OHMSS = Shambles
TheScashMan
Posts: 111MI6 Agent
OHMSS should have been one of the greatest Bond films ever made. Perhaps even THE greatest. The story was perfect as the character of Bond finally develops into something more than a ''ladies man''. Here, Bond gets married (this alone is groundbreaking and takes a real turn for the character), but then tragedy strikes. And even before the event, the setting in Piz Gloria with a strong storyline involving Blofeld (now in hiding) provided the perfect setting for Bond.
However, let's look at what went wrong:
1) OHMSS took place far too early. In the books, it is placed 3/4 through the series (a wise move for character development, given the nature of the story). Yet in the film, it takes place barely before the franchise has begun.
2) The casting. Connery had already played Bond, but, once he left, Lazenby was brought in. Note to Eon (and idiot ''fans'' who still don't get it): you do NOT introduce a NEW character when the story arc takes a significant turn! To do so dismisses ALL previous work and is an INSULT to the franchise and Fleming's reputation as the holder of the finest series of books of all time.
3) Poor acting. The performances were lukewarm at best (apart from Telly who was criminally underused), and aside from some semi decent scenery shots, there wasn't any real entertainment value. Lazenby's wooden acting in the final scene was abysmal, and he looked decidedly bored (when he should have been either broken-down or anger-fuelled!)
In conclusion, it can safely be said that OHMSS was a complete waste of time and should be re-made (with a still youthful looking Moore) with immediate effect. There can be no room for debate as far as I am concerned. No room at all.
However, let's look at what went wrong:
1) OHMSS took place far too early. In the books, it is placed 3/4 through the series (a wise move for character development, given the nature of the story). Yet in the film, it takes place barely before the franchise has begun.
2) The casting. Connery had already played Bond, but, once he left, Lazenby was brought in. Note to Eon (and idiot ''fans'' who still don't get it): you do NOT introduce a NEW character when the story arc takes a significant turn! To do so dismisses ALL previous work and is an INSULT to the franchise and Fleming's reputation as the holder of the finest series of books of all time.
3) Poor acting. The performances were lukewarm at best (apart from Telly who was criminally underused), and aside from some semi decent scenery shots, there wasn't any real entertainment value. Lazenby's wooden acting in the final scene was abysmal, and he looked decidedly bored (when he should have been either broken-down or anger-fuelled!)
In conclusion, it can safely be said that OHMSS was a complete waste of time and should be re-made (with a still youthful looking Moore) with immediate effect. There can be no room for debate as far as I am concerned. No room at all.
Comments
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Pretty harsh criticism of OHMSS and George. I can't agree with your appraisal since I believe the film is one of the finest in the series.
However, you are right about EON's mishandling of a new actor with the most dramatic episode in Bond's life. Connery SHOULD have been in OHMSS. BUT... what we have is an exhilrating action film with, arguably, the most graceful Bond to ever reach the screen.
And that's more than enough for me.
"Guns make me nervous."
I rank OHMSS as one of the best. Yes, it would be better to use a more experiences actor, both in the franchise and in the acting profession in general. But I still enjoy the movie emensly.
I have never thought of Moore in OHMSS and the idea is a horrible one
Isn't the critizism against Lazenby that he wasn't a good enough actor? Moore simply isn't a drama actor and the end scene would have been to difficult for him.
Interestingly enough this post has attracted major OHMSS fans, and I am one of them. I think the storyline was solid, following the fine book closely. Furthermore, I reckon that EON made a good move by re-creating the series with a new and gripping story, the only shame was that it was not picked up very well in DAF or LALD. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that there were new actors every five seconds with the Bond series in those times. However, let's move through your post point-by-point:
1) A non-comparison really. The books and the films are two totally different animals. If you really want to take up this line of argument then you need to do it with a lot of the films - Dr. No, You Only Live Twice (particularly since this was a reaction piece to OHMSS). Even some of the Moore films are out of place (and many of them not even resembling Fleming books). IMO it really doesn't do well to compare the scope and sequence of the series to the scope and sequence of the books. Even Fleming didn't. He was more than welcome to allow Cubby and Brocolli to produce Dr. No first, even though it wasn't the first book and didn't develop the character like Fleming did in the novels. OHMSS was placed well in the film series, for the simple reason that it re-created the character at a time that Bond needed to be re-created (post Connery, who was Bond)
2) This point may be the most valid of your argument. However, what could they do? They had to introduce a new Bond actor, Connery simply was not coming back (scratch that, at least he wasn't coming back for the moment). The other part of your argument is that even with a new actor they should not have used that storyline. Well said, but even still it was pulled off well enough that Bond continued and a large majority of Bond fans enjoy OHMSS. So to EON's demographic, it didn't matter that they introduced a new actor at a crucial point in the story arc - they broke with convention, but scored anyways.
3) Read OHMSS the book. Bond is neither broken-down or anger-fuelled when he discovers that Tracy was shot. He is shell shocked. Lazenby portrays anger when he first sees that Blofeld fired the salvos. However, his anger quickly turns to disbelief upon seeing his love laid out dead before him. One of the first steps of grief is denial. You may see boredom, I see shock. On the rest of his acting, Lazenby did a fine job and IMO laid the groundwork for the humor that Moore injected later on. Lazenby's swagger like humor was better than Connery's and was a fine pre-requisite for Moore's lambasting in later films.
Finally, DO NOT RE-MAKE OHMSS and DEFINITELY NOT with Moore at the present time. You make the point in number 2 that casting is a major part of the film. Your finest point (although still comparably weak). Moore does not fit the bill for Fleming's Bond in OHMSS and it would make no sense that a young woman of Tracy's age would want to cuddle up to Moore, who although looking fine for his age, has liver spots and sags that betray his geriatric reality. With that said, if he didn't work for her majesty's secret service, but instead her majesty's treasury...then, and only then might a young woman want to sack an old man.
Rubbish! Moore proved he could take a dramatic turn in his underrated performance in Octopussy!
OHMSS occurred towards the end of Flemings books and the film series should have respected that and followed suit. OHMSS should have been filmed in the 1980s and NOT in 1969. It was far too early, as explained in my OP.
And Lazenby was a wooden actor, period. His so called acting in the finale was embarressing and didn't display any real emotion whatsoever.
Eh ? I don't get it ?
Oh right....
Can I just ask..?...which NEW character was introduced ?
http://apbateman.com
Lazenby was introduced for OHMSS. I explained this already!
Explain YOUR views then!
No you did not !!!
You clearly state that a NEW CHARACTER is introduced...NOT a new actor...please keep up !
So...WHICH NEW CHARACTER is introduced ? Or did you get it wrong again ?
I said: The casting. Connery had already played Bond, but, once he left, Lazenby was brought in. <-- note that Lazenby IS the actor who played Bond in OHMSS.
I get the feeling you are deliberately trying to rile me and I am shocked and appalled
Nope...you CLEARLY state a NEW CHARACTER is introduced....please re-read your OP for confirmation of this.
No I'm not...I'm merely trying to assertain this NEW CHARACTER to which you refer...I'm shocked and appalled that you dodge the question !
I was using the shorthand for ''character actor'' 8-) Lazenby was sub standard as a leading man and should never have been given the important role of Bond in the first place!
This would be the shorthand that only you know about ?
Sorry - your explanation is hogwash - I'm shocked and appalled !
"Cringeworthy." - The White Knight B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
for short hand to be used, it must be common knowledge. which is why Loeffs has brilliantly compiled AJB's for all to see/use. please be clear in future posts.
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Why not trawl back through the archives. You'll see plenty of views on OHMSS in there, and you won't have to talk to anyone...
http://apbateman.com
Cop out
no. they just don't want to talk to you.
mountainburdphotography.wordpress.com
Frogwash! If they didn't want to talk to me then why even jump all over my thread?
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And did I ask him NOT to speak? No! I did the opposite!
I shouldn't be, but I am, disappointed that you didn't actually approach any of my points like I did with yours. You have mighty strong opinions ScashMan, but unfortunately all you have to back them up is vain repetition.
Ah, Rick Roberts is back!
http://apbateman.com