43 replies to this topic

[MattCasey009]

i feel so bad for this man because i saw so much potential in this man when i saw the film, even for the 6th or 7th time. lazenby wanted to play the part so well in the beggining, but in the end you could tell he kind of got lazy in his acting. well that was because of the scruff with producers, and them being too much of a hard *** to listen to the main characters ideas and thoughts, maybe lazenby was little difficult, but you gotta have some leway. the pressure was tremendous, lazenby even got his hair cut to look like connery's before production! lazenby was a fantastic scene fighter, and he looked natural when he was breaking into the safe and looking at the playboy, haha. he was the rough bond, with the looks of a young roger moore, im telling you he had potential. i just wished he didnt get bombarder with **** from producers, because he might have enjoyed the role a heck of a lot more, and played in more movies, instead of leaving after 1 movie of his 2 movie contract. how do you guys feel about this? and if you dont disagree, dont say "ur stupid" give me some insight on this. i really think lazenby got screwed out of becoming an excellent bond!

[Righty007]

I agree Lazenby had potential to be a great James Bond. You said he was getting "lazy" towards the end of the film. If you minus the -enb from Lazenby, you get the word lazy. It's his fault he didn't sign for the seven picture deal. He said the franchise was about to die, wouldn't survive the hippy generation and other nonsense like that. With an attitude like that, I am glad he didn't return or else Lazenby would have been really lazy in his acting for Bond VII.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

he walked away, so i cant feel sorry for him

[MattCasey009]

he didnt walk! he was forced out!

[Bond111]

I think Lazenby should have been given a chance to do at least 3 movies. He was great at playing Bond, it's a pity he only did one.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by MattCasey009
he didnt walk! he was forced out!

no he did walk, he got the big head and thought he did not bond...cause he thought he was a big star...guess he found out otherwise

[JimmyBond]

Well, in the guy's defense, he had legitamate reasons. I mean, they were entering the 70's, Bond was a very 60's character at the time, no one knew if Bond would be able to survive in the 70's, it was a tough call, and unfortanately he made the wrong one, and he has to live with it every day of his life (he probably doesnt regret it that much, but you know...).

he walked away, so i cant feel sorry for him

Well, you niether like him nor the film, so I cant listen to you

Just a friendly jibe mate, no hard feelings

[David Somerset]

He was young, headstrong, thought he knew it all. He made a big mistake in not carrying on with Bond. Then again, who would have thought Bond would carry on for so long after Connery quit. Not many I'll bet!!

[brendan007]

Originally posted by JimmyBond
Well, in the guy's defense, he had legitamate reasons. I mean, they were entering the 70's, Bond was a very 60's character at the time, no one knew if Bond would be able to survive in the 70's, it was a tough call, and unfortanately he made the wrong one, and he has to live with it every day of his life (he probably doesnt regret it that much, but you know...).

I think Lazenby made the right choice really. Not to criticise his acting (i think his performance while being chased at the ice skating place is perfect and is one of the few moments in the series where i believe that Bond is in real danger), but if he had signed on for another seven films i dont think Bond wouldve survived the 70s.
Audiences clearly didnt want this new Bond (OHMSS's less than spectacular box office showed this) and the series probably wouldnt had recovered if Connery hadnt returned in the next film. So even if he had signed the seven or so picture deal, i dont believe the series wouldve made it that far.

[Dunph]

Lazenby walked because he had 'advisors' who told him that Bond would not last through the 1970s, and he was becoming unfashionable.

It's a shame, because Lazenby's career was forever blighted by this.

[DanMan]

At the time, he was very full of himself. His attitude was so bad, that Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell refused to do another Bond film if he was in it.

[Tarl_Cabot]

He would have been a great Bond.The more you see an actor in the role the more you except that person as 007.I think he was better than Moore.

[Jaelle]

Lazenby was very cool! I wish he'd gone on to do a few more films, with some guidance, like the kind of guidance that Sean got from Terence Young. He just needed a bit more experience, training, and good advice. His problem was just bad advice and an arrogance born out of being a young guy who suddenly found himself the lead in a major film. The sort of ego and arrogance he had back then was gone years later. OHMSS is one of my 3 favorite Bond films and Lazenby was very definitely one of the many reasons that I love it so much.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree with you Jaelle, Lazenby is what makes OHMSS so great.

It is quite amazing to think that between 69 and 73 there were 3 different Bond actors.

While I am somewhat sad that Lazenby didn't do any other Bond films - there was nothing in the next few films that make me think "Wow, I wish that was Lazenby" instead.

The thing I would have liked to have seen was a faithful adapation of YOLT starring Lazenby after OHMSS. Of course they never would have done it - but it would have been incredible - the revenge angle played correctly and Lazenby's athletic abilities put to good use in the martial arts scenes.

I suppose they could have done DAF as a revenge film with Lazenby but I doubt it would have been as successful as the light hearted romp combined with the publicity surrounding Sean Connery's return.

I'm not sure another film would really help Lazenby's standing that much - it would probably be on par with Dalton - where purists and scholars recognize the portrayals as incredible - but the general public does not equate them to the big three of Connery, Moore, and Brosnan.

A single performance can have just as big an impact as several, imho. As a British newspaper said after DAD - Brosnan is in danger of achieving less as Bond with all his films than Lazenby did with just 1.

[Triton]

If they did do a faithful adaption of You Only Live Twice, then they would have returned to Japan within four years. They would have killed off the series greatest villain, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. The Garden of Suicide idea would probably not work in any other country and to most people all Japanese castles look the same. Wouldn't a kimono clad Dr. Shatterhand look like Dikko Henderson portrayed by Charles Gray? It would look too much like a remake of the film You Only Live Twice.

Also keep in mind that On Her Majesty's Secret Service was the last "serious" Bond picture for quite a while. Diamonds Are Forever was the first of the many James Bond action comedies. I think that the comedy element was noticeable until Timothy Dalton came along with The Living Daylights.

I think that the comedy element was absolutely necessary to sell Bond in the Vietnam War era and post Vietnam War era.

As for George Lazenby, reporters and others wanted to generate controversy and ill will between him and the producers. Lazenby should also not have listened to his "friends" and more to his ally director Peter Hunt. Plus if you watch the documentary at the end of I]On Her Majesty Secret Service[/I] , George Lazenby pretty much confesses that his youth and arrogance pretty much screwed up a good thing. Also remember that Lazenby was only ousted after On Her Majesty Secret Service was declared a box office failure in 1969. If the newspapers hadn't created the friction between Lazenby and the producers, we may have seen other Bond pictures with Lazenby. The climate may have not been entirely fair to Lazenby, but he should have just kept his head through the whole thing and not let his ego take control of him. He followed in the footsteps of an international superstar at the height of an international frenzy. What was he but a London-based male model.

In 1970 when they began work on DAF they were casting Americans for James Bond and screen tested Adam West and John Gavin for the part. Remember that John Gavin was signed to play James Bond and Broccoli paid Gavin's acting salary in full when a deal between United Artists and Sean Connery was struck? Thank god that James Bond was portrayed by someone from the British Isles.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by doublenoughtspy
I agree with you Jaelle, Lazenby is what makes OHMSS so great.

It is quite amazing to think that between 69 and 73 there were 3 different Bond actors.

I know, what a time to be a Bond fan!

While I am somewhat sad that Lazenby didn't do any other Bond films - there was nothing in the next few films that make me think "Wow, I wish that was Lazenby" instead.[/B]

Hmm, I think that if they'd taken the basic outline in LALD and taken out the more OTT stuff, I think it would've been interesting to see him in Harlem and go up against Yaphet Kotto. And I can see him with Jane Seymour.

The thing I would have liked to have seen was a faithful adapation of YOLT starring Lazenby after OHMSS.  Of course they never would have done it - but it would have been incredible - the revenge angle played correctly and Lazenby's athletic abilities put to good use in the martial arts scenes.[/B]

Well, since Sean looked totally bored throughout that film anyway, Lazenby might well have been a better choice.

I'm not sure another film would really help Lazenby's standing that much - it would probably be on par with Dalton - where purists and scholars recognize the portrayals as incredible - but the general public does not equate them to the big three of Connery, Moore, and Brosnan.[/B]

I think there's an incredible "sheepage" quality to the general public. In Cubby's biography, he mentions how in 1989 (I think that was the year) there was a survey among college students of who their favorite Bond was. Sean came first, Tim was a close second. Tim's films were big in the news then so of course he was the one whom the public had in their minds. But now since it's been so many years since his films were released and Brosnan's taken over the role with 4 films and massive PR campaigns, it's he who comes to mind for the general public. I wonder if you took the same survey among college students today Sean would be bumped in first place by Pierce.

A single performance can have just as big an impact as several, imho.[/B]

Maybe to a degree. But there's no underestimating the power of repetition combined with huge PR budgets.

As a British newspaper said after DAD - Brosnan is in danger of achieving less as Bond with all his films than Lazenby did with just 1.[/B]

Interesting observation. Perhaps. Brosnan himself is an effective Bond, but with the exception of GE, I don't find his films terribly memorable. I say that even tho there are bits here and there that I do love, like scenes with Judi Dench and Robbie Coltrane and John Cleese, etc.

[Jaelle]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triton
Also remember that Lazenby was only ousted after On Her Majesty Secret Service was declared a box office failure in 1969.[/QUOTE]

Lazenby was not ousted, he voluntarily chose not to accept the contract offered him. That was his choice, made on bad advice and his own arrogance. One factor that went into his decision was very credible, I think: like many people at the time, he thought that the Bond films were a thing of the 60s, passe, and were on their way out. He didn't want to be associated with what he believed to be a dying fad. That's what his advisor told him, and at the time, it really wasn't so far-fetched an argument. Many people were saying the same thing.

By the way, TMWTGG was also a box office failure for Moore. As were DN and FRWL for Connery, expecially in the US. US audiences stayed away from Connery's first two films in droves. In fact, the second films for Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan have all been comparatively weak performers at the box office.[/B][/QUOTE]

[Triton]

Jaelle wrote:

Lazenby was not ousted, he voluntarily chose not to accept the contract offered him. That was his choice, made on bad advice and his own arrogance. One factor that went into his decision was very credible, I think: like many people at the time, he thought that the Bond films were a thing of the 60s, passe, and were on their way out. He didn't want to be associated with what he believed to be a dying fad. That's what his advisor told him, and at the time, it really wasn't so far-fetched an argument. Many people were saying the same thing.

I thought that the story was that George Lazenby's advisor Ronan O'Reilly was quoted as saying that On Her Majesty's Secret Service would be his last before the picture even opened? I thought Lazenby only had a one picture deal anyway. My interpretation was that Harry Saltzmann and Cubby Broccoli had had enough of George's immaturity and arrogance, and they made no attempt to communicate with George Lazenby to see if the story was true or make any effort at reconciliation. David Picker, then president of United Artists, said that they had to blame somebody for the slow business of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, so they blamed George Lazenby and fired him. So the "they" is David Picker, Cubby Broccoli, and Harry Saltzman.

Another big problem was that the British press were gunning for George Lazenby to begin with because he was not Sean Connery. They constantly compared him to Sean while the film was being made and went out of their way to portray him as a troublemaker. George Lazenby said that Diana Rigg jokingly shouted to George Lazenby in the studio commisary that she was eating garlic and hoped he was doing the same. The press then came out with headlines the next day: "Rigg Eats Garlic for Lazenby Love Scenes" and wrote stories that there were conflicts between Rigg and Lazenby on the set. Peter Hunt and George Lazenby seem to remember that Diana Rigg was always supportive of George and George Lazenby remembers that he got along quite well with Diana Rigg. I don't know Diana Rigg's side of the story, nor have I heard her talk about her James Bond experience.

So its just too simplistic to say that George Lazenby just walked away from James Bond and it was all his fault. One of the big problems was that both Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman always had trouble communicating with George. Peter Hunt really should have stepped in to help the situation. But after the newspaper headlines, George wasn't interested in communicating with the producers or David Picker at United Artists to tell his side of the story. And with the poor business of On Her Majesty's Secret Service, why would he bother and not think that James Bond was passe? David Picker certainly would have been dead set against hiring him again. Also remember that in 1970, David Picker was willing to pay any price for Sean Connery to return. Connery got an $11 million dollar pay check and got a deal that United Artists would make three films on whatever subject Sean Connery wanted. That was an astronomical pay check and an extremely generous deal way back in 1970. That's a pay any price to get Sean back kinda of deal.

Well certainly the 1971 entry Diamonds Are Forever with it's emphasis on comedy would never be confused with a 1960's Bond film. I think that too much credit is given to the James Bond formula, and most Bond "analysts" fail to realize that the producers are flexible to the tastes of contemporary film goers. They keep the stuff that works, throw out what doesn't, and are willing to modify characters and situations so they don't appear dated. Compare the Lois Maxwell Moneypenny in the Sean Connery films to the Samantha Bond Moneypenny in the Pierce Brosnan pictures. But this is no revelation to any of the Bond fans reading this forum.

By the way, TMWTGG was also a box office failure for Moore. As were DN and FRWL for Connery, expecially in the US. US audiences stayed away from Connery's first two films in droves. In fact, the second films for Connery, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan have all been comparatively weak performers at the box office.

I don't know where you are getting your information Jaelle, but I believe you are exagerating. There is an astronomical difference between money making film and international phenomenon/blockbuster hit. To my knowledge, all the Bond films,recouped on their cost of production during their original release.

Dr. No
------
Budget: $950,000
World-wide Gross: $59.5 million
Domestic US box office:$16,100,000

From Russia with Love
---------------------
Budget: $2 million
World-wide Gross: $78.9 million
Domestic US box office: $24,800,000

Goldfinger
---------
Budget:$2.5 million
World-wide Gross: $124,900,000
Domestic US Box Office:$51,100,000

Clearly a monster box office hit/block buster.


Live and Let Die
---------------
Budget:$7 million
World-wide Gross: $126,400,000
Domestic US box office:$35,400,000

The Man with the Golden Gun
----------------------------
Budget: $7 million
World-wide Gross: $97.6 million
Domestic US box Office: $21,000,000

The Living Daylights
-------------------
Budget:Unknown, but I assume $30 million based on comments by Micheal G. Wilson and others that the budgets didn't increase since "Moonraker" in the 1980s
World-wide Gross:$191,200,000
Domestic US Box Office:$51,185,000

Licence to Kill
-------------
Budget: Unknown, but I assume $30 million based on comments by Micheal G. Wilson and others that the budgets didn't increase since "Moonraker" in the 1980s.
World-wide Gross:$156.2 million
Domestic US box Office: $34,667,015

Goldeneye
---------
Budget:Unknown
World-wide gross:$351,300,000
Domestic US Box Office:$106,429,941

Tomorrow Never Dies
-------------------
Budget:$110 million
World-wide Gross: $335.3 million
Domestic US box Office: $125,304,276

On Her Majesty's Secret Service
-------------------------------
Budget:$9 million
World-wide Gross:$64.6 million
Domestic US Box Office: $22,800,000

Source: James Bond Internation Fan Club
and The Numbers.com.

Jaelle where are you getting your box office numbers from to make such statements? The first two Bond films, Roger Moore's second, Timothy Dalton's second, nor Pierce Brosnan's second don't look like flops to me or weak box office performers. Man with the Golden Gun did less business than Live and Let Die, but by any definition it still was a hit. Licence to Kill did less business than The Living Daylights but even that made piles of money internationally. Tomorrow Never Dies probably could have done more World-wide business and could have made more money internationally compared to Goldeneye, but it certainly was profitable and probably made MGM/UA very happy. IMO most film producers would kill for box office numbers like these.

But ALL of the James Bond films were pretty good returns on investment. The stock market doesn't offer such consistent high returns on investment.

[Qwerty]

I think It was clearly wrong for Lazenby to take advice that the Bond series was dying, it was his fault that he walked off, had he stayed for another, perhaps he would have been more suited for the role.

[BONDFINESSE 007]

its clear george got more then a fair chance, and he did not make the wise move, looking back in hindsight which is 50-50 i am sure he sees this very clear now

in other words george...u fumbled the football

[Tarl_Cabot]

Lazenby was a good James bond but an idiot.

[Jaelle]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Triton
Jaelle wrote:

I thought that the story was that George Lazenby's advisor Ronan O'Reilly was quoted as saying that On Her Majesty's Secret Service would be his last before the picture even opened? I thought Lazenby only had a one picture deal anyway.[/QUOTE]

Your summary of all the bad publicity from the press, the difficulties between the two leads, Cubby's frustration with George's arrogance is all correct, as far as I know. However, I had always read that *before* Cubby et al. finally got fed up with George, he was actually offered a contract. But his growing ego problems during the filmmaking that alienated Cubby combined with his ultimate refusal to accept the offer were the reasons that he finally did not do more than one film. Isn't this also mentioned in the OHMSS dvd somewhere? I claim no absolute expertise in this, I only repeat what I've heard and read from those who actually worked on the film's production.

[QUOTE]I don't know where you are getting your information Jaelle, but I believe you are exagerating. There is an astronomical difference between money making film and international phenomenon/blockbuster hit. To my knowledge, all the Bond films,recouped on their cost of production during their original release.[/B][/QUOTE]

! The reason I put that smilie there is that you make the same argument I always make when everyone says that Dalton's two films (especially LTK) were total failures. So thanks very kindly for backing up my own argument on this, tho you did it inadvertently.

But to answer your question, I think you misunderstood me. I said that each *second* film of the Bond actors were *comparatively* (please read that word *comparatively*---that's the important distinction) weak performers at the box office. I have always made the exact same argument you made when defending Dalton's two films: in comparison with other films in general, they were quite successful worldwide. In comparison to *Bond* films, LTK is clearly the weakest performer *when you take the US market into account*. You are absolutely correct when you say that the makers of many other films would kill to have the solid success rate of the Bond films. I think that's true of even the modest performance numbers of an LTK, never mind the more successful numbers of the Connery films.

OHMSS may have performed poorly in comparison to its Connery predecessors but when you look at its numbers today, I think its performance is pretty damned solid in comparison to other films of its time, and certainly in comparison to a few of the weaker Bond films.

Anyway, it IS true, Triton, that when both DN and FRWL first came out in the US, they did not do remarkably well in terms of ticket sales. They did *not* lose money (no Bond film ever has, not even LTK). With the larger budget and larger PR campaign of GF, and all the buzz of its success outside the US, US audiences flocked to see GF. It was when GF became such a clear success in the US that DN and FRWL were *re-released* to allow US audiences to see what they'd missed. Then the performance numbers of those two films pretty much skyrocketed.

For Roger, it is a fact that his second film TMWTGG did not do as well as his first. Again, I'm not saying that it lost money, I'm saying that it did not do as well as its predecessor. The same is certainly true of Dalton's second film, as well as Brosnan's second film. I'm simply speaking in comparative terms *within* the franchise itself. However, as you say, there is absolutely no question that every single Bond film has been successful to different degrees in a way that other franchises can't come close to matching.[/B][/QUOTE]

[ray t]

the title of your thread is flawed.

he totally got a fair chance...

as others have said, his arrogance (coupled with flawed advice) was at fault.

OHMSS is a magnificent epic because of fleming's original story, hunt's interpretation of it, eon's "drive-on-regardless" conviction, barry's outstanding score and diana riggs presence.

lazenby performance was a better than average first effort...but didnt come close to some of the performances of the other four.

[ray t]

Originally posted by MattCasey009
i feel so bad for this man...

get over it, old chap....its nearly 35 years on...

[Triton]

Thanks for the clarification Jaelle.

I still don't think it's exactly fair to place the blame entirely on George Lazenby's shoulders. Sure his arrogance and immaturity didn't help matters.

But the press was after him from the get go and was extremely hostile to him because he wasn't Sean Connery. Who could handle such constant press scrutiny and hostility? Sean Connery certainly was sick and tired of the press attention during the filming of You Only Live Twice that he announced his retirement from the role of 007.

I wonder how Roger Moore would have faired if he was not contracted to do a few more seasons of the The Saint and got the James Bond role in 1968. Roger may have handled some of the situations a lot better than George, but then the press would be making comparisons of Sean Connery and Roger Moore and James Bond and Simon Templar. He would have to answer stupid media questions like how does 007 differ from The Saint.

It's very interesting to watch the documentary material on the Live and Let Die Special Edition DVD. Both Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz were smart enough to intentionally avoid comparisons between Sean Connery and Roger Moore. Notice how in Live and Let Die, Moore smokes cigars instead of cigarettes, never says "The name is Bond, James Bond", and doesn't order a Vodka martini shaken not stirred? I think that the first time Roger Moore has a Vodka martini is in The Spy Who Loved Me, after doing two Bond films.

If Moore had gotten the role, would we be talking about how Roger Moore screwed up his career? Or what about Timothy Dalton, I seem to remember that he was considered briefly for the part after his impressive debut as the King of France in The Lion in Winter?

Well you all know the saying: Hindsight is 20/20.

[JimmyBob]

I thought he was a useless Bond for one thing HE COULDN'T ACT! which is a big problem.

Anyway he had the chance to star in DAF, but he turned it down and he left on his own accord which I think was the right thing. If he hadn't left then we might not have had 4 decent Bond Films starring Roger Moore when he looked young enough and believable as Bond!

[Dr.Carl Mortner]

FRWL, to the best of my knowledge, was a pretty big hit on first release as it just happened to come out shortly after JFK announced the source novel as one of his favorite books. I'm pretty sure it was among the top five grossers of 1963.

As for Lazenby, he was good in OHMSS, but I can't see the series lasting without the Roger Moore take on the character, which was more in tune with the mood of the '70s than Lazenby's Connery-lite.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

Alright, I'd just like to give my two cents on the subject. George Lazenby was given a fair chance at the role, but he decided to do only one film, out of his own choice, which was influenced by the media, and the people around him. As stated here, he was burdened with the huge impression that Connery made on the moviegoers. He probably felt that the series wouldn't last, and him along with it if he continued. When he decided to only do one, he got a little arrogant, and refused to cooperate, as a result of many people not believing he could handle the role. Anyway, he walked out of the role, even before production began, so to speak. MGM and EON were only happy to shove him out the door. I would say that OHMSS did rather well, considering that the public appealed to Connery immensely. I've come o respect the film, and I really feel that he could have done a wicked job with DAF, if he had just signed for one more. He could have been real interesting with the revenge plot, and I would have loved to see him mountaineering outside the Whyte House or how the elevator fight would have turned out. Again, that's just my take on it, and do with it what you will.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Dr.Carl Mortner
FRWL, to the best of my knowledge, was a pretty big hit on first release as it just happened to come out shortly after JFK announced the source novel as one of his favorite books. I'm pretty sure it was among the top five grossers of 1963.

Hmm, maybe some research is needed here. I'm only repeating what I've read -- that FRWL was not a hit in the US when it was *first* released. I wish I had the specific article in mind but I'm thinking of one in particular from The Hollywood Reporter from many years back saying that FRWL had only something like $4 million in ticket sales upon its first release *in the US.*

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
I still don't think it's exactly fair to place the blame entirely on George Lazenby's shoulders. Sure his arrogance and immaturity didn't help matters.  
But the press was after him from the get go and was extremely hostile to him because he wasn't Sean Connery. Who could handle such constant press scrutiny and hostility?

You're right, the press was gunning for ANYONE who was to replace Sean, no matter who it was going to be. Tim Dalton was smarter. Yes, he was very young back then when the Broccolis approached him (they didn't offer him anything, they *approached* him to sound him out). But in every single interview where he's asked about this, he always emphasizes the impossibility of taking over from Sean. He stresses that far above the age issue. He said once "Even if I'd been old enough, I would never have taken over from Sean. You don't replace Sean Connery."

The only way to do it successfully was what Roger did: an entirely different style and tone for Bond.