59 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

The planet made OHMSS the worst of the Bonds at the box office...until LTK came along 20 years later.

You think the audience today would be happy with that type of ending to a Bond movie today?

Ask those that highly rate CASINO ROYALE. I don't remember that ending being quite the "Oh James" slow boat to Pinewood moment.

No, but the film didn't end with Vesper's death.

Read my above post where a fade to black and then the passage of a season or a different location with Bond hunting down at least Bunt, at least, (the way Mr White was hunted down) would have been more satifying and successful. You dispute the fact that OHMSS had the worst box office of Bonds upto 1989?

ROYALE did end with VESPER's death - tonally, narratively and dramatically. The intent Craig has to reek revenge is still there with Lazenby looking into the distance.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Instead of the film fading to the end titles with Bond grieving over Vesper's dead body there are two important scenes right after which elevate the ideas of 'faith' and 'hope' in CR. One is some degree of solace from M's lecture about Vesper doing a deal to save Bond and the other is Bond hunting down Mr White. Bond "looking into the distance" is OHMSS's equivalent?

LOL! It's a rather weak equivalent, that's even if you decide to read something like that into the milliseconds during which he looks into the distance.

Look, if you're trying to convince me that OHMSS is as good as the two Daniel Craig Bonds, save your bullets, my dear Zorin.

My last bullet will indeed make the claim that ROYALE, SOLACE and OHMSS are all cut from the same cloth....but we have agreed to disagree. No worries....

[Daddy Bond]

The planet made OHMSS the worst of the Bonds at the box office...until LTK came along 20 years later.

You think the audience today would be happy with that type of ending to a Bond movie today?

Ask those that highly rate CASINO ROYALE. I don't remember that ending being quite the "Oh James" slow boat to Pinewood moment.

No, but the film didn't end with Vesper's death.

Read my above post where a fade to black and then the passage of a season or a different location with Bond hunting down at least Bunt, at least, (the way Mr White was hunted down) would have been more satifying and successful. You dispute the fact that OHMSS had the worst box office of Bonds upto 1989?

ROYALE did end with VESPER's death - tonally, narratively and dramatically. The intent Craig has to reek revenge is still there with Lazenby looking into the distance.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Instead of the film fading to the end titles with Bond grieving over Vesper's dead body there are two important scenes right after which elevate the ideas of 'faith' and 'hope' in CR. One is some degree of solace from M's lecture about Vesper doing a deal to save Bond and the other is Bond hunting down Mr White. Bond "looking into the distance" is OHMSS's equivalent?

LOL! It's a rather weak equivalent, that's even if you decide to read something like that into the milliseconds during which he looks into the distance.

Look, if you're trying to convince me that OHMSS is as good as the two Daniel Craig Bonds, save your bullets, my dear Zorin.

My last bullet will indeed make the claim that ROYALE, SOLACE and OHMSS are all cut from the same cloth....but we have agreed to disagree. No worries....

I'll admit OHMSS is an excellent Bond film, I just don't enjoy watching it as much as many of the other Bond films. I don't know why, but I find it less entertaining, and I know that is just personal opinion. I am willing to acknowledge the quality of OHMSS while having to admit that much of it just doesn't work as well for me. Perhaps it will grow more on me over time. I already like it quite a bit more than I used to.

[doublenoughtspy]

Look, if you're trying to convince me that OHMSS is as good as the two Daniel Craig Bonds, save your bullets, my dear Zorin.

I think the bullets would be wasted anyway.

Most of your major arguments against OHMSS - Bond playing the field at Piz Gloria, and the downbeat ending, come from the novel.

At some point I suppose, you'll say that they should have tossed the novel all together. I concur with you that the producers could have done a number of things that might have made more commercial sense - but they chose to be brave and didn't.

If you are so obsessed with box office then I guess we'll just have to go by this list: http://www.boxoffice...d=jamesbond.htm and concur that all of Connery's, Lazenby's, and Dalton's work is vastly inferior to Moonraker.

Sure there are some editing issues with OHMSS with the timer and some of the dialog coming offscreen - but the same thing happens with the timer in Goldfinger, showing 007 but Connery referring to 3 more ticks, and Thunderball has a few lines off screen - like the lines about the shark that vary depending on which version you are watching.

Do those two films, then, by your measure, "suck"?

[Safari Suit]

Most of your major arguments against OHMSS - Bond playing the field at Piz Gloria, and the downbeat ending, come from the novel.

That these elements come from the novel does not mean they cannot be flaws surely? For that line of argument to work we have to accept the notion that the novel is flawless.

[HildebrandRarity]

Look, if you're trying to convince me that OHMSS is as good as the two Daniel Craig Bonds, save your bullets, my dear Zorin.

I think the bullets would be wasted anyway.

Most of your major arguments against OHMSS - Bond playing the field at Piz Gloria, and the downbeat ending, come from the novel.

At some point I suppose, you'll say that they should have tossed the novel all together. I concur with you that the producers could have done a number of things that might have made more commercial sense - but they chose to be brave and didn't.

...

Sure there are some editing issues with OHMSS with the timer and some of the dialog coming offscreen - but the same thing happens with the timer in Goldfinger, showing 007 but Connery referring to 3 more ticks, and Thunderball has a few lines off screen - like the lines about the shark that vary depending on which version you are watching.

Do those two films, then, by your measure, "suck"?

Where did I say OHMSS "sucks"? In almost every 'poll' around here I have had it anywhere from #5 to #7 out of 22/23. Number 5, 6 or 7 is not a bad number, you know.

In Thunderball, Connery's performance as Bond is virtually flawless and the movie's 'tone' is relatively consistent throughout...the added lines in post are not nearly as 'jarring' as in OHMSS. I actually think Thunderball is a Top 3 Bond film.

In OHMSS the added one-liners are on another plane and they are numerous. They're not incorporated 'well' into the movie. Not great editing especially given Hunt's background. In addition, the tone goes from one of a party to the utter extinguishment of hope...This element is something which doesn't help movies do well at the box office, whether they're based on a novel or not.

As per box office, i'm merely pointing out a fact about OHMSS.

Perhaps it's box office would have been greater if the movie had ended with another final scene? A gradual fade out to black of what we got which then segues to another location or season in the year where Bond has tracked down Bunt, for example.

Perhaps CR would not have done as well as it did if the movie ended with Bond merely hovering over and then hold Vesper's dead body.

You speak of OHMSS being based on the movie...well, CR the book didn't have Mr White getting knee-capped and the movie was 'better' for it, in my opinion.

Just because a book has a certain story line doesn't mean that the movie adaptation having the same story line makes for the most 'satisfying' outcome. CR (among some other Bond adaptations) changed things for the better, for example.

[doublenoughtspy]

That these elements come from the novel does not mean they cannot be flaws surely? For that line of argument to work we have to accept the notion that the novel is flawless.

Why bother to license the novel and character at all from the Fleming estate then if nothing is worthy of being filmed?

[doublenoughtspy]

Perhaps it's box office would have been greater if the movie had ended with another final scene? A gradual fade out to black of what we got which then segues to another location or season in the year where Bond has tracked down Bunt, for example.

Perhaps CR would not have done as well as it did if the movie ended with Bond merely hovering over and then hold Vesper's dead body.

You speak of OHMSS being based on the movie...well, CR the book didn't have Mr White getting knee-capped and the movie was 'better' for it, in my opinion.

Just because a book has a certain story line doesn't mean that the movie adaptation having the same story line makes for the most 'satisfying' outcome. CR (among some other Bond adaptations) changed things for the better, for example.

Satisfying for whom?

I'm a Fleming purist - as was Peter Hunt - I want to see filmed what he wrote.

And yes I agree with you, put Connery in it, shorten the length of the film to get in more showings, give it a happy ending - all factors that would have caused the film to make more money.

But I NEVER confuse a film's artistic merits with its box office success.

[HildebrandRarity]

I'm a Fleming purist - as was Peter Hunt - I want to see filmed what he wrote.

Shame Hunt put in one-liner after one-liner (without Bond's lips even moving (a sin in itself)) that Fleming never wrote...and just for gags too.

Shame, too, that the tone of the movie is also a bit different than the tone of the novel.

Shame how Fleming had no idea what skiing near an avalance really is all about...for tens of people die in avalances in my country every year.

For all of Fleming's purity, i'm glad we ended up with the versions of DN, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, TSWLM, TLD and CR that we did get...because the novels/stories are weaker than their respective films.

[Safari Suit]

That these elements come from the novel does not mean they cannot be flaws surely? For that line of argument to work we have to accept the notion that the novel is flawless.

Why bother to license the novel and character at all from the Fleming estate then if nothing is worthy of being filmed?

That question seems to me to be almost completely unrelated to what I said. I have never said nothing from the Fleming estate is worth filming; that I am registered at this website should be proof enough that I do not think that. But I equally have never said Fleming's work is flawless. My point is that just because what someone percieves as a flaw in OHMSS came from the novel from which it was adapted does not mean it is not a flaw, it is likely "they" (in this case a certain Mr. Rarity) would find it to be a flaw on the page as well.

[doublenoughtspy]

it is likely "they" (in this case a certain Mr. Rarity) would find it to be a flaw on the page as well.

I wish that were the case.

Mr. Rarity unfortunately acts like it was purely a strange decision on the film makers part.

My cries of "it's in the book" always seem to fall on deaf ears.

Is everything Fleming wrote pure gold? Of course not.

But complaining when a Bond film sticks to Fleming is quite bizarre.

I mean - it's like someone who hates martinis, nice clothing, good cars, beautiful women, exotic locations and nasty villains went to a Bond film and said "Man, that was awful."

If you dislike the source material then gee, I'm guessing you won't like the film. But don't blame the film makers.

[dee-bee-five]

Look, if you're trying to convince me that OHMSS is as good as the two Daniel Craig Bonds, save your bullets, my dear Zorin.

I think the bullets would be wasted anyway.

Most of your major arguments against OHMSS - Bond playing the field at Piz Gloria, and the downbeat ending, come from the novel.

At some point I suppose, you'll say that they should have tossed the novel all together. I concur with you that the producers could have done a number of things that might have made more commercial sense - but they chose to be brave and didn't.

If you are so obsessed with box office then I guess we'll just have to go by this list: http://www.boxoffice...d=jamesbond.htm and concur that all of Connery's, Lazenby's, and Dalton's work is vastly inferior to Moonraker.

Sure there are some editing issues with OHMSS with the timer and some of the dialog coming offscreen - but the same thing happens with the timer in Goldfinger, showing 007 but Connery referring to 3 more ticks, and Thunderball has a few lines off screen - like the lines about the shark that vary depending on which version you are watching.

Do those two films, then, by your measure, "suck"?

You had me all the way until you asked if Thunderbore "sucks". While not "sucking" (what a curious expression that is), it is by far the least of the Eon Bonds for me, but there we are.

But I'm with Zorin on this; I, too, firmly believe OHMSS, CR and Quantum are cut from the same, finer, cloth than the rest.

For all of Fleming's purity, i'm glad we ended up with the versions of DN, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, TSWLM, TLD and CR that we did get...because the novels/stories are weaker than their respective films.

Not so. They are different media, that is all. Whether one prefers the novel of, say, Dr. No to the film, or vice versa, is purely subjective.

[HildebrandRarity]

But I'm with Zorin on this; I, too, firmly believe OHMSS, CR and Quantum are cut from the same, finer, cloth than the rest.

For all of Fleming's purity, i'm glad we ended up with the versions of DN, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, TSWLM, TLD and CR that we did get...because the novels/stories are weaker than their respective films.

Not so. They are different media, that is all. Whether one prefers the novel of, say, Dr. No to the film, or vice versa, is purely subjective.

The three may be from the same cloth but let me suggest that the tailoring is slightly off with Hunt digressing from Fleming by making the movie like a Playboy comedy...until the jarring, downer ending at which point Hunt and Fleming find the same congruency.

As per Dr No...yes, i'd rather Dr No drown in the nuclear reactor than a pile of bird . Call me crazy.

[dee-bee-five]

In OHMSS the added one-liners are on another plane and they are numerous. They're not incorporated 'well' into the movie. Not great editing especially given Hunt's background. In addition, the tone goes from one of a party to the utter extinguishment of hope...This element is something which doesn't help movies do well at the box office, whether they're based on a novel or not.

I find this paragraph odd because you and I agree so much on Quantum of Solace and given that Marc Forster directs like Peter Hunt on acid, I fail to understand how you can wax lyrical about one and diss the other. As for the ending, I simply cannot agree: OHMSS and QoS have the two best - by far - endings of the series in my view.

The three may be from the same cloth but let me suggest that the tailoring is slightly off with Hunt digressing from Fleming by making the movie like a Playboy comedy...until the jarring, downer ending at which point Hunt and Fleming find the same congruency.

Where? Where is there any hint of a Playboy comedy (whatever that might be) in OHMSS? Pray tell us 'cos I must have watched that movie more than a 100 times over the last 40 years and have never noticed it thus far.

[HildebrandRarity]

In OHMSS the added one-liners are on another plane and they are numerous. They're not incorporated 'well' into the movie. Not great editing especially given Hunt's background. In addition, the tone goes from one of a party to the utter extinguishment of hope...This element is something which doesn't help movies do well at the box office, whether they're based on a novel or not.

I find this paragraph odd because you and I agree so much on Quantum of Solace and given that Marc Forster directs like Peter Hunt on acid, I fail to understand how you can wax lyrical about one and diss the other. As for the ending, I simply cannot agree: OHMSS and QoS have the two best - by far - endings of the series in my view.

The three may be from the same cloth but let me suggest that the tailoring is slightly off with Hunt digressing from Fleming by making the movie like a Playboy comedy...until the jarring, downer ending at which point Hunt and Fleming find the same congruency.

Where? Where is there any hint of a Playboy comedy (whatever that might be) in OHMSS? Pray tell us 'cos I must have watched that movie more than a 100 times over the last 40 years and have never noticed it thus far.

Read my other posts in this thread. Forster does not make the same dialogue/edit mistakes as Hunt.

Also, i'm at work right now so I don't have All The Time In The World to list the Hugh Hefnerish shenanegans/dialogue ("I have a slight stiffness coming on") that Bond engages in with the girls at Piz Gloria.

[Safari Suit]

My cries of "it's in the book" always seem to fall on deaf ears.

Is everything Fleming wrote pure gold? Of course not.

But complaining when a Bond film sticks to Fleming is quite bizarre.

I would agree with that actually. I only say that the material itself it is fair game for criticism as, the motives behind adapting it are obvious and hard to fault. I myself have no big problems with OHMSS, by the way.

[dee-bee-five]

In OHMSS the added one-liners are on another plane and they are numerous. They're not incorporated 'well' into the movie. Not great editing especially given Hunt's background. In addition, the tone goes from one of a party to the utter extinguishment of hope...This element is something which doesn't help movies do well at the box office, whether they're based on a novel or not.

I find this paragraph odd because you and I agree so much on Quantum of Solace and given that Marc Forster directs like Peter Hunt on acid, I fail to understand how you can wax lyrical about one and diss the other. As for the ending, I simply cannot agree: OHMSS and QoS have the two best - by far - endings of the series in my view.

The three may be from the same cloth but let me suggest that the tailoring is slightly off with Hunt digressing from Fleming by making the movie like a Playboy comedy...until the jarring, downer ending at which point Hunt and Fleming find the same congruency.

Where? Where is there any hint of a Playboy comedy (whatever that might be) in OHMSS? Pray tell us 'cos I must have watched that movie more than a 100 times over the last 40 years and have never noticed it thus far.

I don't have All The Time In The World to list the Hugh Hefnerish shenanegans/dialogue ("I have a slight stiffness coming on") that Bond engages in with the girls at Piz Gloria.

Oh, please HR, damn the film with that and you damn all the films, including the Craigs. How, pray tell, is that scene any different - allowing for changing social mores - than Bond coming on to agent Fields? Besides, I happen to find the stiffness line very funny.

[Major Tallon]

OHMSS generally follows the plot of the novel, but not slavishly so. Sometimes (the stock car race, the second ski chase) that doesn't work for me, but sometimes (the three-helicopter assault) I count it as a solid improvement on Fleming.

I do, however, think that Fleming wrote excellent novels, and I think that the films are at their best when they adhere to his thematic and narrative structure. OHMSS is one of the strongest films in the franchise precisely because it adheres so closely to the plot of one of Fleming's best books.

As for the suggestion that Bond should have concluded the film by roaring off in purusuit of Blofeld, this would have eroded the wrenching conclusion to the film. Bond didn't pursue Blofeld because he was totally gutted by Tracy's death. That was the entire point of the film's conclusion. Nothing mattered to Bond, nothing, except the magnitude of his tragic loss. That was the point of Bond's final speech: he was unable to come to grips with what had happened. There would be a day for revenge, but not at that moment of heartbreak. To tamper with that scene by tacking on a car chase and revenge-taking would have drained the film's emotional impact away to nothingness. Bond would have found tragedy and closure in five minutes and been ready for the next jolly adventure. OHMSS would have been left mortally wounded.

Oh, and by the way, my friends back in 1969 really liked OHMSS.

[Revelator]

By editing I mean the numerous instances where lines of dialogue for Lazenby were added in post production and where we don't see his lips move or his his head has just turned.

Again, these complaints--like all of their previous counterparts--are weak and sometimes even inaccurate. The baluga line is delivered while Bond is walking away from the camera with his back to us--Hunt consciously framed the scene that way; it's not "bad editing" (which is when you can't tell what's going on). "Mystery Tour" has no problems--we see his lips move and his head's facing us. Nor do the other lines leave the viewer with any mood of obfuscation. And seriously, who else besides yourself has ever complained about such a nothing of an issue? Is this what your critique has come down to?

Well, Bond sitting there with his dead wife and not going after her killers is unsatisfactory film-making.

I think you mean "unsatisfactory story-telling" and if so you are still, in my view, way off track.

There could have been one scene after...after a fade to black from the ending we got...and Bond could have been seen as being in a different location/season getting his revenge with at least Bunt.

Why? Why ruin a good ending? For what? So the poor widdle audience doesn't go away feeling all sad? Oh the poor things! Let's patronize them by making the good guys win! Sad endings are bad filmmaking!
You want to treat the audience as it was as fragile as a kitten, desperate for closure and reassurance. Balls to that. Sometimes a happy ending is just a piece of false reassurance. I would be insulted had the film given me the equivalent of a pat on the head and said "There, there, Bond was sad for a while but then he caught that nasty old villain! Yay!"

In addition, the tone goes from one of a party to the utter extinguishment of hope...This element is something which doesn't help movies do well at the box office, whether they're based on a novel or not.

So now you're punishing the movie for daring to having more tonal variety than any of the other Bond pictures, as if this was a crime?
And this box office obsession is malarkey. Do you think CR would have been a hit if it had been released in 1969, rather than an abhorred flop? The success of a movie depends on the context of the time of its release. Sometimes a movie doesn't fit in with its times and it doesn't do well on release. But then later generations discover aspects that the original audience either missed or didn't want to see and the movie is acclaimed. So screw box office--after all, even Citizen Kane was a flop.

Perhaps CR would not have done as well as it did if the movie ended with Bond merely hovering over and then hold Vesper's dead body.

Why is it so disturbing for you that Bond doesn't get revenge immediately after being hurt? Why this desire for instant retaliation? That's not how things always work, either in drama or life.

Just because a book has a certain story line doesn't mean that the movie adaptation having the same story line makes for the most 'satisfying' outcome. CR (among some other Bond adaptations) changed things for the better, for example.

The first sentence is true. The second is very arguable. I would say that CR changed plenty of things for the worse; witness its the broken-backed structure, interminable poker game, a torture scene much lighter in tone than the original, and a ridiculously over-the-top falling house climax. Lest we get drawn into a fruitless debate about CR, let me say that I merely criticize the film to point out that it's arguable that a change from the original is necessarily for the better.

Shame Hunt put in one-liner after one-liner... that Fleming never wrote...and just for gags too.

The one-liners in OHMSS don't arrive one after the other. And the movie would have been worse without them. One-liners work because they vary the tone--they prevent the tone from becoming monotonous. "He's got guts" lets the audience switch gears from an otherwise gruesome and horrifying scene 9and beyond that, it's great black humor). The best one-liners in all of the Bond movies help vary the tone, to keep the picture moving when a particularly outrageous or violent bit might stop it cold. OHMSS doesn't need to be heavy, serious drama--the lighter bits throw the darker ones into relief and vice versa. They would have only been inappropriate had they been thrown into scenes that didn't need them--say the proposal scene, or wedding or Tracy's death.

Shame, too, that the tone of the movie is also a bit different than the tone of the novel.

Which would be nothing new. Practically every movie version of Fleming has a lighter tone than its source novel. Fleming wanted the Bond films to be as tense and grim as Wages of Fear. Instead they were more like North By Northwest. What really seems to bother you is when a film decides to actually vary its tone.

For all of Fleming's purity, i'm glad we ended up with the versions of DN, FRWL, Goldfinger, Thunderball, TSWLM, TLD and CR that we did get...because the novels/stories are weaker than their respective films.

Doubtful. DN is blander than its source; TB is longer, needlesslyto bloated and has much less interesting characters than the novel; CR softened much of what made the novel memorable in the first place; and TSWLM is so utterly different in genre from its source that a comparison isn't helpful. TLD works better in its original form. FRWL is about even with its source. The only movies that to me really outperform their Fleming originals are GF and OHMSS.

The ending of OHMSS is meant to be a downer and sad. The entire movie has revolved around a central question: can Bond reconcile the personal and professional aspects of his life? Can he be happily married and still be the 007 we all know and love? The answer is a tragic NO. The failure of Bond to reconcile the warring aspects of his life is heightened and accentuated by the fact that Blofeld gets away and Bond is left a shattered wreck. The ending is not supposed to give you comfort and reassurance. It's meant to make you realize that in order for Bond to be the Bond we know and love he can't be married, he can't settle down and find happiness. Tracy not only dies because of Blofeld--she dies because of what the audience wants out of Bond. Throwing in a revenge scene would distract the audience from the implications of the ending. OHMSS is about how James Bond decided to break out of what a Bond movie is typically meant to be, and how he was thwarted. The audience is meant to walk away disturbed--we agonize over Tracy's death and yet need her dead in order for the Bond films to continue. Split between these warring, irreconcilable desires, we too feel the sadness of the ending and walk away shattered. Any additional scenes would just be a pathetic, false, and insensitive attempt to pretend that this is business as usual, and it isn't. It can't be in a movie that shows how Bond and Tracy were trapped by the demands of the genre and crushed.

Edited by Revelator, 11 February 2009 - 04:44 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

By editing I mean the numerous instances where lines of dialogue for Lazenby were added in post production and where we don't see his lips move or his his head has just turned.

Again, these complaints--like all of their previous counterparts--are weak and sometimes even inaccurate. The baluga line is delivered while Bond is walking away from the camera with his back to us....

...with a heaping mouthful of toast and caviar at that exact second. If that was done in real time, he'd barely be able to speak or he'd be spewing out what he just put in his mouth. Go watch the scene again.

Shame Hunt put in one-liner after one-liner... that Fleming never wrote...and just for gags too.

The one-liners in OHMSS don't arrive one after the other. And the movie would have been worse without them. One-liners work because they vary the tone--they prevent the tone from becoming monotonous. "He's got guts" lets the audience switch gears from an otherwise gruesome and horrifying scene 9and beyond that, it's great black humor).

A double blind! That quote you responded to was in answer to our dear doublenoughtspy who said he was a Fleming "purist" and wanted to see filmed what was written...and I suggested that the gag one-liners weren't written by Fleming at all. So you not only missed the point but actually helped to suggest to dear doublenoughtspy that being "pure" to Fleming doesn't necessessarily work or optimize a Bond movie.

You can't take my quote out of context and then slam it.

Shame, too, that the tone of the movie is also a bit different than the tone of the novel.

Which would be nothing new. Practically every movie version of Fleming has a lighter tone than its source novel. Fleming wanted the Bond films to be as tense and grim as Wages of Fear. Instead they were more like North By Northwest. What really seems to bother you is when a film decides to actually vary its tone.

See above. Same thing. What you quoted was written in respose to doublenought who wanted purity...

You're actually arguing my case in a rather pervese way.

I suggest you go back to my original post to understand it's context.

Look, some say OHMSS is 'cut from the same fine cloth' as CR and QOS...That the three of them are similar. But I guarantee you that if Forster had put in 4 or 5 or 6 added one-liners into Q0S in post...lines similar to "he had lots of guts" or "gate-crasher...i'll leave you to clean up" or "perhaps you should have been gift-wrapped" or "he's branched off" or other ones i've mentioned, then Q0S would be panned for these editing gaffs and groaners.

[HildebrandRarity]

And seriously, who else besides yourself has ever complained about such a nothing of an issue? Is this what your critique has come down to?

...but Revelator, these editing/dialogue issues are not the only problems with OHMSS.

Go through the thread from the top (see post #2, page 1 in this thread). But I imagine you won't.

In addition, i've continued to maintain that OHMSS is in my top 6 or 7 out of 22/23 and it's an 8 or 8.5 out of 10. These personal rankings hardly put me in a situation where I think the movie "sucks", as our friend doublenoughtspy would suggest of me.

Have a nice evening.

[dodge]

One of the many flaws in OHMSS is that it tries to play it both ways: It wants to be linked to the Sean Connery OO7 films but then fails to account for why Blofeld doesn't notice him. It's very irritating, especially when it breaks the fourth wall, not once but twice (as noted by your post).

It's very irritating for you, but luckily your tastes aren't those of everybody else. OHMSS quite simply asks the viewer to forget that YOLT ever happened (it's not an accident that every other Bond film gets directly referenced but that one [outside of the credits anyway]). Lazenby doesn't "break the fourth wall," which would consist of directly addressing the viewer. He makes a remark to himself while striding roughly in the direction of the camera. The better word to describe the remark is metatextual, and it's a neat way of winking at the audience and admitting that things will be slightly different, while at the same time reinforcing the continuity of the series. And from my experience, audiences appreciate this gesture quite a bit. It also helps that the line comes at the end of an intense scene rather than the middle of it, and it helps lead into a credits sequence that helps remind viewers of the continuity to the older entries in the series.

Where it's not as good are in elements such as weak acting by the lead, weak editing and the failure of the team to really deliver on the love story given his Playboy shenanigans up at Piz Gloria.

None of these are convincing as flaws. Lazenby came through in the most important dramatic moments of the picture, the editing is perhaps the strongest and most razor-sharp of any in the Bond pictures, and Bond's shenanigans are in character: they would have been far less permissible if he had been engaged to Tracy at that point, but he wasn't.

A handful of OHMSS apologists on these boards won't make the film's several 'issues' disappear and make the film go from #6/7 to #1.

And one nitpicker can't obscure the fact that OHMSS's critical reputation has been rising for several decades thanks precisely to those "apologists", who deserve a round of thanks. The film's several issues don't need to disappear for those who view them as either minor blemishes or even assets.

If OHMSS came out today as is, audiences would want their money back because Bond just sits there as Blofeld and Bunt blow his wife away into oblivion.

I think you might want your eyeballs back, because what you describe has little relation to the actual film. Bond wasn't sitting there as Tracy got shot--he was outside the car when the gunshots struck, and right afterward rushed back into the car only to see that his wife was dead, and, quite understandably he couldn't summon the strength to go chase him. Not even the most depraved audience would expect Bond to pitch his just-murdered wife out of the car and drive off after Blofeld.

Critics would pan Lazenby's acting too.

Did it ever occur to you that critics at the time panned Lazenby because they would have pretty much panned any actor who came right after Connery? The reason why so many critics and audience members nowadays like Lazenby's performance is because they're not resentful of anyone who isn't the original actor and are used to more than one interpretation of Bond.

Well said. And don't forget: Hell hath no fury like a Bond fan scorned. Laz's walking away from the role that most actors would've died, or killed, for had quite a lot to do, I think, with the backlash that followed. Today's critics and viewers can put this in perspective: a free spirit doing his thing back then can be seen as groovy. I give the film and Laz a ten.

[HildebrandRarity]

Critics would pan Lazenby's acting too.

Did it ever occur to you that critics at the time panned Lazenby because they would have pretty much panned any actor who came right after Connery? The reason why so many critics and audience members nowadays like Lazenby's performance is because they're not resentful of anyone who isn't the original actor and are used to more than one interpretation of Bond.

Today's critics and viewers can put this in perspective: a free spirit doing his thing back then can be seen as groovy.

So you fine gentlemen (and ladies) think that GL's wooden performance during parts of the film (not the whole film, mind you) would go un-panned today?

It always seems to come down to "Ah, but for a chocolate bar sales model he does do a good job with the death scene"...or "Well, he 'moves' really well"...or "He's not too shabby for a first timer". There always seems to be degrees of GL in OHMSS being a 'good actor', never an absolute and total verdict of has acting ability being 'good'. Which is fine, of course. Imagine, however, DC's acting being of the same calibre (i.e. lower) as GL's for Casino Royale? There would've been crucifictions and/or roastings at the stake!

And I don't buy the idea that the critics would have panned any actor after Connery. Fans may be, but not the critics, at least not the objective and professional ones. Similarly, did it ever occur to you, my dear Revelator, that perhaps GL's acting in OHMSS was relatively 'weak' and that, as a result, some of the objective criticisms were possibly 'justified'?

[David Schofield]

I'm sorry, but how many on who post on here who are not students of Stanislavsky or Strasberg can honestly say they can tell Lazenby is a first picture novice from his performance?

There is obvious nuance to Lazenby's work that belies his inexperience.

[Loomis]

OHMSS rules. So does Lazenby. It is a tragedy that he did not make any other Bond films.

As far as I'm concerned, that is the end of the matter.

[Safari Suit]

When she was 12 my mum entered a competition to meet George Lazenby on the set of his "next" Bond movie. Don't think she won.

[Revelator]

...with a heaping mouthful of toast and caviar at that exact second. If that was done in real time, he'd barely be able to speak or he'd be spewing out what he just put in his mouth. Go watch the scene again.

It's called talking with your mouth full, and that's exactly what it sounds like. Don't tell me you've never heard that before.

A double blind! That quote you responded to was in answer to our dear doublenoughtspy who said he was a Fleming "purist" and wanted to see filmed what was written...and I suggested that the gag one-liners weren't written by Fleming at all. So you not only missed the point but actually helped to suggest to dear doublenoughtspy that being "pure" to Fleming doesn't necessessarily work or optimize a Bond movie.

Your logic has become too tortuous to stand. I have said already that both OHMSS and GF are improvements on Fleming. Being pure to Fleming sometimes means being truer to the spirit of his work than the letter, in the case of OHMSS, rather than the latter, in the arguable case of CR. I defended the one-liners to defend them from you.

You can't take my quote out of context and then slam it.

Which is what you have done with mine. Such subterfuge my dear fellow...

But I guarantee you that if Forster had put in 4 or 5 or 6 added one-liners into Q0S in post...lines similar to "he had lots of guts"...Q0S would be panned for these editing gaffs and groaners[/u].

Actually it would have probably received better reviews. There's nothing wrong with little bits of humor that allow the audience to switch gears and modulate the tone of the movie. We're not talking about the incessant corny puns that plagued the Brosnan years, but with dry, understated and often black humor. 4 or 5 lines spread across a two hour movie hardly makes it a comedy.

...but Revelator, these editing/dialogue issues are not the only problems with OHMSS.

And if there were bigger ones you would have been harping on those, but instead you are resting your case on quibbles. I have responded at length to your posts. It would help to acknowledge my points before demanding that I do so for yours.

So you fine gentlemen (and ladies) think that GL's wooden performance during parts of the film (not the whole film, mind you) would go un-panned today?...Imagine, however, DC's acting being of the same calibre (i.e. lower) as GL's for Casino Royale? There would've been crucifictions and/or roastings at the stake!

Had this really been true than both Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan, whose performances were on the whole no better than Lazenby's, would be roasting on the stake or dying on the cross. They're not because both actors were already familiar to the general public, which was accustomed to their limitations. And it needs to be said that Bond is not Shakespeare. You do not have to be a master thespian to master the part. Daniel Craig is not a Gielgud or Olivier: he was a fine character actor who happened to have the right qualities for the part--physical heft, an intense screen presence, the ability to look good in a tuxedo, and the ability to say a throwaway line with nonchalance. Lazneby was obviously not as good of an actor as Connery or Craig, but he had these qualities and had the misfortune to come along at a time when movie poster proclaimed "Sean Connery IS James Bond." If you cannot understand how identified Connery was with the role in the mind of the public, the you are not going to understand how dangerous it was for anyone besides Connery, especially an unknown, to have stepped into what so many people considered to be another man's shoes and to face that level of popular resentment.

And I don't buy the idea that the critics would have panned any actor after Connery. Fans may be, but not the critics, at least not the objective and professional ones.

Of which there are very few, and of those few several actually praised Lazenby, including those of the Village Voice and Evening Standard. Maybe you should go back to the actual reviews before pretending there was a fantasy world where everyone hated Lazenby. And since when are you now so concerned with a minority of critics, after having carped at OHMSS for not being a blockbuster?

Similarly, did it ever occur to you, my dear Revelator, that perhaps GL's acting in OHMSS was relatively 'weak' and that, as a result, some of the objective criticisms were possibly 'justified'?

What objective criticism? The only objective criticism I've heard has been from the critics who insisted throughout the decades that Lazenby's performance was hardly as bad as so many people's thoughtless dismissals had indicated. Objective criticism doesn't consist of saying somebody is wooden. It depends on indicating concrete examples and evidence to support its charges and points. I have yet to read a dismissal of Lazenby that actually made a detailed argument instead of relying on generalizations. Your case certainly depends on the latter and on a set of reactions that seems intent on punishing the film for its best qualities: its tonal variety, its uncompromising ending, and its unconventional production values.

Edited by Revelator, 13 February 2009 - 05:27 AM.

[Harmsway]

It's called talking with your mouth full, and that's exactly what it sounds like.

Maybe, but Bond talking to himself with his mouth full is just pretty silly to begin with. Nor is the line really worth having. Bond eating his caviar in silence would have been much more effective.

There's nothing wrong with little bits of humor that allow the audience to switch gears and modulate the tone of the movie.

Sure, but lines like "He had lots of guts!" are just awful.

[Double-Oh Agent]

There's nothing wrong with little bits of humor that allow the audience to switch gears and modulate the tone of the movie.

Sure, but lines like "He had lots of guts!" are just awful.

Hey, I like that line.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

There's nothing wrong with little bits of humor that allow the audience to switch gears and modulate the tone of the movie.

Sure, but lines like "He had lots of guts!" are just awful.

Written out it doesn't sound like Shakespeare, but I bet it got a chuckle in the cinema.

[RJJB]

The line is fine. Unfortunately, the delivery is awful.