you only live twice vs on her majesty secret service - You Only Live Twice (1967) Discussion

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

Zillionairepoet
Impossible to choose for me. YOLT for its craziness, beautiful scenery, action, music, fatigued, fat Bond vs. OHMSS for its depiction of Fleming's Bond ... atmosphere, snow action, Tracy, MUSIC! Two different styles of Bond, and I like both styles. Lazenby couldn't have played the YOLT 007, and Connery couldn't have played (at that stage of fatness) the OHMSS Bond. Plus, maybe SC would have had a lot of gadgets like skis with jets and all that. But we have a hint of what he could have done with Tracy's last scene : when Aki is killed. There we have Bond at least showing some human feelings, under the mask (same in Thunderball, when Fiona tells him about her brother).

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DrLenera 17 years ago

Well You Only Live Twice and On Her Majestys's Secret service are my two favourite Bond movies. I think YOLT is more fun but OHMSS is artistically the better film,even if I always thought it could have done with tightening,especially in the middle Piz Gloria section. They'll both great though.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zuide2003 19 years ago

Let's see:
George Lazenby plodding through the movie like he's trying to do someone
a favor, and Telly Savalas, I'm sorry to say), in a brown polyester track suit
trying to do a Bloefeld, but he;s just going through the motions too.
VS.
Sean Connery, doing what he's always done best in the 60's, and the interaction between him and "Tiger" aka "Tanaka" of the Japanese Secret Service is just great.

My vote? You Only Live Twice.

reply

[–] s0s 19 years ago

You Only Live Twice, because of Connery. And YOLT just looks more like a Bond-movie than OHMSS. Connery should have done OHMSS too!

reply

[–] pogo_sport 19 years ago

Have to go with j-kleist, it they're pretty equal in my book to. But I'd say YOLT, by a slight margin.

reply

[–] zippyzay 19 years ago

OHMSS was decent but it can't beat YOLT.

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 13 years ago

''And YOLT just looks more like a Bond-movie than OHMSS''

Yet OHMSS was a good adaptation of Ian Fleming's novel (the closest adaptation in the series) and thus closer to the spirit of Bond. I wish Bond-''fanboys'' would actually read the novels.

If you love Jesus 100%... keep it to yourselves, perverts!

reply

[–] master_of_puppetz_ 19 years ago

Despite the fact that the plot for OHMSS is quite good, George Lazenby was terrible performing James Bond, YOLT was much better, not only because of Connery's performance but also for his Japanese support. I apologize for those who adore Diana Rigg, but James Bond seemed closer to Aki (Akiko) that to Teresa (Diana). I think that it is because of the fact that Lazenby and Diana couldn't put up with each other.
In my opinion, if one James Bond movie deserved a remake, I would be OHMSS.
No doubt, my vote goes for YOLT.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pogo_sport 19 years ago

Now, now, ladies and gents, let's not be too hard on George Lazenby. I mean remember we've all had the opportunity to see Sean Connery (my favorite Bond), Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan play 007 more than once. We've seen them give good AND bad performances. George Lazenby only had that one-shot in OHMSS as Bond. So we really don't have a lot to go off of but that one time. I think he did a solid job. Obviously not as great as Connery, but a solid job.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] runar-4 17 years ago

I think a majority of Bond fans tend to consider Lazenby and Dalton to have been the lower end of the JB pool, but, interestingly enough, the Lazenby and Dalton MOVIES were better-written than most of the others. Remember that not only was Connery something of an unknown quantity going into Dr. No (despite eight years of film credits on his resume by then), but Ian Fleming himself didn't think Connery was the right man for the job, although he later changed his mind. The jury's not yet in on Daniel Craig.

Personally, I thought Brosnan was the best successor Bond, and the one I liked least was Moore, but not because he was a bad Bond, but because so many of the Moore bond movies were just too silly.

reply

[–] sargon19552003 12 years ago

YOLT for me. I've sat through OHMSS, and Lazenby seems so dull and pedestrian compared to the suave, dangerous Connery. Same comments about Telly Savalas. European types seem to make better Bond villains. Also, the story in OHMSS seems to lack the fantastic elements that make Bond so appealing.

reply

[–] saint405 19 years ago

You only live twice is the better Bond film.

reply

[–] ThomasHayden 19 years ago

You only live twice is undoubtedly better than OHMSS, and, in my opinion, one of the best Bond movies, it's in my top three along with Goldfinger and Spy. I love this one because it was the first over the top Bond, where fantasy, adventure and gadgets finally took the reins of the series.This was spectacularly filmed by Lewis Gilbert, who has probably been the most talented director in the Bond series. Here he did a brilliant use of locations and the action scenes are awesome, as someone has written before . You realise how skilled he was when you compare the thrilling ninja final assault on the volcano lair to the disappointing oil rig battle in DAF (where there were hardly shots of Bloefeld's men being gunned down and the explosions just looked fake )

reply

[–] TheBrothersCarruthers 19 years ago

Both are fantastic but I'd go for 'OHMSS' by a nose.

reply

[–] TheBrothersCarruthers 19 years ago

BOTH are on TV in the UK tomorrow! Wooooooooooooo-hoooooooooooooo!

reply

[–] saint405 19 years ago

You only live twice by far. Lazenby was the worst Bond to date.

reply

[–] ThingyBlahBlah3 19 years ago

Tough call. I think in every possible way, OHMSS was better. Except that it lacked Connery. Aside from the action sequences (among the best in the series), there's an emotional depth that the series never achieved (or even tried for). If Connery had been in it, I believe today we'd be talking about how Goldfinger and OHMSS are the best 007 flicks, and ranking the rest below them.

YOLT was my favorite Bond movie when I was eight, which pretty much sums it up. Watching it now, I find the plot is preposterous (more so than any other 007 picture to this point), the science and politics are laughable, Connery's boredom with the role is obvious, and Donald Pleasance was an awful choice for Blofeld. On the other hand, the music and theme song are great and Japan looks beautiful. And the fight with the sumo guy in the office is well done.

For the guy who was asking how close OHMSS is to the novel: pretty close. Most of the changes are quite minor. Certainly much closer than YOLT or DAF.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ck1-5 19 years ago

I've got to go with YOLT. Face it, Connery and Bond were synonyms at that point; imagine going to see The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly only to find that Clint Eastwood was tired of the role and was replaced by Steve McQueen! My point being, nothing was wrong with McQueen in Bullit, but who wants to see him fill in for someone else who has already made the role his own?

reply

[–] Spongeyone 15 years ago

Tough call. I think in every possible way, OHMSS was better. Except that it lacked Connery.... YOLT was my favorite Bond movie when I was eight, which pretty much sums it up. Watching it now, I find the plot is preposterous (more so than any other 007 picture to this point), the science and politics are laughable, Connery's boredom with the role is obvious, and Donald Pleasance was an awful choice for Blofeld. On the other hand, the music and theme song are great and Japan looks beautiful. And the fight with the sumo guy in the office is well done.

Almost exactly how I feel. Thing is, this means I'd prefer watching YOLT to OHMSS 80% of the time or more, despite freely admitting it's an inferior movie.

I think having seen it for the first time as an 8 year old made it much easier to never be ridiculously annoyed by the fact that the world's most advanced space program in 67 is a creation of terrorists and Cultural Revolution China.

reply

[–] ThingyBlahBlah3 15 years ago

Almost exactly how I feel. Thing is, this means I'd prefer watching YOLT to OHMSS 80% of the time or more, despite freely admitting it's an inferior movie.

That's a good point. The most entertaining Bonds are not always the best ones. I prefer the more serious movies, but YOLT and Moonraker definitely provide more mindless fun than FYEO and OHMSS, even though they're certainly weaker on story, acting, and all those other things we usually think of when we think of good movies.

______________________
'It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?'
'If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.'

reply

[–] vesa_karppinen-1 19 years ago

YOLT made one hell of an impression when I saw it as a kid, and it's still one of my all time favourites, but I have to say that OHMSS is better - Lazenby wasn't that bad at all and it's really faithful to Flemings novel.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crabbe90 19 years ago

You only live twice is a classic, and is better than OHMSS despite the dumb ninja part. Plus, its connery.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eastwoodfan13 18 years ago

You Only Live Twice

reply

[–] maxzorindresden 17 years ago

OHMSS is WAY superior to YOLT...but I do enjoy YOLTs comic book/OTT nature.

reply

[–] onnanob2 17 years ago

I like "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" more.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] honkeymofo 17 years ago

Although James Bond is the central character to these movies, there is more to 007 movies than James Bond. Sean Connery definitely played the best James Bond, although OHMSS is clearly in the Top 3 of the assortment. I watched OHMSS and You Only Live Twice both within the past two weeks, and OHMSS is one of the best action movies around. You Only Live Twice is a good movie, but was a sleeper at times. I'm not sure, but maybe OHMSS can somehow be separated from the other Bond movies. I mean George Lazenby was a weak Bond, especially after filling Connery's shoes. Ideally, Connery would've played Bond on OHMSS, but who knows what the hell happened there. Telly Savalas was much better as Blofeld than this other guy on You Only Live Twice. I don't know, this analysis is making me drool so I gotta go.

reply