You are looking past the obvious. Connery was an actor. A very capable actor. He would have adapted his performance to suit the story. Lazenby was a model with no acting experience and even he managed to more or less pull it off. How much better then would a professional and charismatic actor such as Connery be able to do so.
I akin it to Daniel Craig in Casino and Quantum. At the time many people critisized him for not being able to do the character's humour well. However, in Spectre we see him proving those doubters wrong with an excellent grasp of the Bond character's humour. His earlier Bonds were more serious, sober outings, so it called for a more serious portrayal. With a return to the older style of humour in Spectre, Craig brought the necessary wit and laconic manner the role now required. He adapted his portrayal because the story called for it. He was able to do so because he is a talented actor. Connery was also a talented actor and I have no doubt he would have done the same had the story called for it.
You are looking past the obvious. Connery was an actor. A very capable actor. He would have adapted his performance to suit the story. Lazenby was a model with no acting experience and even he managed to more or less pull it off. How much better then would a professional and charismatic actor such as Connery be able to do so.
I akin it to Daniel Craig in Casino and Quantum. At the time many people critisized him for not being able to do the character's humour well. However, in Spectre we see him proving those doubters wrong with an excellent grasp of the Bond character's humour. His earlier Bonds were more serious, sober outings, so it called for a more serious portrayal. With a return to the older style of humour in Spectre, Craig brought the necessary wit and laconic manner the role now required. He adapted his portrayal because the story called for it. He was able to do so because he is a talented actor. Connery was also a talented actor and I have no doubt he would have done the same had the story called for it.
I agree that Connery is a talented actor. My point has nothing to do with that however. It's not so much about his skills as an actor, but rather the character itself. He imbued his Bond with a certain persona, a persona that I just can't see falling in love. It would be utterly bizarre to watch and would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I don't want to see Connery's Bond as vulnerable, romantic or humanized, that's not the appeal of his particular portrayal. Even if Connery did a good job with such a role, it would be laughable and not in line with the characterization. His version had already been in 5 movies and his style was set in stone at that point. It would be like expecting Craig to act like Roger Moore in his next film because the script called for it, just because he could do it doesn't mean he should. It's a blessing that OHMSS had Lazenby and not Connery.
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.
The ladies at the allergy unit (or whatever you would call it) were actively going after Lazenby. It was really comical. They played it as if they were some kind of "male gaze" sex starved robots.
Keep in mind that the ladies had been locked up for a long time with few other males than Blofeld on that mountaintop.
I remember my year in the military, long before female conscription, how desperate we were for female contact. "A ladies bike will cause a crowd to form here" we often said.
The ladies at the allergy unit (or whatever you would call it) were actively going after Lazenby. It was really comical. They played it as if they were some kind of "male gaze" sex starved robots.
Happens to me all the time ) ) )
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You are looking past the obvious. Connery was an actor. A very capable actor. He would have adapted his performance to suit the story. Lazenby was a model with no acting experience and even he managed to more or less pull it off. How much better then would a professional and charismatic actor such as Connery be able to do so.
I akin it to Daniel Craig in Casino and Quantum. At the time many people critisized him for not being able to do the character's humour well. However, in Spectre we see him proving those doubters wrong with an excellent grasp of the Bond character's humour. His earlier Bonds were more serious, sober outings, so it called for a more serious portrayal. With a return to the older style of humour in Spectre, Craig brought the necessary wit and laconic manner the role now required. He adapted his portrayal because the story called for it. He was able to do so because he is a talented actor. Connery was also a talented actor and I have no doubt he would have done the same had the story called for it.
I agree that Connery is a talented actor. My point has nothing to do with that however. It's not so much about his skills as an actor, but rather the character itself. He imbued his Bond with a certain persona, a persona that I just can't see falling in love. It would be utterly bizarre to watch and would leave a bad taste in my mouth.
I don't want to see Connery's Bond as vulnerable, romantic or humanized, that's not the appeal of his particular portrayal. Even if Connery did a good job with such a role, it would be laughable and not in line with the characterization. His version had already been in 5 movies and his style was set in stone at that point. It would be like expecting Craig to act like Roger Moore in his next film because the script called for it, just because he could do it doesn't mean he should. It's a blessing that OHMSS had Lazenby and not Connery.
He did imbue his character with a certain persona, and he starred in 5 films, hence why it would have been far more poignant to see his character fall in love. Furthermore, the character of Bond in OHMSS is not one of a fragile, smitten man. He is still very much a flippant playboy who beds other women, which is very much Connery's Bond. As for the romance, there really is only 2 or 3 moments of tenderness that Bond displays. They are relatively brief moments that aren't incredibly demanding. Nor does the character do a total about face, as Bond is still very much Bond and consistent with the rest of the 60s films.
Anyways, we're obviously not going to convince each other, so agree to disagree I guess ) ) For the record, OHMSS is still a great film
I always felt (as problematic as it sounds) he met someone "worthy" of his love and he showed it as much as he could. So not very much but far more than the others. And by golly is that not what everybody wants? To be more worthy than the rest?
I know playboys like Connery's Bond can fall in love when they meet a certain person, so from that perspective I don't have a problem with it. Like that person who finally meets the right one at 55, and nobody (not even he) expected it would happen. My problems are more with Connery as an actor. Just because I would believe it for his character, I don't think he could have done it as an actor.
You are looking past the obvious. Connery was an actor. A very capable actor. He would have adapted his performance to suit the story. Lazenby was a model with no acting experience and even he managed to more or less pull it off. How much better then would a professional and charismatic actor such as Connery be able to do so.
IMO it would only be acceptable for him to do so (by audiences) if he did OHMSS following FRWL. After we were delivered his lighter portrayals in GF, TB and YOLT a different performance in OHMSS would come across as odd.
I wish that OHMSS (in the style it is) was done following FRWL - then we might've had a far more serious series - and a much happier, longer tenure from Connery.
You are looking past the obvious. Connery was an actor. A very capable actor. He would have adapted his performance to suit the story. Lazenby was a model with no acting experience and even he managed to more or less pull it off. How much better then would a professional and charismatic actor such as Connery be able to do so.
IMO it would only be acceptable for him to do so (by audiences) if he did OHMSS following FRWL. After we were delivered his lighter portrayals in GF, TB and YOLT a different performance in OHMSS would come across as odd.
I wish that OHMSS (in the style it is) was done following FRWL - then we might've had a far more serious series - and a much happier, longer tenure from Connery.
You would also probably have a less popular Bond franchise. Goldfinger is what started Bondmania in the 60s in earnest.
Hmm again I disagree. Spectre featured a lighter turn from Craig after the seriousness of his earlier films. If the next Bond film reverts to Craig once again in a serious role would anyone have trouble buying it? I don't think so. Same with Connery
When I got into Bond in 2009, i considered this the worst of the series. Oh how I've grown.
Pros:
.Lazenby had potential. He was poorly dubbed at times. Great during fight scenes.
.My favorite score of the series.
.Lazenby's introduction.
.BIO warfare is pretty frightening. Blofeld is one bad mofo.
.Peter Hunt does a great job.
.The cinematography is breathtaking. Give me this over SF.
.The entire cast.
.The ski sequences.
.The fight scenes.
.Feels like the spiritual successor to FRWL.
.One of the more suspensful films.
.The end scene.
Cons:
.Some bad dubbing.
.I really wish they kept the rooftop London chase. There are stills of it so it was at least partially filmed.
I think that Connery as Bond in Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been the perfect film. To those saying that he wouldn't be able to pull it off are crazy. In a 1967 interview* he said that he had lost interest to Bond because there was no emotional depth, no payoff for the character. Her Majesty's Secret Service would've been exactly what he was looking for.
Even if I love You Only Live Twice as a film, it's no match for his earlier more Fleming based movies like From Russia With Love.
I think Connery only just got away with YOLT in terms of his physical condition and of course he looked well past it (my personal opinion) in DAF. As OHMSS is sandwiched inbetween which Connery would we have got???
I think he would have been well past it to be honest and glad he didnt. I actually wish Lazenby had done DAF
Fair point, but he looked alright in Shalako, which was what he filmed instead of OHMSS.
Shame it was the first novel Fleming wrote having seen Connery as Bond, and the most cinematic of the ones he wrote with Connery in mind. Yet it's the first Connery did not appear in.
But his absence was probably best for the series' overall longevity, the way things turned out.
I think that Connery as Bond in Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been the perfect film. To those saying that he wouldn't be able to pull it off are crazy. In a 1967 interview* he said that he had lost interest to Bond because there was no emotional depth, no payoff for the character. Her Majesty's Secret Service would've been exactly what he was looking for.
Even if I love You Only Live Twice as a film, it's no match for his earlier more Fleming based movies like From Russia With Love.
Lazenby was ill-adviced, I doubt he would've done it. Moore would also be unlikely as I think that the producers first asked Connery and didn't look for a new Bond that much to come to the conclusion that Moore was it.
Lazenby was ill-adviced, I doubt he would've done it. Moore would also be unlikely as I think that the producers first asked Connery and didn't look for a new Bond that much to come to the conclusion that Moore was it.
Didn't Lazenby hurt his arm. I think that and the fact that the movie was already long were the reasons it was cut.
Lazenby was ill-adviced, I doubt he would've done it. Moore would also be unlikely as I think that the producers first asked Connery and didn't look for a new Bond that much to come to the conclusion that Moore was it.
Didn't Lazenby hurt his arm. I think that and the fact that the movie was already long were the reasons it was cut.
Shame. It would be interesting to see in a future film/video game.
The film was very long as it was, so that got cut. But also, it was felt that it didn't make sense to have Blofeld already being suspicious of Bond at that time if later he was to invite him along to Piz Gloria and - initially at least - assume he really was Sir Hilly.
I really don't know how to express my sincere change of opinions after watching the film this time. Lets just say that my opinion of it has gone down. I am continuing my Bond marathon of all 24 films and I don't think I'd be expressing as big a change of an opinion as I do with this. It's sad, because I can only find three flaws with the film, two of them being huge.
Pro's:
* George Lazenby does a good job in most of his scenes
* John Barry's score - one of the best in the series until the 80's
* The action scenes following Bond's escape from Piz Gloria - pretty much every scene is just fantastic
* The love romance between Bond and Tracey
* Fight scenes are awesome, something I don't think we saw earlier - I heard this was John Glen's editing
* Some of the best locations of the series - Portugal and Switzerland
* The final scene (Not going to give away any spoilers)
* Some of the best performances from Bond's MI6 members - 'M', 'Moneypenny', 'Q'
* Draco's performance and presence
* Tally Savalas' performance
Cons:
* The Sir Hillary Bray segment of the film - wooden acting from George Lazenby
* Ruby Bartlett - One of the worst girls I think I've ever seen in James Bond
* Blofeld not recognising Bond and continuing the trend from previous SPECTRE appearances. They filmed the books out of order? So what, change it.
* Blofeld's plot this time around - I still don't get it
So overall, it is still a great Bond film and I still love it. Just not quite as much due to the glaring plot holes.
* Some of the best performances from Bond's MI6 members - 'M', 'Moneypenny', 'Q'
Agreed, I also thought that these characters really seemed to support Lazenby as Bond.
Yes. The regulars accept Lazenby as Bond, which helps us accept him as Bond. If they treated him as an unwelcome newcomer, I don't think we would have accepted him at all. But the three act more comfortable around Lazenby and Moore than they do with Connery (well, Lois Maxwell is great with Connery too in the earlier films).
I don't mind George Lazenby too much as James Bond, I just didn't like him trying to be Sir Hillary. As I said earlier, my main issue with OHMSS is the plot hole regarding Ernst Starvro Blofeld
OHMSS can be in my top 5 and bottom 5 really, it is the best of Bonds and the worst of Bonds as Dickens might say. It's best to go into it without any Great Expectations...
Our Mutual Friend, must have been in a Bleak House or suffered some Hard Times, to get
Himself in an Oliver Twist, Over the Old Curiosity (Shop) that is OHMSS
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
I akin it to Daniel Craig in Casino and Quantum. At the time many people critisized him for not being able to do the character's humour well. However, in Spectre we see him proving those doubters wrong with an excellent grasp of the Bond character's humour. His earlier Bonds were more serious, sober outings, so it called for a more serious portrayal. With a return to the older style of humour in Spectre, Craig brought the necessary wit and laconic manner the role now required. He adapted his portrayal because the story called for it. He was able to do so because he is a talented actor. Connery was also a talented actor and I have no doubt he would have done the same had the story called for it.
Like the way he adapted his accent to the part he is playing? :v
https://youtu.be/SXcNBDCNzaY
I don't want to see Connery's Bond as vulnerable, romantic or humanized, that's not the appeal of his particular portrayal. Even if Connery did a good job with such a role, it would be laughable and not in line with the characterization. His version had already been in 5 movies and his style was set in stone at that point. It would be like expecting Craig to act like Roger Moore in his next film because the script called for it, just because he could do it doesn't mean he should. It's a blessing that OHMSS had Lazenby and not Connery.
Bond: Pierce Brosnan Villain: Hugo Drax Girl: Pam Bouvier
The ladies at the allergy unit (or whatever you would call it) were actively going after Lazenby. It was really comical. They played it as if they were some kind of "male gaze" sex starved robots.
I remember my year in the military, long before female conscription, how desperate we were for female contact. "A ladies bike will cause a crowd to form here" we often said.
Happens to me all the time
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
He did imbue his character with a certain persona, and he starred in 5 films, hence why it would have been far more poignant to see his character fall in love. Furthermore, the character of Bond in OHMSS is not one of a fragile, smitten man. He is still very much a flippant playboy who beds other women, which is very much Connery's Bond. As for the romance, there really is only 2 or 3 moments of tenderness that Bond displays. They are relatively brief moments that aren't incredibly demanding. Nor does the character do a total about face, as Bond is still very much Bond and consistent with the rest of the 60s films.
Anyways, we're obviously not going to convince each other, so agree to disagree I guess
IMO it would only be acceptable for him to do so (by audiences) if he did OHMSS following FRWL. After we were delivered his lighter portrayals in GF, TB and YOLT a different performance in OHMSS would come across as odd.
I wish that OHMSS (in the style it is) was done following FRWL - then we might've had a far more serious series - and a much happier, longer tenure from Connery.
"Better make that two."
You would also probably have a less popular Bond franchise. Goldfinger is what started Bondmania in the 60s in earnest.
Pros:
.Lazenby had potential. He was poorly dubbed at times. Great during fight scenes.
.My favorite score of the series.
.Lazenby's introduction.
.BIO warfare is pretty frightening. Blofeld is one bad mofo.
.Peter Hunt does a great job.
.The cinematography is breathtaking. Give me this over SF.
.The entire cast.
.The ski sequences.
.The fight scenes.
.Feels like the spiritual successor to FRWL.
.One of the more suspensful films.
.The end scene.
Cons:
.Some bad dubbing.
.I really wish they kept the rooftop London chase. There are stills of it so it was at least partially filmed.
10/10 -{ A masterpiece.
Even if I love You Only Live Twice as a film, it's no match for his earlier more Fleming based movies like From Russia With Love.
*The interview in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZzbIIQ2OH4
Remington, check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tr8pWfXi3s
I think he would have been well past it to be honest and glad he didnt. I actually wish Lazenby had done DAF
Shame it was the first novel Fleming wrote having seen Connery as Bond, and the most cinematic of the ones he wrote with Connery in mind. Yet it's the first Connery did not appear in.
But his absence was probably best for the series' overall longevity, the way things turned out.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
As it turns out, part of it was filmed. Lazenby was ill-adviced, I doubt he would've done it. Moore would also be unlikely as I think that the producers first asked Connery and didn't look for a new Bond that much to come to the conclusion that Moore was it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Pro's:
* George Lazenby does a good job in most of his scenes
* John Barry's score - one of the best in the series until the 80's
* The action scenes following Bond's escape from Piz Gloria - pretty much every scene is just fantastic
* The love romance between Bond and Tracey
* Fight scenes are awesome, something I don't think we saw earlier - I heard this was John Glen's editing
* Some of the best locations of the series - Portugal and Switzerland
* The final scene (Not going to give away any spoilers)
* Some of the best performances from Bond's MI6 members - 'M', 'Moneypenny', 'Q'
* Draco's performance and presence
* Tally Savalas' performance
Cons:
* The Sir Hillary Bray segment of the film - wooden acting from George Lazenby
* Ruby Bartlett - One of the worst girls I think I've ever seen in James Bond
* Blofeld not recognising Bond and continuing the trend from previous SPECTRE appearances. They filmed the books out of order? So what, change it.
* Blofeld's plot this time around - I still don't get it
So overall, it is still a great Bond film and I still love it. Just not quite as much due to the glaring plot holes.
8/10
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
Agreed, I also thought that these characters really seemed to support Lazenby as Bond.
"Better make that two."
Yes. The regulars accept Lazenby as Bond, which helps us accept him as Bond. If they treated him as an unwelcome newcomer, I don't think we would have accepted him at all. But the three act more comfortable around Lazenby and Moore than they do with Connery (well, Lois Maxwell is great with Connery too in the earlier films).
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Craig 5. Lazenby 6. Brosnan
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Himself in an Oliver Twist, Over the Old Curiosity (Shop) that is OHMSS