have needed tightening for Sean.
I do wonder what type of Bond look he would have had for OHMSS.

caractacus potts

one unkind review I read said "maybe Diana Rigg should have played Bond". Just throwing that out there.
When I first saw the film, I had no idea she was Somebody. Now I'm working my way through her Avengers episodes I'm a big fan, and should probably rewatch OHMSS once I get to the end.
I am aware they expanded the character's part to give her more scenes, I think she even takes a swipe at Blofeld, though nothing compared to the violence she regularly dished out on her own show.
Did they cast her as a insurance measure as sorts, when they realised their new Bond would be an complete unknown?

also... I thought OHMSS was originally intended to be the followup to Thunderball but they were having trouble finding a Piz Gloria type location, that's why they opted to film out of order. If I got that right, too bad they didn't go back to Plan A when they also couldn't find a Japanes seaside castle location, or we would have had a Connery OHMSS

Sterling Archer

Sean can portray emotion..watch The Hill. It would've been the best Bond movie of all time. Well, maybe at least because Casino Royale is special.

Number24

Yes, Connery can portray emotions. But could he portray an emotionally vulnerable Bond in 1969?

zaphod99

Number24 wrote:

Yes, Connery can portray emotions. But could he portray an emotionally vulnerable Bond in 1969?

I think he might, but it would have to be an almost burnt out Bond at the tail end of his career. He could not have matched Lazenby in vim and vigour but Bond getting married might have been more plausible towards the end of his tenure. More ennui than vulnerability perhaps. I love OHMSS as it is and Georgy boy does a great job, but Connery could have been great in a different way.

Number24

We'll never know, but it's facinating to imagine what might have happened.

Gassy Man

Number24 wrote:

Yes, Connery can portray emotions. But could he portray an emotionally vulnerable Bond in 1969?

Sure. Connery's efforts around the same time or just after show he's capable of it -- in fact, the problem for Connery all along is that he wanted to be perceived as an actor more than a movie star. Bond changed all that for him, and even then, he tried to shape the Bond films into more, getting frustrated as he fought with Broccoli and Saltzman about the direction the films were taking. He spent a long time after trying to play against the Bond type.

Watch the clips below to see more of what he was capable of -- and even these clips don't show the full range.

In this one, he's a poet, Samson Shiletoe, sensitive and misunderstood, though also feisty the way artists often are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVkeeX-3e_M

Here he is in the underrated The Molly Maguires, playing a man full of anger but with a just streak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRxOSQX9xC4

The Offence presents Connery in one of his most complex roles -- a violent police officer who may or may not, in fact, be an important pedophile and child murderer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUwwpBMzhT8

Because of his physicality and, perhaps, fairly or unfairly, ethnic background, Connery was often cast in roles where he was violent and quick-tempered. But one can see an effort on his part to be more than that where possible. He just understood -- but never really seemed to accept -- that the roles he would be offered wouldn't offer him complete freedom.

This is why I believe that had he been offered OHMSS, he would have used the role to show that side of his acting ability. That said, it would not have been the same film. If Peter Hunt had directed it, he wouldn't have been so oblique in his presentation of Bond, the way he was with Lazenby in so many scenes. I think they would have adjusted the script to show Bond more burnt out -- closer to Craig in Skyfall., though not that far, as audiences in 1969 still wanted to be entertained by the escapism and not some heavy psychological subtext. Connery may or may not have gotten back into shape, but I do think some element of aging would have been addressed. While Lazenby was in great shape and seemed youthful, Connery's Bond would have been more world weary.

There's a good chance Telly Savalas wouldn't have been cast as Blofeld. I'm not sure the two would have played off of each other well, though I could be wrong. While I would have loved to see Diana Rigg continue in the role, there's the possibility someone else would have been cast opposite Connery, and it might well have been more of a Catherine Deneuve type. All of these elements would have changed the nature of the film. While I think there's a very good chance it would have been the best film of the series -- especially if Terrence Young had returned to direct -- there's also the off-chance it would have misfired if all of the other ingredients weren't there.

ToTheRight

Number24 wrote:

Yes, Connery can portray emotions. But could he portray an emotionally vulnerable Bond in 1969?

I'd say of course he could. No question as far as I'm concerned. I'd even guess he might have gotten himself back into Bondian shape for the ski suits in OHMSS considering there was quite a gap between the end of YOLT and start of filming on Majesty's.

heartbroken_mr_drax

Gassy Man wrote:

Number24 wrote:

Yes, Connery can portray emotions. But could he portray an emotionally vulnerable Bond in 1969?

Sure. Connery's efforts around the same time or just after show he's capable of it -- in fact, the problem for Connery all along is that he wanted to be perceived as an actor more than a movie star. Bond changed all that for him, and even then, he tried to shape the Bond films into more, getting frustrated as he fought with Broccoli and Saltzman about the direction the films were taking. He spent a long time after trying to play against the Bond type.

Watch the clips below to see more of what he was capable of -- and even these clips don't show the full range.

In this one, he's a poet, Samson Shiletoe, sensitive and misunderstood, though also feisty the way artists often are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVkeeX-3e_M

Here he is in the underrated The Molly Maguires, playing a man full of anger but with a just streak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRxOSQX9xC4

The Offence presents Connery in one of his most complex roles -- a violent police officer who may or may not, in fact, be an important pedophile and child murderer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUwwpBMzhT8

Because of his physicality and, perhaps, fairly or unfairly, ethnic background, Connery was often cast in roles where he was violent and quick-tempered. But one can see an effort on his part to be more than that where possible. He just understood -- but never really seemed to accept -- that the roles he would be offered wouldn't offer him complete freedom.

Sorry Gassy Man but I think Connery's acting abilities are overrated. He's got an excellent presence and acts well, but he never for me transcends any role. He's like a Jack Nicholson in the sense that he's very good in his roles but you're very aware you're watching Connery.

Gassy Man wrote:

This is why I believe that had he been offered OHMSS, he would have used the role to show that side of his acting ability. That said, it would not have been the same film. If Peter Hunt had directed it, he wouldn't have been so oblique in his presentation of Bond, the way he was with Lazenby in so many scenes. I think they would have adjusted the script to show Bond more burnt out -- closer to Craig in Skyfall., though not that far, as audiences in 1969 still wanted to be entertained by the escapism and not some heavy psychological subtext. Connery may or may not have gotten back into shape, but I do think some element of aging would have been addressed. While Lazenby was in great shape and seemed youthful, Connery's Bond would have been more world weary.

There's a good chance Telly Savalas wouldn't have been cast as Blofeld. I'm not sure the two would have played off of each other well, though I could be wrong. While I would have loved to see Diana Rigg continue in the role, there's the possibility someone else would have been cast opposite Connery, and it might well have been more of a Catherine Deneuve type. All of these elements would have changed the nature of the film. While I think there's a very good chance it would have been the best film of the series -- especially if Terrence Young had returned to direct -- there's also the off-chance it would have misfired if all of the other ingredients weren't there.

Now I do agree with your points here - and this is why I believe that Connery would not have suited OHMSS. Mostly because he was typecast as a certain type of Bond in the films which preceded it. I just can't see it.

Perhaps if OHMSS came after FRWL and then the final films went into the formulaic direction of GF/TB/YOLT then we may have had an easier transition into another Bond?

Gassy Man

I think that Connery is part of the era in which he appeared -- that is, that actors were not blank slates who created roles but charismatic people who were not expected to disappear as they became the parts they played. It's only more recently that the method approach has been so widely embraced, even by people who don't have the talent to fully exploit it. In this, as with Nicholson, his training and instincts would still be to retain his persona onscreen. I'd actually suggest that Connery is a better actor in this regard than Nicholson, who is always the same persona in everything he does. At least Connery attempts to shift, even if not very far.

But I don't think that makes him any less an actor, and I do think he would have been capable of projecting the proper emotions for the role. Like I said, though, his Bond would have been burnt out. Chances are, they would have stayed with the idea of Bond asking to be taken off of Operation Bedlam rather than M doing it, as the film revised. I think Connery would have given his Bond for the film a darker edge, which initially would have shown up with Tracy but softened over the course of film, as opposed to Lazenby's genial playboy qualities for most of the film. The tone would have been unlike the previous Connery Bonds.

I'm sure there would have been humor, but I don't think it would have been as light as its predecessor and closest, perhaps, to DN or FRWL but really more like non-Bond films in the 70s. It would have marked a more significant turning point for the Connery Bonds than GF was. With a strong visual director and with more input from Connery, he likely would have thrown himself into the role, much as he did the first three or four Bonds.

Napoleon Plural

OHMSS was the first written by Fleming after he's seen the successful casting of Connery, so it's a damn shame Connery didn't play the role. The character in the novel is ageing and ready to settle down, and just as Connery would have been then. Lazenby just looks too young for the role or that storyline I mean.

Of course, it's all hypothetical. Savalas and Rigg were unlikely to be cast to bolster Connery, and Bardot might have been Tracey which could be okay but she's more an icon than an actress, arguably. Others might not have pulled out the stops as they did with a new actor in the role.

Worse, it might have ended the entire series, with Connery's Bond getting happily married, and a reboot of sorts needed for the next one, if Connery hadn't done another.

But yes, rewatching it, I can only imagine how Connery would have made the jokes sing, while with Lazenby they do fall flat. That said, nobody could have told me that Connery returning to the role in 1983 wouldn't have led to an absolutely amazing film...