32 replies to this topic

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I read Lazenby was considered for NSNA, before Connery became available. Does anybody know if there's any truth to this?

I can't help thinking I'd enjoy the movie a lot more with him in the role, simply because I regret not having had the chance to see him play the part more than once. He looked more fit than Connery at the time too.

[jaguar007]

I have never heard that and it is doubtful. The whole idea of NSNA was returning Sean Connery to the role. It turned out to be the evolution of Warhead in the 70s where Connery was serving as an executive producer.

[dogmanstar]

Yeah, I kind of have to doubt that Lazenby would have been considered either because Connery and McClory were working on NSNA and its predessor ideas for a loooooooong time. It was as much Connery's baby as anyone's.

[Tybre]

I doubt it, which is a bit of a pity. Would've been, at the very least, interesting to see Lazenby in the Thunderball remake.

[RazorBlade]

I doubt it, which is a bit of a pity. Would've been, at the very least, interesting to see Lazenby in the Thunderball remake.

I agree. I agree with Tybree, its too bad Laz didn't do more Bond movies. This could have been interesting.

[Blofeld's Cat]

If The Laz was in Never Say Never Again it certainly would not have been called that, which would have been a good thing as I've never really liked the title, regardless of the history behind it.

[David Schofield]

If The Laz was in Never Say Never Again it certainly would not have been called that, which would have been a good thing as I've never really liked the title, regardless of the history behind it.

Indeed.

HAD Laz done that film it would have had to be called "See, James Bond in not a dated 60s anachronism" or "Sean Connery wasn't the ONLY James Bond, after all".

[Royal Dalton]

Never Say This Never Happened To The Other Fella Again.

[Safari Suit]

This Did Happen to the Other Fella

[Shaun Forever]

This Did Happen to the Other Fella

Superb!

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Never Say This Never Happened To The Other Fella Again.

Now that's an interesting title.

I had forgotten all about the script Connery reportedly helped develop with McClory (due to the fact that it included mechanical sharks in the sewers of New York, or something to that effect, it might have been on purpose), so I take it the Laz-rumour is just misinformation. It's an interesting thought, nevertheless. He wouldn't be known as the "one-off", which must be painful for him (it's almost painful for me, I really, really wish he'd done another movie).

[jaguar007]

Don't forget that the same year (1983) Lazenby did return as James Bond (although only named "JB") driving a silver Aston Martin DB5 in "The Return of the Man from Uncle"

So in 1983 all three big screen Bond's reprised their roles.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Yeah, I've seen that clip. Cheesy, but kind of funny. He'd made a more believable Bond than Connery at that time.

[dutch_pepper]

I know this is not the right thread, but I ask my question anyway; Why was George Lazenby considerd to play the small part of Jesus Christ in Monty Python's Life of Brian? John Cleese actually said this on the dvd of this film. Isn't it a strange and remarkable choice??

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Because he was James Bond at the time LOB was made. It would have been very funny. Might have boosted his seemingly enormous ego at the time even further.

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

Because he was James Bond at the time LOB was made. It would have been very funny. Might have boosted his seemingly enormous ego at the time even further.

George Lazenby was Bond in 1969, Life of Brian was released in 1979. Which makes Roger Moore the current Bond at the time of LOB.

Edited by O.H.M.S.S., 30 July 2009 - 01:58 PM.

[DAN LIGHTER]

I always had trouble with Never Say Never Again. I think Lazenby would have done a good job and who knows might have made it a more watchable film. Connery wasnt cool enough in it for my Tastes. He lost his mojo. Maybe it was the wig wasnt up to scratch.

[Mister Asterix]

I have never heard that and it is doubtful. The whole idea of NSNA was returning Sean Connery to the role. It turned out to be the evolution of Warhead in the 70s where Connery was serving as an executive producer.

The whole idea was for Mr McClory to make his own Bond film. I don’t know who else was considered, but I know McClory was planning to do the film with the posibility of another actor as Bond before he got Connery on board. It is likely that bringing Connery on to the film, however, was the straw the got the camel to green light the film.

[Trident]

I have never heard that and it is doubtful. The whole idea of NSNA was returning Sean Connery to the role. It turned out to be the evolution of Warhead in the 70s where Connery was serving as an executive producer.

The whole idea was for Mr McClory to make his own Bond film. I don’t know who else was considered, but I know McClory was planning to do the film with the posibility of another actor as Bond before he got Connery on board. It is likely that bringing Connery on to the film, however, was the straw the got the camel to green light the film.

I'd have thought that would have been most unlikely as another actor would have had to face the established and most successful Moore. Anybody else than Connery would have had to be a really big name then, to rip off the funds needed for the film. At the moment I could only think of Richard Burton but he'd have been a little too old for the film in '83. Who else would be in the league to convince the moneymen to risk a film against EON and Moore? I still think Connery was the main Ace in the hole for the stunt.

[volante]

Agreed, I understood NSNA was a vehicle for Connery to play Bond again

[JimmyBond]

I always had trouble with Never Say Never Again. I think Lazenby would have done a good job and who knows might have made it a more watchable film.

Perhaps. But my problems with NSNSA have nothing to do with Connery (who I actually think puts in a good performance, and certainly looks to be in better shape than when he did DAF). Nor is my problem with it the fact that it's a rival 007, I just think the film is really dull. Sure people claim Thunderball is dull, but I always felt that film had a nice brisk pace to it, and it let you know that they had to find those bombs before the deadline, there was a real ticking clock factor to it.

In NSNA you never get the sense that finding the bombs is urgent.

[Tybre]

NSNA on the whole I never got a sense of anything. To me it feels like it was meant to be a part of a television serial. Probably because of the cinematography. Always thought it looked more like a TV movie than a proper film. Everything about it screams television to me.

[Grievous Angel Draven]

Everything about it screams television to me.

Me too.

[Fiona Volpe lover]

Despite it being a remake of the superb TB,I don't mind NSNA,in fact I prefer it to two or three of the official series [sorry!].

Edited by Fiona Volpe lover, 31 July 2009 - 08:11 PM.

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

Me too, I like NSNA more then DAF, LALD, MR, AVTAK, TWINE and DAD. I think it's a good movie, the cast (Connery, Brandauer, von Sydow, Fox are all great actors to say the least) is really excellent.

Anyway it would have been great to see Lazenby take on Bond after 14 years, I am one of those who think he could have been the best of them all if he didn't took bad advice.

Edited by O.H.M.S.S., 06 August 2009 - 10:08 AM.

[HH007]

I always had trouble with Never Say Never Again. I think Lazenby would have done a good job and who knows might have made it a more watchable film.

Perhaps. But my problems with NSNSA have nothing to do with Connery (who I actually think puts in a good performance, and certainly looks to be in better shape than when he did DAF). Nor is my problem with it the fact that it's a rival 007, I just think the film is really dull. Sure people claim Thunderball is dull, but I always felt that film had a nice brisk pace to it, and it let you know that they had to find those bombs before the deadline, there was a real ticking clock factor to it.

In NSNA you never get the sense that finding the bombs is urgent.

I agree for the most part. I enjoy roughly the first half of NSNA, as silly as it is, but the second half of that movie just goes dead from plodding, indifferent pacing, and it becomes a chore to watch. As for the urgent, ticking clock factor, I don't even think that was considered in NSNA. The movie exists solely for the novelty of seeing Connery play Bond again, the actual story and plot is just an afterthought.

When all is said and done though, I'll still take NSNA over DAF.

[007½]

Personally, I see only one good thing about NSNA: Nigel Small-Fawcett. Great character, even if he is only a renamed, talking Mr. Bean.

[jaguar007]

While I do find much of NSNA quite dull, it does have its bright points. First, Connery looks better than he did 12 years earlier in DAF and seemed to be more in playing the character than he did in YOLT. Klaus Maria Brandauer was fantastic as Largo and Barbera Carerra stole every scene she was in.

[The Richmond Spy]

I've heard he was considered before Connery was available, but I can't remember the source and it probably wasn't 100% credible. It might have been somewhere like Wikipedia.

If McClory wanted to create a Bond film in 1983 and Connery just happened to want to do it, then I have to think there were two other alternative routes.

1) Sean doesn't want to do it, so let's get George and see what type of buzz we can get with him. Maybe do a legit "sequel" to OHMSS...as DAF was arguably the biggest missed opportunity in the series. Only 14 years after OHMSS, so add some good makeup and make it look like 4 years...it could work (in theory).

2) Get ahead of the game. Cast the "Most Likely to be the next Bond..." or the "Most Popular choice to be the next Bond..." and see if they bite. I think the equivalent recently would've been Clive Owen (like it or not). Then, with an aging Roger, you have a perceivable edge going into 1983 and maybe...just maybe...a chance at beating OP at the box office.

All theories...of course.

Personally, I would've preferred the George option. That said, I'm pleased with what we got from Sean even though it's one of my least favorites.

[Tybre]

I've heard he was considered before Connery was available, but I can't remember the source and it probably wasn't 100% credible. It might have been somewhere like Wikipedia.

If McClory wanted to create a Bond film in 1983 and Connery just happened to want to do it, then I have to think there were two other alternative routes.

1) Sean doesn't want to do it, so let's get George and see what type of buzz we can get with him. Maybe do a legit "sequel" to OHMSS...as DAF was arguably the biggest missed opportunity in the series. Only 14 years after OHMSS, so add some good makeup and make it look like 4 years...it could work (in theory).

2) Get ahead of the game. Cast the "Most Likely to be the next Bond..." or the "Most Popular choice to be the next Bond..." and see if they bite. I think the equivalent recently would've been Clive Owen (like it or not). Then, with an aging Roger, you have a perceivable edge going into 1983 and maybe...just maybe...a chance at beating OP at the box office.

All theories...of course.

Personally, I would've preferred the George option. That said, I'm pleased with what we got from Sean even though it's one of my least favorites.

I think #2 is more likely of those theories, though I think neither of them would have happened. Certainly not #1. Casting George? Possible. Probable. But a sequel to OHMSS? I doubt it. McClory was obsessed with Warhead.