46 replies to this topic

[Dr.Mirakle32]

Connery had a classic era; Moore definitely had a solid era; Timothy Dalton's era was short-lived; Brosnan's era lasted a little longer; Craig is nearly in the middle of his.

If Connery never came back for DAF, OHMSS and Lazenby would have been the shortest era in the Bond dynasty. But Connery's return and the relative obsurity of OHMSS to very casual fans might have taken that away.

Do think poor George really has one, or is OHMSS just a strong footnote within the the history of the Connery era?

[jaguar007]

Unfortunately I never hear "The Lazenby era". I think more people think of him as a footnote or trivia question as the one shot Bond between Connery and Moore.

[zencat]

Nah. One film does not an era make.

[jaguar007]

Nah. One film does not an era make.

Thanks for your input Yoda.

[zencat]

LOL.

(I watched six hours of Clone Wars at a friend's house yesterday.)

[Loomis]

Dude, there ain't no wrong to right - OHMSS is a superb Bond film, indeed one of the very best.

And there's already been "a remake involving Daniel Craig". It's called CASINO ROYALE and was released in 2006. Its (Fleming's) YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is, of course, QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Unless, of course, you're actually proposing that Bond should get married in BOND 23 and lose his new bride just before the closing credits, with BOND 24 being a Bond-out-for-revenge flick. In which case, you're nuts.

[HildebrandRarity]

To the thread starter -

Do you notice that this section of the forums has a single year in the parentheses beside Lazenby...1969. One year does not make an era.

Nor does one movie.

Also, if you'll note, the gunbarrel in OHMSS is the only one of the 22 in which the pouring blood wipes out any image or silhouette of Lazenby as it washes over him and the iris.

Eon, right there, were symbolically wiping out any remaining memory of the Aussie actor in post-production...by which time the knuckle head numbskull was no longer in the role.

Fancy that, eh? A Bond actor who wasn't even around when the film screened to dissapointed audiences who, first, wondered where James Bond was and, second, were left shocked at the huge downer of the ending.

So much for an "era".

LOL!

Here's some more thoughts from 'another' thread:

...yes, the flaws of OHMSS have been covered in great depth for many years by many Bond fans and writers, including Harmsway, who has pointed out his problems with it.

In Harms' defense, I can tell you that he'll be the first to agree that OHMSS is flawed, not that he needs my defense.

Thanks, gentlemen. I believe I've commented on the flaws of all the Bond films at one point or another. None of 'em are perfect in my book.

I actually wouldn't mind a link to Harms' OHMSS's flaws piece.

It wasn't a piece, but there have been a number of conversations I've had regarding the numerous flaws I feel ON HER MAJESTY SECRET SERVICE has. I do think it's one of the best Bond flicks, but it's got a lot of warts. The highlights:

• A Bond actor who's rather wooden, despite a few good moments.
• A Bond villain who's ultimately somewhat forgettable.
• A rather terrible sense of humor in places. "He had lots of guts!"
• Editing that is sometimes less than stellar, to put it politely.
• A villain's plot that ranks among the silliest of all Bond storylines (moreso in execution than in concept).
• An underdeveloped relationship between Bond and his future wife, further undermined by Bond's IN LIKE FLINT-esque shagathon in Piz Gloria.
• An overabundance of action in the final sections, and some drawn-out sections towards the beginning. In other words, the film's overlong.
• A quiet, tragic ending that's bizarrely concluded with a swingin' 60's version of the Bond theme.

I think i'm going to have to start a thread called "Reevaluating O.H.M.S.S. in Light of The Craig Era"...unless someone beats me to the punch.

For such a serious movie, OHMSS starts of with a ludicrous "in" joke: This Never Happened To The Other Fella.

Defenders, such as doublenoughtspy, argue that Blofeld not recognizing Bond is not a flaw because Peter Hunt disregards YOLT (the previous movie in which Bond is caught out by Blofeld in his volcano rocket base) and think OHMSS is more a one off.

Yet, we get that final PTS line from Lazenby referencing the "other" fellow who played Bond before visuals from YOLT flow through the hour glass during the Main Titles. Further, Bond tells M that "Sir, Blofeld is a must with me" to which M retorts "you've had two years" to track him down. Why, may I ask, would Blofeld be a "must" for Bond if YOLT was disregarded and Thunderball was viewed by Hunt as preceeding OHMSS. Bond went up against Largo in Thunderball and had no idea who Blofeld was.

So how to reconcile such a glaring flaw?

Then there are lines and lines of dialoge where Bond says something but Lazenby's lips dont move or his head and back is turned. Note how he says "Royal Beluga, north of the Caspian" off screen precisely one second after he's had a big mouthful of caviar on toast. How does one speak so clearly when one has stuffed their face with bread and fish eggs only milli seconds earlier. I could go on and on about the horrible dialogue attribution errors.

And what about the stock car race thing? What was that for? To bore us to death (after we've already been bored to death with a trip to Sir Hillary Bray, Baronet's office at the Royal College of Arms)?

Harmsway is totally correct about the horrible pacing and editing in OHMSS.

I think OHMSS is just a totally over-rated Bond film whose shortcomings become appearent as soon as two more "realistic" Bond films come along with an outstanding actor leading the way, namely Q0S and CR.

I digressed.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

And there's already been "a remake involving Daniel Craig". It's called CASINO ROYALE and was released in 2006. Its (Fleming's) YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is, of course, QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Casino Royale (2006) is not a remake, because is the first cinematographic adaptation of the story from the Ian Fleming's novel of the same name.

[Loomis]

I meant that CASINO ROYALE is a remake (in a way) of OHMSS, not a remake of the 1967 CR.

And QUANTUM OF SOLACE is to CASINO ROYALE as Fleming's YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE is to his OHMSS.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

I'm not even sure I can answer that...all I know is that OHMSS is a top 4 Bond movie for me...so that's good enough.

[The Richmond Spy]

His film fits in with the Connery era...which is too good to include DAF and NSNA, so must refer to this Con/Laz combination as "60s Bond Films." DAF and NSNA are collectively known as .

Halfway kidding there.

[jaguar007]

His film fits in with the Connery era...which is too good to include DAF and NSNA, so must refer to this Con/Laz combination as "60s Bond Films." DAF and NSNA are collectively known as .

Halfway kidding there.

I agree. DAF clearly belongs in the Moore era.

[sharpshooter]

Nah. One film does not an era make.

Agreed. Though the film is tremendous and more than holds its own in the series.

[Dr.Mirakle32]

I just think it's funny that my dad is a longtime Bond fan who saw many of the films from the 70's and 80's in theaters, and frequently used to rent the earlier films on VHS before passing the interest on to me, had no idea of OHMSS or George Lazenby's existance until I pointed them out to him, and showed him the DVD.

[DR76]

Connery had a classic era; Moore definitely had a solid era; Timothy Dalton's era was short-lived; Brosnan's era lasted a little longer; Craig is nearly in the middle of his.

What? Connery had a classic era? Since when? As far as I'm concerned, the eras of the different actors are based upon the years their films were released, not whether they were "classic" or "solid".

I meant that CASINO ROYALE is a remake (in a way) of OHMSS, not a remake of the 1967 CR.

The only thing CR and OHMSS have in common is that Bond falls in love in both movies . . . and both women end up dead at the end of the story.

[Safari Suit]

I think within the scope of popular culture, an era can certainly occur within the frame of a single year. But I don't think a single film constitutes an era in the context of a twenty plus film series.

Connery had a classic era; Moore definitely had a solid era; Timothy Dalton's era was short-lived; Brosnan's era lasted a little longer; Craig is nearly in the middle of his.

What? Connery had a classic era? Since when? As far as I'm concerned, the eras of the different actors are based upon the years their films were released, not whether they were "classic" or "solid".

Do you have to get quite so offended everytime someone casually praises Connery?

[HildebrandRarity]

I just think it's funny that my dad is a longtime Bond fan who saw many of the films from the 70's and 80's in theaters, and frequently used to rent the earlier films on VHS before passing the interest on to me, had no idea of OHMSS or George Lazenby's existance until I pointed them out to him, and showed him the DVD.

He is not that different to the rest of our parents. Mine took me to see a re-release of YOLT at a drive in late in 1971. It was a kinda 'Connery is back' re-release. They used to do that in those days.

Then they took me to see Diamonds Are Forever during release.

I remember these movies eventhough I was 4 years and a few months old.

I'm told that they were very dissapointed with the 1969 Bond film.

I think they would have been served well if Moore had been Bond from 1968 to 1979 and then Dalton (who was talked about as far back as 1968 but was too young) taking over at FYEO for the entire duration of the 1980s.

Moore was one handsome fella back then, a ladies man. Alas he was involved with The Saint/The Persuaders so that's life.

Anyway...back on topic. There is no Lazenby 'era'. It's just him involved between late 1968 through to late 1969 and that's it.

[HildebrandRarity]

Um, I don't know.

I'm ready for him to start shagging a couple of girls per movie just for funzies.

No attachments for a while.

Him getting tied down after having gone through what he does over CR-Q0S just doesn't seem right.

What was CR-Q0S for if not to learn to become dispassionate again about the fairer sex (which is part of becoming a complete 00, i.e. minimize any possibility of being black-mailed.)

[O.H.M.S.S.]

This site states it very clear to me:

CBn Forums > Film Eras > George Lazenby (1969)

[Mister E]

He really didn't have an era.

[Publius]

His only Bond film feels more like the end of an era, specifically the classics of the 60s. Even though DAF saw the return of Connery, it feels more like the first chapter in Guy Hamilton's three act interregnum.

TSWLM was the birth of the "Cubby as Godfather" era, with the two Dalton films feeling like such a reboot from what came immediately before that they also stand alone as an era, although one which was aborted in favor of another quasi-reboot, this time with Brosnan as Bond. And then there's the ongoing Craig era. So I would say...

1962-1969: Classic Bond, defined by Connery and emulated by Lazenby
1971-1974: Bond goes camp trying to stay relevant
1977-1985: Flippant Bond, defined by Moore
1987-1994: Serious Bond, defined by Dalton
1995-2002: Flippant Bond returns, with sporadic attempts at channeling Serious Bond
2006-present: Serious Bond returns

[sharpshooter]

His only Bond film feels more like the end of an era, specifically the classics of the 60s. Even though DAF saw the return of Connery, it feels more like the first chapter in Guy Hamilton's three act interregnum.

Yes, I think so too.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

His only Bond film feels more like the end of an era, specifically the classics of the 60s.

Yes, I think so too.

Agreed, the end of an era indeed.

[Mr. Blofeld]

His only Bond film feels more like the end of an era, specifically the classics of the 60s.

Yes, I think so too.

Agreed, the end of an era indeed.

YOLT is not a classic; it's a terrible movie.

[doublenoughtspy]

OHMSS is unlike the film that preceded it or the film that followed it.

Filmed in 68 and 69 - and released in very late (Dec 18) 69 - it made most of its money in 1970.

Lazenby even made a few promotional appearances as Bond in 1970.

So while it doesn't equal the other actors output - there were 3 years where he was associated with the role.

Era may not be semantically correct - but there most definitely was the Lazenby period.

Thank god

[Mister E]

YOLT is not a classic; it's a terrible movie.

I agree. It was actually a bit too silly at times. How could Osato's men miss hitting Bond from behind? They were using machine guns and had a straight, unobscured shot.

The acting was atrocious, and the so-called "lead Bond Girl" comes into the movie with just 40 minutes left and has about 2 or 3 lines.

I agree as well. Other then the stunning visuals, the film sucks.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

YOLT is not a classic; it's a terrible movie.

I agree. It was actually a bit too silly at times. How could Osato's men miss hitting Bond from behind? They were using machine guns and had a straight, unobscured shot.

The acting was atrocious, and the so-called "lead Bond Girl" comes into the movie with just 40 minutes left and has about 2 or 3 lines.

I agree as well. Other then the stunning visuals, the film sucks.

YOLT is the probably the worst film of the sixties, it is silly but it is still a good film surely? It has a much more 'modern' feel to it than its predecessor (although that is not to denigrate TB at all).
Still think OHMSS is the end an era. Suppose I am thinking really of the departures of Peter Hunt and Terence Young who made an awesome impact to the sixties bonds. Didn't help matters either that the SFX in DAF were the worst in the series.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 02 December 2008 - 05:43 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Nah. One film does not an era make.

Yep. But it's a damn fine movie. My second or third favorite, depending on my mood. The best Christmas movie ever too.

[dogmanstar]

It may be an era just because it signals a departure from what came immediately before and after. Had OHMSS followed Thunderball, maybe there would be no Lazenby era. But since it follows YOLT (a very diff. film than the first 4) and preceeds DAF, I would say, "Yeah, why not?"

[Safari Suit]

OHMSS is unlike the film that preceded it or the film that followed it.

True, but it is not entirely unlike (without being exactly the same as) the first four Connery pictures, and DAF and YOLT are not particularly similar. They are probably the two silliest Bond films up to that point, but they go different ways about being silly.