James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[MJD64]

I would strongly disagree that a 1969 audience would've been too shocked by a downer ending; just look at films such as Bonnie and Clyde, Rosemary's Baby, The Wild Bunch or Easy Rider. The socio-political climate at that time was giving the world some very downbeat and cynical movies. On Her Majesty's Secret Service strikes me as a kind of "course correction" after the comic-book excesses of You Only Live Twice, with a more realistic and dramatic approach...and certainly a truer emotional one. One can pin the disappointing box-office on newcomer Lazenby, but the producers obviously weren't taking any chances and gave the audience a spoofier, tongue-in-cheek style with Diamonds are Forever along with the return of Connery; no more gravitas for a while (Roger Moore takes the blame for a lighter approach during his 70's tenure as Bond, and it did play to his comedic strengths, but the tone of the series for that decade was established in Diamonds).

On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the finest Bond films, and that ending was a crucial and even earned payoff to a film that was going for something more than just giving the audience the entertaining ride of previous entries. The 2006 Casino Royale likewise needed that tragic and even bracing conclusion (rather fittingly, the first Bond film since OHMSS to adhere so closely to Fleming).

[koberulz]

A downer ending and a downer ending in a Bond film aren't necessarily the same thing.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

A downer ending and a downer ending in a Bond film aren't necessarily the same thing.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

[ravenus]

He possibly means that at least that point people looked to Bond for escapist entertainment in which he conquered all in style and the film closed with him snuggling up with the latest girl. So a downer ending with an emotional Bond may have come as a disappointment to some.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by ravenus

He possibly means that at least that point people looked to Bond for escapist entertainment in which he conquered all in style and the film closed with him snuggling up with the latest girl. So a downer ending with an emotional Bond may have come as a disappointment to some.

Yep, could be that or it could be that having those expectations meant that a downer ending was more impactful in an emotional way, which is why I asked him to elaborate.

[koberulz]

Originally Posted by ravenus

He possibly means that at least that point people looked to Bond for escapist entertainment in which he conquered all in style and the film closed with him snuggling up with the latest girl. So a downer ending with an emotional Bond may have come as a disappointment to some.

This, essentially. You don't really go into a Bond film for 'art', or 'emotional', or 'impactful'. You go to eat popcorn and watch shit blow up.

So to suggest that film audiences were okay with downer endings based on unrelated films with downer endings (including at least one utterly foregone conclusion in Bonnie & Clyde) misses the mark IMO.

Is it a better film for that ending? Yes. Is it what people would have expected upon buying a ticket? I don't think it would have been.

[MJD64]

Originally Posted by koberulz

This, essentially. You don't really go into a Bond film for 'art', or 'emotional', or 'impactful'. You go to eat popcorn and watch shit blow up.

So to suggest that film audiences were okay with downer endings based on unrelated films with downer endings (including at least one utterly foregone conclusion in Bonnie & Clyde) misses the mark IMO.

Is it a better film for that ending? Yes. Is it what people would have expected upon buying a ticket? I don't think it would have been.

I wasn't stating that audiences were blanket "okay with downer endings" based on other film releases at that time. A suggestion was made in a previous post that a 1969 filmgoing audience would have been unprepared for such an ending in a 007 film (as if they couldn't handle it) and that it should have been saved for the opening of Diamonds are Forever, which I strongly disagree with. OHMSS intentionally sought to give audiences a more dramatic and emotionally-felt (and perhaps unexpected) Bond film overall, not just in its ending (which suits the film perfectly). Did audiences reject that seriousness? Lazenby? Both? Whatever the argument, I'm certainly thankful for the attempt as it resulted in one of the best Bond efforts (and I like both silly and more seriously-minded Bond films).

The critical and financial success of both the 2006 Casino Royale and Skyfall, both with 'emotional' and 'impactful' elements (and endings), would seem to prove audiences can handle and accept more in a Bond film beyond just watching shit blow up whilst munching popcorn.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by koberulz

This, essentially. You don't really go into a Bond film for 'art', or 'emotional', or 'impactful'. You go to eat popcorn and watch shit blow up.

So to suggest that film audiences were okay with downer endings based on unrelated films with downer endings (including at least one utterly foregone conclusion in Bonnie & Clyde) misses the mark IMO.

Is it a better film for that ending? Yes. Is it what people would have expected upon buying a ticket? I don't think it would have been.

Lots of people would have not expected it for sure, but the book had been published seven years prior so it wouldn’t have been entirely out of the blue that the film would end that way. The film up to that point is also quite faithful to the novel including Tracy being suicidal, Bond rage quitting MI6, then deciding later to quit again in order to marry Tracy so the whole film is full of moments that set it apart from the usual “eat popcorn and blow shit up” type Bond film.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

If your ongoing concern for what 1969 audiences must have thought about it is your way of assessing whether or not that was a reason for its poor box office performance relative to the films that came before and after it, I think there were other factors at play there. Well, one and that was the fact that Connery wasn’t in it.

Otherwise I still think OHMSS is a great and memorable film because of its ending and I wouldn’t have it any other way, Peter Hunt and theoretical disappointed 1969 audience members be damned.

The documentary makes it clear that OHMSS did very well and was very profitable but took a bit longer than usual to make it.
I think the ending is one of the things that gave the film its lesser reputation over the years. It's slow build up as being the favourite among Bond fans didn't really begin until home video arrives and I don't think Warner issuing a cut version until 1995 helped either.
I remember recording a complete version off ITV in 1983 and when I bought the official releases in 1985 my favourite safe cracking scene was missing which spoilt it for me. It was several years after that when Warner entered the £9.99 market and fans began to notice but nobody could find out why.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by MJD64

I would strongly disagree that a 1969 audience would've been too shocked by a downer ending; just look at films such as Bonnie and Clyde, Rosemary's Baby, The Wild Bunch or Easy Rider.

But we're not. We're looking at Bond films. Audiences have certain expectations whatever film they go and see and 007 and an unhappy ending just wasn't done

And comparing what audiences would expect in 1969 to what they would expect in 2006 is pointless.
I am looking at the film with a view to what 1969 audiences expect not todays ones. Opinions and expectations change.

Look at the many films that died at the box office but later became classics via home video or broadcasts

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by ravenus

He possibly means that at least that point people looked to Bond for escapist entertainment in which he conquered all in style and the film closed with him snuggling up with the latest girl. So a downer ending with an emotional Bond may have come as a disappointment to some.

Precisely.
Hard to see why people cannot understand this when even the director points out that he shot the ending with a view to them being able to attach it to the next one if they wanted to. Of course he didn't know Lazenby would not return

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

The documentary makes it clear that OHMSS did very well and was very profitable but took a bit longer than usual to make it.
I think the ending is one of the things that gave the film its lesser reputation over the years. It's slow build up as being the favourite among Bond fans didn't really begin until home video arrives and I don't think Warner issuing a cut version until 1995 helped either.
I remember recording a complete version off ITV in 1983 and when I bought the official releases in 1985 my favourite safe cracking scene was missing which spoilt it for me. It was several years after that when Warner entered the £9.99 market and fans began to notice but nobody could find out why.

OHMSS was profitable, none of the Bond movies were flops, but both You Only Live Twice and Diamonds Are Forever made approximately twenty million dollars more than it, so it was a comparative failure.

I’m not saying there’s no validity to its ending being a part of that relative failure, I’m just disputing that having Bond and Tracy ride off into the sunset would have made audiences love it more, not to mention that it would have somehow improved Diamonds Are Forever to have it open with her death. That’s just pure, unfounded speculation.

OHMSS is a tragedy. The plot of the entire film leads up to that moment and hindsight has actually proven that from an artistic standpoint they were correct to have OHMSS end the way it does, and commercially they were correct to have Diamonds Are Forever be the way it is.

[MJD64]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

But we're not. We're looking at Bond films. Audiences have certain expectations whatever film they go and see and 007 and an unhappy ending just wasn't done

And comparing what audiences would expect in 1969 to what they would expect in 2006 is pointless.
I am looking at the film with a view to what 1969 audiences expect not todays ones. Opinions and expectations change.

Look at the many films that died at the box office but later became classics via home video or broadcasts

My issue with your argument is that you appear to be saying the downbeat ending alone of OHMSS is what doomed it with audiences, when it could very well have been a rejection of either the more serious tone or Lazenby himself...or both. Or something else altogether (the Bond series reached its apex at the box-office in the 60's with Thunderball and there was a drop-off with YOLT and then OHMSS, it could very well have been a matter of saturation; keep in mind there were many who didn't believe Bond could survive beyond the 60's as a force at the box-office). You seem to be implying a 1969 audience couldn't handle the ending (simply because it wasn't expected?), as if they'd be too sensitive. In 1969? I cited those other films because that was one helluva bleak and cynical period in our history and culture, and the arts reflected that. If you want to argue the ending was too unexpected, fine...but I would counter that the whole film is unexpected and flies in the face of the Bond films that preceded it. Bond himself is portrayed as far more human (he falls in love, what's more human than that?).

I don't think you're giving the audience enough credit; times may change but people essentially stay the same, and I don't believe comparing 1969 to 2006 is as pointless as you do. Audiences responded enthusiastically to a new Bond, serious tone and downbeat ending with 2006's Casino Royale...and this coming after the fourth Pierce Brosnan film Die Another Day, by most accounts an over-the-top piece of comic-book silliness (not unlike You Only Live Twice). One could certainly say Casino Royale subverted the expectations of some Bond fans and general audiences (like OHMSS), only this time to great success; who can say exactly why?

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I’m not saying there’s no validity to its ending being a part of that relative failure, I’m just disputing that having Bond and Tracy ride off into the sunset would have made audiences love it more.

At the time people would have relied on word of mouth and reviews in newspapers and I think that an undecided viewer might not go and see it when they discover about the ending.
But of course it wouldn't be the only thing. The lack of Connery was the number one problem but with the exception of that and the downbeat ending I can't think of any other reasons why audiences would have stayed away. From every other viewpoint its a first class Bond movie even in 1969.
But I do still say that the long term (as in 20 years) public opinion of the film would have been affected negatively because of the death. When talking about it you would need to say "the one where Mrs Bond dies at the end". Crowd pleaser it wouldn't have been.

I agree that by todays standards the decision seems right

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by MJD64

My issue with your argument is that you appear to be saying the downbeat ending alone of OHMSS is what doomed it with audiences,

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it contributed to the films poor reputation that it had for decades before home video allowed its rediscovery.

And audiences may not have changed but their expectations and knowledge have obviously changed in the 50 years since the film appeared thanks mainly to home video.
In 1969 you saw the film at the cinema. Perhaps a reissue 2 years later. Several years after on tv sometimes cut (always if you're in the US) and that was the public consumption for movies.

Home video changed everything.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

At the time people would have relied on word of mouth and reviews in newspapers and I think that an undecided viewer might not go and see it when they discover about the ending.
But of course it wouldn't be the only thing. The lack of Connery was the number one problem but with the exception of that and the downbeat ending I can't think of any other reasons why audiences would have stayed away. From every other viewpoint its a first class Bond movie even in 1969.
But I do still say that the long term (as in 20 years) public opinion of the film would have been affected negatively because of the death. When talking about it you would need to say "the one where Mrs Bond dies at the end". Crowd pleaser it wouldn't have been.

I agree that by todays standards the decision seems right

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

No I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it contributed to the films poor reputation that it had for decades before home video allowed its rediscovery.

And audiences may not have changed but their expectations and knowledge have obviously changed in the 50 years since the film appeared thanks mainly to home video.
In 1969 you saw the film at the cinema. Perhaps a reissue 2 years later. Several years after on tv sometimes cut (always if you're in the US) and that was the public consumption for movies.

Home video changed everything.

Okay, well I don't know how that all boils down to "the ending of OHMSS should have been moved to the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever" then. If you acknowledge that Lazenby's presence could also have been a contributing factor to its less than stellar box office returns, and you even agree that by today's standards the ending was the right decision, I don't really know how you can say with such certainty that having a different ending would be the correct course of action at the time. There's just too much speculation involved. Even today, you could have people who like or dislike the film for a variety of reasons unrelated to those two factors.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Okay, well I don't know how that all boils down to "the ending of OHMSS should have been moved to the beginning of Diamonds Are Forever" then. If you acknowledge that Lazenby's presence could also have been a contributing factor to its less than stellar box office returns, and you even agree that by today's standards the ending was the right decision, I don't really know how you can say with such certainty that having a different ending would be the correct course of action at the time. There's just too much speculation involved. Even today, you could have people who like or dislike the film for a variety of reasons unrelated to those two factors.

Disregarding Lazenbys appearance I think moving the death to the start of DAF would have made for a more satisfying ending (in 1969). It COULD have lead to a better DAF. And regardless of how it looks today or whether it worked in 1969 there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the death of Bonds wife would not have been seen as positive back then.
Like you say, we'll never know the precise reasons why it didn't do so well.
Obviously this is all speculation but as the director of the movie agrees with me I'm happy to stay with that opinion.

Lets agree to differ and move on

[jonam]

Now that Bond 25 has been confirmed for next year what about some thoughts on who could perform the theme song. I say Dua Lipa?, she has the voice and could easily pull off a great ballad.

[James Luckard]

Originally Posted by jonam

Now that Bond 25 has been confirmed for next year what about some thoughts on who could perform the theme song.

Paloma Faith, case closed:

Paloma Faith - Guilty (Official Video) - YouTube

Bond composer David Arnold does her orchestral arrangements.

[BluProofie]

Lana Del Rey or quit.