14 replies to this topic

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I've finished reading You Only Live Twice yesterday. I think it's one of Fleming's finest novels and that made me noticed how Cubby & Harry did a great mistake by going for a kind of "Goldfinger 2" for Diamonds Are Forever instead of bringing something like the Garden of Death, Dr Shatterhand, or at least

Spoiler

a dark scene where Bond sees red and kills Blofeld with his bare hands

like in the novel. In the first place, I think they should have adapted the Blofeld trilogy in its original order, but, even when you couldn't do a Garden of Death in Las Vegas, you might have added a true Bond vs Blofeld battle instead of having Connery standing up like a stupid in front of the bon vivant Gray who played Blofeld. We're are supposed to think HE killed Bond's wife and then he's just kidding with things like "Hey you got all the aces like our Lady Dragon here" when he should be jumping into him and attacking, thirsty of revenge.

On the other hand, no hard feelings with Connery, Cubby, Harry and Diamonds Are Forever, which seemed a nice movie to me. But I'd have liked to see a true Bond vs Blofeld battle like in the novel.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I would agree, actually... although, considering how bored Connery was by the off-book YOLT I doubt he'd have been willing to muster up any actorly enthusiasm for two more films, even if they were in the correct order and posed as something of a character to take a bite out of -- for him, it was just more Bond, more of that same phenomenon, and he wanted nothing of it.

Charles Helfenstein's book on the making of OHMSS has a great quote from Connery on the set of A Fine Madness, which he was making in New York in October 1965: "I don't mind the Bond pictures as long as I get time in between to do other things, but it hasn't worked out that way. On a film like Ben-Hur, Charlton Heston gets a few days off during six months of shooting; I get none. Now they want me to go to Switzerland for On Her Majesty's Secret Service right after this picture. They may think so, but I don't."

This pretty much says to me that he viewed Bond as a burden to be shouldered, not an actorly challenge to be tackled; he speaks of OHMSS the same way he did of Thunderball, so I'm guessing he just saw them as all the same, even if OHMSS was something of a different story. He didn't give a damn, and probably wouldn't have if they'd made it with him -- which almost certainly would have affected the film for the worse.

Had Casino Royale not threatened the primacy of the EON series, the producers would've almost certainly ditched Connery for his bellyaching -- it would have affected the finished product, as it did in the eventual YOLT. If they seriously wanted to make faithful adaptations of the last two thirds of the "Blofeld trilogy", Connery would've had to go beforehand.

[coco1997]

This pretty much says to me that he viewed Bond as a burden to be shouldered, not an actorly challenge to be tackled; he speaks of OHMSS the same way he did of Thunderball, so I'm guessing he just saw them as all the same, even if OHMSS was something of a different story. He didn't give a damn, and probably wouldn't have if they'd made it with him -- which almost certainly would have affected the film for the worse.

First of all, where do you get that from? He clearly said he didn't mind doing the films as long as they afforded him the flexibility in his schedule to pursue other projects. Do you honestly believe that as of 2006, Daniel Craig has wanted to do nothing but Bond pictures as long as it's "artistically viable" for him to do so? Why do you think any of the Bond actors signed on for the role? Just because of the "actorly challenge" it provided them? Roger Moore himself admitted he took on Bond for the paycheck. So what if he did? He was a damn good Bond, and he displayed more enthusiasm and energy in the part by the end of his tenure (even if his body didn't) than Connery did by his fourth film. Maybe Connery never read Fleming's "OHMSS", but so what? I highly doubt Connery read each and every one of Fleming's novels, but that certainly didn't stop him from becoming the most iconic James Bond we'll ever know.

It's well documented that the relentless Japanese media soured Connery's feelings towards Bond as a larger than life entity, and based on what we've heard about his experiences there, I can't exactly blame him for it. Sure, Connery may have sleptwalk through "YOLT", but it's naive and pretentious to assume that no one but Lazenby could've pulled off James Bond in "OHMSS".

[Mr. Blofeld]

It's well documented that the relentless Japanese media soured Connery's feelings towards Bond as a larger than life entity, and based on what we've heard about his experiences there, I can't exactly blame him for it. Sure, Connery may have sleptwalk through "YOLT", but it's naive and pretentious to assume that no one but Lazenby could've pulled off James Bond in "OHMSS".

The last part of the quote made me doubt that it was just the no-downtime between films that was irking him; I recall another interview (quoted in The Battle for Bond), where he described Thunderball as however many days of "swimming, necking, and slugging", and that he as an actor needed to bring nothing along save "the constitution of a rugby player".

Now, I love Thunderball, but if Connery was even chaffing under that, he wouldn't have enjoyed nine months of OHMSS at all. It's not a question of Lazenby; he wasn't in the picture in 1965-66. Any manly actor with more dedication and interest in the role than Connery would've done better than Connery, at that point. He didn't give a damn -- whereas Craig, on the other hand, does. It's been only three films, but he's put a lot of work into his performances; Connery, on the other hand, did one film each year for four years -- that'd be horribly tiresome for any actor, not just Connery.

I understand that EON was probably just taking advantage of the craze they'd stirred up, but the money issues, coupled with fatigue, etc... well, Connery wouldn't have done OHMSS well. He was already chaffing at the bit during the planned pre-production in '65, and there's a reason he left just over a year later -- he was just through.

[Guy Haines]

I've always thought it odd that, once Blofeld reappears in DAF in the penthouse suite, Bond's reaction is almost to engage in some gentlemanly one-upmanship with him. But the whole tone of DAF, once the pre-title credits is out of the way, suggests that the film makers wanted to pretend that OHMSS never happened and that it was now business as usual with the "real" James Bond, Connery. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but the programme I bought at the flicks on my first viewing way back in 1972 gives that impression. Plenty of photographs from DAF, naturally, and sections about Bond's previous girls and opponents. But strangely missing from the programme are any photographs of Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas, whilst the mentions of them in the text are almost cursory.

For what its worth, my view is that we didn't get a "revenge" movie because (1) the books were filmed in the wrong order in the first place and (2) the studio, having re-hired Sean Connery, wanted to take up where YOLT and the 1960s Bond-mania left off. Which meant sidelining a perfectly good film in OHMSS, ditching the whole revenge motive save for the pre-title credits, and harking back to what the studio considered tried and tested.

(Of course, the film makers wanted Gert Frobe to return to the series in DAF as Goldfinger's smarter, diamond obsessed twin brother. If that wasn't a clue as to the direction they had in mind post OHMSS, I don't know what was!)

[DaveBond21]

I've always thought it odd that, once Blofeld reappears in DAF in the penthouse suite, Bond's reaction is almost to engage in some gentlemanly one-upmanship with him. But the whole tone of DAF, once the pre-title credits is out of the way, suggests that the film makers wanted to pretend that OHMSS never happened and that it was now business as usual with the "real" James Bond, Connery. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but the programme I bought at the flicks on my first viewing way back in 1972 gives that impression. Plenty of photographs from DAF, naturally, and sections about Bond's previous girls and opponents. But strangely missing from the programme are any photographs of Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas, whilst the mentions of them in the text are almost cursory.

For what its worth, my view is that we didn't get a "revenge" movie because (1) the books were filmed in the wrong order in the first place and (2) the studio, having re-hired Sean Connery, wanted to take up where YOLT and the 1960s Bond-mania left off. Which meant sidelining a perfectly good film in OHMSS, ditching the whole revenge motive save for the pre-title credits, and harking back to what the studio considered tried and tested.

(Of course, the film makers wanted Gert Frobe to return to the series in DAF as Goldfinger's smarter, diamond obsessed twin brother. If that wasn't a clue as to the direction they had in mind post OHMSS, I don't know what was!)

Good post, Guy. I agree that they really did distance themselves from the previous movie. The lighter tone also suggests that they (Cubby) thought that OHMSS had been too serious with an unhappy ending and guessed that movie-goers wanted a return the more fun, over-the-top endings.



-------

[Dustin]

Oh, they certainly did want the lighter mixture of persiflage, comedy and self-parody that DAF brought to the screen. At the time few really cared for the drama and tragedy undertones of OHMSS and the audience preferred their Bond with happy endings. Some years before in GF the moment Odd Job killed Tilly with his hat was considered a crucial crossroads where the audience wasn't entirely sure how this would end. But that happened mid-film and by the time Goldfinger's aeroplane crashed it was well forgotten.

Now an entire film ended on that note and the audience was supposed to swallow this. Together with the perhaps even worse observation that the villain walked free and Bond was ultimately the loser here. Surely not what the average casual fan of the films would have expected when queuing up for OHMSS. I've read numerous reviews that overall liked the film and the lead, but harshly condemned the serious tone and ending, at times suggesting Bond should not have proposed marriage or he and Tracy should have become some kind of Thin Man Nick and Nora couple - completely ignoring the source material of course.

DAF was quite what the audience expected from Bond back in the day (and many still do now) a silly romp across the pop culture pulse with Bond and the baddies in Liberace mode, shiny tinsel on every surface and some harmless tv action for the tastes of the more brutalised connoisseurs.

Edited by Dustin, 05 September 2011 - 04:25 PM.

[chrisno1]

The posts above are all fine and well thought. They all touch on the thorny issue of Connery V Eon and of the need to "lighten" the series and return it to YOLT showmanship after the rather downbeat end to OHMSS.
However, to refer to the original post from Nicolas, who wonders why we have no physical confrontation between Bond and Blofeld, I think it is worth remembering that Bond movies are made and scripted by a team. Tom Mankiewicz's revision of the original script brought in the Blofeld doubles idea. This allows Bond to exact some form of "revenge" during teh PTS, although it isn't entirely obvious to the casual viewer what he's doing and why he's so viciously persuing his nemesis.
M makes two passing references to the PTS during the briefing scene (something like, "Now you're back with us, I'd like to see some solid work - We do function in your absence 007" sorry, I don't remember the exact quotes).
In addition to not featuring the doubles, Richard Maibaum's original script didn't feature the oil drilling platform either and the finale took place on the Hoover Dam. I don't know the plot outline, although the revenge motive may have been more prominent.
The reason I cite that is because at the end of Mankiewicz's original draft revision, as I understand it, Blofeld was supposed to escape. Bond dives from the oil platform, attaches a weather ballon to the mini-sub allowing him to waterski on the surface. Reaching land, Bond persues Blofeld into a disused salt mine and the final conflict takes place, with Blofeld thrown down a mine shaft. (Note the ideas reused for GE, LTK and AVTAK)
Apparently this ending was ditched as being too long winded and expensive. I also believe that as SPECTRE featured in every Bond movie except GF, one way or another, the producers wanted to keep Blofeld alive for another movie; hence the rather lacklustre ending to DAF.
This did indeed turn out to be the case as Eon later attempted to resurrect SPECTRE for TSWLM until Kevin McClory stuck his unwanted oar in. Pity that as Curt Jurgens would have been a great Blofeld!

[Guy Haines]

The posts above are all fine and well thought. They all touch on the thorny issue of Connery V Eon and of the need to "lighten" the series and return it to YOLT showmanship after the rather downbeat end to OHMSS.
However, to refer to the original post from Nicolas, who wonders why we have no physical confrontation between Bond and Blofeld, I think it is worth remembering that Bond movies are made and scripted by a team. Tom Mankiewicz's revision of the original script brought in the Blofeld doubles idea. This allows Bond to exact some form of "revenge" during teh PTS, although it isn't entirely obvious to the casual viewer what he's doing and why he's so viciously persuing his nemesis.
M makes two passing references to the PTS during the briefing scene (something like, "Now you're back with us, I'd like to see some solid work - We do function in your absence 007" sorry, I don't remember the exact quotes).
In addition to not featuring the doubles, Richard Maibaum's original script didn't feature the oil drilling platform either and the finale took place on the Hoover Dam. I don't know the plot outline, although the revenge motive may have been more prominent.
The reason I cite that is because at the end of Mankiewicz's original draft revision, as I understand it, Blofeld was supposed to escape. Bond dives from the oil platform, attaches a weather ballon to the mini-sub allowing him to waterski on the surface. Reaching land, Bond persues Blofeld into a disused salt mine and the final conflict takes place, with Blofeld thrown down a mine shaft. (Note the ideas reused for GE, LTK and AVTAK)
Apparently this ending was ditched as being too long winded and expensive. I also believe that as SPECTRE featured in every Bond movie except GF, one way or another, the producers wanted to keep Blofeld alive for another movie; hence the rather lacklustre ending to DAF.
This did indeed turn out to be the case as Eon later attempted to resurrect SPECTRE for TSWLM until Kevin McClory stuck his unwanted oar in. Pity that as Curt Jurgens would have been a great Blofeld!

Agree about Curt Jurgens, and I think Michael Lonsdale of Moonraker would have made an even better one. Indeed, his performance as Drax seems strangely at odds with the otherwise light tone of that film. But he was definitely one of the positives of MR, imo. A suave, restrained menace which only boils over once, as Jaws begins to have doubts about his place in Drax's scheme of things. Remember Drax's scream of "Jaws, you obey me! EXPEL THEM!" ? The Blofeld of the book YOLT ended up a "Hitlerian maniac". There's a vague hint of that in Lonsdale's Drax.

[00 Brosnan]

It's well documented that the relentless Japanese media soured Connery's feelings towards Bond as a larger than life entity, and based on what we've heard about his experiences there, I can't exactly blame him for it. Sure, Connery may have sleptwalk through "YOLT", but it's naive and pretentious to assume that no one but Lazenby could've pulled off James Bond in "OHMSS".

I actually quite like YOLT. Beautiful women, beautiful locations, great score, good action, & the best version of Blofeld in my opinion. Connery does seem a little un-interested, but to be honest I never even noticed until someone here pointed it out.

As for OHMSS, Lazenby did a decent job, but a bored Connery has more presence than a "ready to go" Lazenby. I believe the film would have been better w/ Connery in the role.

[Pussfeller]

I find it easier to imagine Moore, rather than Lazenby, in YOLT. Can't you imagine Roger zipping around in Little Nellie? Or emerging dryly from the scuba bag? The film's huge scale and general air of flamboyance would have suited Moore well.

[David Schofield]

As for OHMSS, Lazenby did a decent job, but a bored Connery has more presence than a "ready to go" Lazenby. I believe the film would have been better w/ Connery in the role.

While I wouldn't guarantee it, I tend to sort of concur a bored Connery might have worked in OHMSS.

IF Maibaum and Hunt had played-up the jaded, ageing 007 suggested by the first few chapters of Fleming's novel, it might well have fitted neatly with Connery's growing frustration with the role.

The hard part, of course, would have been getting Connery to snap out of this and show some dynamic enthusiasm when Bond finally nails Blofeld's location and heads to Piz Gloria.

The final denouement - Bond chosing marriage over "duty", a life with Tracy and out of the secret service - would, of course, have once more fitted beautifully with Connery's desire to walk away from the part.

And seeing the cool dude of GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL reduced to a sobbing wreck would have been icon cinema.

All wishful ifs and ands, of course.

[Guy Haines]

As for OHMSS, Lazenby did a decent job, but a bored Connery has more presence than a "ready to go" Lazenby. I believe the film would have been better w/ Connery in the role.

While I wouldn't guarantee it, I tend to sort of concur a bored Connery might have worked in OHMSS.

IF Maibaum and Hunt had played-up the jaded, ageing 007 suggested by the first few chapters of Fleming's novel, it might well have fitted neatly with Connery's growing frustration with the role.

The hard part, of course, would have been getting Connery to snap out of this and show some dynamic enthusiasm when Bond finally nails Blofeld's location and heads to Piz Gloria.

The final denouement - Bond chosing marriage over "duty", a life with Tracy and out of the secret service - would, of course, have once more fitted beautifully with Connery's desire to walk away from the part.

And seeing the cool dude of GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL reduced to a sobbing wreck would have been icon cinema.

All wishful ifs and ands, of course.

Looking at it this way, you are right, it would have tied up the 60s Bonds very well indeed. From on-the-ball agent in DN to the bored, world weary, disillusioned and ultimately bereft character of OHMSS. There's an arguement for saying that OHMSS might not have been the best film to introduce a new actor as Bond.

I can't help but wonder what direction the series might have taken if OHMSS was Connery's final film, though. Or, indeed, if the series would have taken up where it left off with a new actor within two years. Would Connery have been lured back for one more go, if only to finish off Blofeld? Would a new actor have been able to carry on, credibly, the revenge motivation left over from OHMSS?

Or, would the film producers re-invent Bond as if OHMSS hadn't happened - something I believe they did anyway, even though Connery returned to the role?

[David Schofield]

As for OHMSS, Lazenby did a decent job, but a bored Connery has more presence than a "ready to go" Lazenby. I believe the film would have been better w/ Connery in the role.

While I wouldn't guarantee it, I tend to sort of concur a bored Connery might have worked in OHMSS.

IF Maibaum and Hunt had played-up the jaded, ageing 007 suggested by the first few chapters of Fleming's novel, it might well have fitted neatly with Connery's growing frustration with the role.

The hard part, of course, would have been getting Connery to snap out of this and show some dynamic enthusiasm when Bond finally nails Blofeld's location and heads to Piz Gloria.

The final denouement - Bond chosing marriage over "duty", a life with Tracy and out of the secret service - would, of course, have once more fitted beautifully with Connery's desire to walk away from the part.

And seeing the cool dude of GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL reduced to a sobbing wreck would have been icon cinema.

All wishful ifs and ands, of course.

Looking at it this way, you are right, it would have tied up the 60s Bonds very well indeed. From on-the-ball agent in DN to the bored, world weary, disillusioned and ultimately bereft character of OHMSS. There's an arguement for saying that OHMSS might not have been the best film to introduce a new actor as Bond.

I can't help but wonder what direction the series might have taken if OHMSS was Connery's final film, though. Or, indeed, if the series would have taken up where it left off with a new actor within two years. Would Connery have been lured back for one more go, if only to finish off Blofeld? Would a new actor have been able to carry on, credibly, the revenge motivation left over from OHMSS?

Or, would the film producers re-invent Bond as if OHMSS hadn't happened - something I believe they did anyway, even though Connery returned to the role?

Ideally, I guess, an even more jaded Connery would have had his palm crossed with enough silver to make an appearance as an even more jaded Bond in an authentic version of the YOLT story.

Blofeld done, a new Bond with a "new" face - George Lazenby, anyone? - would have been introduced with quite an impact appearing in London in a take on TMWTGG: is he James Bond? James Bond's supposed to be dead. The man claiming to be "James Bond" is programmed to kill M, etc...

Without Connery, had he done OHMSS, it would have been very difficult to do a Tracy revenge story. Just as EON discarded a Tracy revenge story when Laz jumped ship. Laz lost Tracy, Connery Bond of DAF, I agree, did not.

[Guy Haines]

Part of the problem with following on the "revenge theme" after OHMSS is, of course, the order the stories were filmed in. YOLT after OHMSS might have made sense whether Connery stayed in the role or not. It's hard to imagine, say, DAF as a fully fledged sequel to OHMSS. Which it really wasn't, I think, except for the pre title sequence.

If OHMSS had been filmed after TB, with Connery as Bond, the series could have gone one of two routes, depending on whether Connery had continued as Bond. Either he would have been brought back, to film YOLT in 1969 as, pretty much, the revenge story from the Fleming novel, with the film leaving Bond's fate in the balance. This would have given the film makers, as David Schofield points out, the option to introduce a new actor as Bond in, say, TMWTGG, using the assassination scene from that story.

Or, Connery quits after OHMSS. And the producers use this as an opportunity to take the series in a new direction, with a space based storyline - not necessarily based on YOLT - which ties in with the race to the Moon, the biggest story of 1969. As for OHMSS - well, Bond has somehow pulled himself together. Wasn't that implied in DAF?

Did I say one of two routes? Well, there might have been another way to fit in the OHMSS/YOLT sequence, and still have a Bond film set in the 1960s with a space-age theme. TB, followed by "Bond 5" - a space, or rather rocket based story, then OHMSS and then YOLT. "Bond 5" being the most obvious sci-fi influenced Fleming novel, Moonraker. Yes, the story locations might have had to change - audiences being used by now to Bond globe trotting rather than stuck in London and the Kent coast. But at a time when interest in rocketry and space exploration world wide was at its peak, Fleming's own take on it would have made sense as a film, I think. Either as a space project gone wrong because of the villain's obsession with using the rocket to destroy London. Or a SPECTRE plan to get East and West at each other's throats, led by a lunatic who wanted revenge for the defeat of Nazi Germany at the hands of the Allies.