21 replies to this topic

[Sir James]

Obviously, It is George Lazenby that gets hit on the most as the worst Bond actor. I am curious as to what some hardcore Bond fans feel about the man who only lived once as 007. Post your thoughts here.

[Carver]

Lazenby was definatly the worst Bond, but with practise, I think he may have made a good Bond. He was certainly the right size, built for action scenes, but he just wasn't a very expercienced actor. One thing I didn't like (I'll loose friends for this) was his teddy bear ears and chin. I mean, look at the beginning, when you just see his sillouette, his ears stick out a mile!

[JimmyBond]

His film is definately one of, if not my favorite Bond film. As for Lazenby himself, he played the role great, he added vulnerability to the role while also retaining the suave laidies man appeal of 007. Something Dalton never did. So no, I dont think Lazenby was the worst Bond actor.

[Tanger]

JimmyBond, I agree with everything you've said.

Many people pan Lazenby just because he only did one. In fact I know so many people that see he was sooooo bad, yet they haven't even seen the god damn film!

IMO the public need to grow up and sop bashing Lazenby and just appreciate the film for what it is.

[Xenobia]

I think OHMSS is a very unrrated film....particularly since it established the now classic, "Bond in snow chase" scene.

I also the think George Lazenby was a good Bond....I would even say great, since it was his first time out and he was expected to have a range of emotions that Sean Connery never was, nor the others for that matter.

I think in some places he fell flat...I was never entirely convinced that Bond loved Tracy more than any other girl he had ever been with. That being said, he did communicate the tenderness necessary in the wedding scene, and in the finale.

With more time, I think he would have made a decent Bond, but as the song says, time was not on his side.

What I don't like about Lazenby is his arrogance...especially his recent outings in the press where he seems to think everyone else was **** and he wasn't. The others made more movies than he did, and were not stupid enough to pass up this role...and that certainly puts them a cut above him professionally.

-- Xenobia

[Carver]

I agree with you all. In my post, I didn't say that I hated GL, just that I didn't think he was the best, lets get that straight first. I think that if Lazenby had done more films, say DAF, LALD and TMWTGG, he would have been rated a pretty good Bond, and would have become more experienced as an actor:)

[Double-Oh-Zero]

I agree with what Xenobia said. He wasn't very convincing as the future husband of Tracy, but he was good in the fight sequences. If he did at least one more, he could have been a lot better and gotten used to the role a little more, then gained more respect. OHMSS isn't my worst Bond film anymore, now some of the Moore ones are (sorry, Xen). So Lazenby wasn't the worst IMO, he just needed to do more films to be recognised more.

[Carver]

I always say this, but DAF was made for George. Tanger usually says this, but in his absence ( I presume he is at work), I'll say: watch the pre-titles sequence again, and imagine GL in it, it was all made FOR HIM. He would have gained expercince from doing OHMSS, and would have had his revenge in DAF. He played out OHMSS briliantly, the best Bond actor who has graced the fight scenes (I like the fight in Tracy's room the best). There was a fight where GL chases one of Blofeld's men across the rofftops of London, but Georgey was injured during filming it, so it was cut out. I'll say again, watch the DAF pre-titles sequence and imagine GL in it, you'll se what a difference it makes. DAF was made for George.
Hows that for a 600th post?

[Xenobia]

I agree...DAF was made for GL and not SC...and unlike the rewrite for TLD, they left DAF the way it was, knowing Connery could make it his.

And Double O...don't worry...I am used to folks thinking that some of the Moore's are bad. As long as you are willing to admit you were wrong when you see the light...;-) Just kidding.

-- Xenobia

[Max Zorin007]

I think ohmss is a great movie but not the best in the series. I think if brosnan played bond ohss would be by far the best bond film. good plot, good locations especially the alps. one of a kind film.

[Turn]

Lazenby had the odds stacked against him from the beginning. He was a guy with no acting experience filling the shoes of a superstar who created the role of the hero of a blockbuster series.

You have to applaude his effort acting with pros like Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas. He was excellent at action, but I found him most awkward in confrontational scenes, like the one where Tracy invites him to her hotel room. For the most part, he did okay. Had he come in for a more action-oriented film like YOLT, it may have been different.

His downfall was announcing his leaving the role before the film came out. That started the bad press that kept going until 10-15 years ago. I remember reading James Bond In the Cinema, the first book about the film series and the author ripping Lazenby to shreds. Now OHMSS is a cult sensation for others and one of the most beloved films for Bond fans.

Unfortunately, OHMSS is not as well liked by non-fans. My wife won't watch OHMSS because she doesn't want to watch the one with "that guy." As for Lazenby's attitude, I haven't heard him badmouthing the other Bonds. He usually seems pretty willing to talk about the role freely and actually shows up at fan gatherings and things. Ask Connery or Brosnan to show up at those or for Connery and Dalton to even talk about their time as Bond.

[Max Zorin007]

Does anyone know if you can still find that book "james bond in the cinema"?? I'd like to see what he said about lazenby.

[scaramanga1]

I think that if GL had done more he would have proven to be really good.
He was very inexperienced as an actor and was really a Male model, I think he was too easily influenced by other people outside the franchise, and therefore took bad advice. He's probably still kicking himself today.
But I'm sure he is proud of that one outing as 007 - I know I would be!
Undoubtedly DAF would have really shown Joe Public that he was a good Bond. But well - we know what happened.
Still - He was a Bond, and did not in anyway ruin the series, and for that we should all be thankful. Remember - its quality not quantity!

[Turn]

Originally posted by Max Zorin007
Does anyone know if you can still find that book "james bond in the cinema"??  I'd like to see what he said about lazenby.

It's not in print anymore. It can sometimes be found on eBay or at some secondhand bookstores. If I get a chance, I'll dig out the book and get you some comments if I get some time later today, Max.

[Sir James]

Originally posted by Max Zorin007
I think if brosnan played bond ohss would be by far the best bond film.  

Intresting that you say this. I read an article on some site somewhere that Brosnan saw OHMSS and remarked it as "sad." Now wether he meant the film was actually sad or meant it sucked is still something I am trying to determine. Any ideas???

[Double-Oh-Zero]

It is entirely true that DAF was made for George. Everything from the pre-credits sequence to the fight between Bambi and Thumper, to the climax on the oil rig. Those three scenes stand out most in my mind as the ones that would have been perfect for him. I could just imagine the look on Lazenby's face when he throws Blofeld into the mud pit, and when his Bath-o Sub is being destroyed. And I'll bet the Bambi and Thumper fight would have been a lot better. Mind you, I liked Sean in the role, and I don't think that Lazenby could have delivered the famous Plenty O'Toole line the way Sean did. But it still would have been great for Lazenby to come back for one more film.

[ChandlerBing]

Diamonds would have been a far different film than was done if Lazenby AND Peter Hunt would have come back. Remember the ending of OHMSS was supposed to be the pre-credits sequence for Diamonds if Hunt had his way and Lazenby would have stayed.

[Max Zorin007]

You all are saying daf would be good for george. Ill have to watch it and picture him as connery. Its my least fav bond film so i dont get around to it too much.

[JimmyBond]

I agree with ChanglerBing. Hunt would have come back, the precredits would have been Tracy being murdered. Then the whole film would be Bond's man hunt to go get Blofeld. The plot would probably resemble LTK in many ways: Bond leaves the service, Bond teams up with a someone who's also after Blofeld. The only difference is, we'd have a Bond who would be watchable

[TheNewBlofeld]

I think he played the role fairly wel, would have been better tan Connery in DAF... that's about all I have to say on the subject. Me and JimmyBond had a lengthy discussion last night (In fact,that is prbably where he got the LTK stuff frm ). I forget a lot of my thoughts on the matter.

[Turn]

Sorry it took me so long to get back on this, but here is what James Bond in the Cinema author John Brosnan had to say about Lazenby in OHMSS:

"But when OHMSS was released, it was immediately apparent that serious error in casting had been made. First, Lazenby was simply too young for the part, his face suggesting none of the necessary Bondian world-weariness or ruthlessness. Secondly, his voice, despite the crash elocution course, was totally wrong, particularly when his underlying Australian accent broke through as it frequently did (an Australian James Bond is a contradiction in terms). The only time he sounded right was in the sequences where Bond masquerades as Sir Hilary Bray, and that's because George Baker's voice was used (it's surprising that the producers didn't decide to redub all of Lazenby's lines with someone else -- it would have made a big difference). Thirdly, and most importantly, it was obvious that Lazenby lacked training as an actor. Putting it bluntly, his performance was both awkward and wooden, and whatever that certain 'something' was that Hunt claimed he saw in him, failed to make the trasition to the screen (over the years, Lazenby's acting has improved -- he was even more memorable in Saint Jack -- and he has stated publicly that he is ready ofr another shot at Bond, but so far Broccoli has been in no rush to take up his offer). As skilled a director and editor as Hunt undoubtably is, no amount of cinematic tricks could disguise the fact that Lazenby as Bond was a big mistake. However, Hunt was more succcessful with the other aspects of the picture."

[Turn]

James Bond in the Cinema was an important book as it was the first to deal with the films alone. The first version appeared in 1972 covering all the films up to DAF and the second updated one appeared in 1981 and went through Moonraker. He gives some overviews of the series and then covers each film, giving a long synopses of each, giving some behind the scenes tidbits and making asides on what he thinks works and doesn't. This was important back then because it was before home video and it helped us remember what happened in the films in between network viewings. It's an interesting if not always fair take on a Bond fan's view of the series from 20 and 30 years ago.

But being important didn't always mean Brosnan's writing style was easy to digest. He is one of those proponents that the first three films are the best and everything else is pretty much an imitator to the good ole' days. He also used to have a column in Starburst magazine and continued to criticize each new Bond film that came out as well as other genre films.

He doesn't hate OHMSS, calling it "unique" but falls back on the old chestnut that it would have been the best had it featured Connery as Bond. He praises various aspects of it and he didn't call the picture sad, but said it was "Not a happy picture to work on from all accounts."