26 replies to this topic

[luciusgore]

Well if George Lazenby (who was not good looking) could play Bond, I'm sure Craig can do it. He looks pretty good in this shot:

http://sg.yimg.com/x.../2490608530.jpg

They will need to dye his hair. He's definitely the least good looking of the actors to play Bond. But he must have great acting chops, which Lazenby clearly did not.

Can he be witty?

[Bon-san]

...George Lazenby (who was not good looking)...

I'm guessing Athena and a thousand other folks will be along to have a go at that statement.

I'll start:

I disagree, wholeheartedly.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Laz was good looking...his hair is outdated,ok, but he's a handsome man. sheesh.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I stand in disagreement regarding the original statement about Lazeby

[luciusgore]

Well who would we rather have playing Bond right now, if we had a time machine. Daniel Craig or George Lazenby as he appeared in OHMSS? I think we can agree Lazenby wasn't a good actor.

[WC]

I wonder if Craig is being set up as a sort of Lazenby-esque sacrificial lamb. EON know that their Bond might possibly fail after a commercially successful one (like Lazenby after Connery, and to some extent Dalton after Moore), so they half expect that Craig might end up in the same boat. Perhaps they're just waiting for the next Bond in #22. Sign Craig up for 3 pic deal, and if he turns out alright, then all well and good, but if not, then as Tom Jones would say, "it's not unusual."

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

I always thought Lazenby was too good looking.

Anyways the valid point between Craig and Lazenby is to not judge him just because he doesn't have the looks or solely because he isn't Pierce Brosnan. This movie could be another OHMSS (that means it could be brilliant) and it could get overshadowed by people's blind and baseless hatred for the actor playing Bond. I say we learn the lesson from OHMSS and if Craig is Bond, give him a chance. If the movie is really bad....well...then we go nuts. Until then there's no sense judging him or saying...'well the series is done now that Pierce is gone, I'll just wait for this one on tv...'

[pgram]

Lazenby could still be playing Bond! He was (and is) very handsome -Cary Grant blended with Jack Palance, yummy looking in a sinister sort of way- and as far as his acting abilities are concerned, I 'd have to quote... myself: you don't play Bond, you either are, or are not. And if we want to be fair, Lazenby was Bond, more than anyone else. Connery had to be moulded for the role (and was he perfect!), Moore played Moore, which was excellent because he was Bond in so many ways. Dalton was too serious, but decent enough, Brosnan posed as Bond, but lacked charisma.

To be fair, I haven't seen Craig in anything but photos, so I 'll have to wait. But what I see is definitely discouraging. Not only does he look ugly, but he doesn't look tough (tough, not rugged) or strong or funny or elegant or anything. James Bond has to be impressive- he walks into a room and dominates it. When George entered an office, secretaries fell off their chairs, Cubby said. He knew...

And yes, I always hated his hair in OHMSS.

[SecretAgent007]

I would take Lazenby over Craig any day of the week. Craig could be the greatest actor of all time, but you can't act yourself into being good looking. We need someone that is somewhat good looking for this. This whole Craig thing is making me quite ill.

Edited by SecretAgent007, 11 October 2005 - 11:24 PM.

[Sam Fisher]

I'd rather have Lazenby play Bond now than Craig.

[tdalton]

I think that the parallels between now and the search for Bond #2 and the subsequent making of OHMSS are hard to ignore. Whoever Bond #6 is will have to follow a wildly successful Bond (Brosnan) just like Lazenby had to follow Sean Connery, also a wildly successful Bond. The move was also to take the franchise back to a more serious style, and one that followed the book closely. Supposedly, we're in that situation again as well. I seriously hope that everyone has learned from the mistakes made the last time and put Daniel Craig or whoever the new guy is in a better position to succeed than they put George in.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

My sentiments exactly tdalton.

[Spoon]

Craig will definitely be in a better position than Lazenby, by virtue of being:

• Not the first person ever to replace a James Bond
• A, well, actor
• Actually a very good actor
• Someone who has dealt with the media and stardom before
• Someone who won't cause problems on the set, or negotiate himself out of the series before his first film even comes out
• Someone whom most film critics respect and will want to see do well in the role

I think Craig will be given a fair shake, and his success will depend on how well he and the others involved with the production do their jobs, and on how much the public wants to see the vision of Bond that ends up being presented. Which is fair, and as it should be.

Edited by Spoon, 12 October 2005 - 04:45 AM.

[Qwerty]

Disagreed about the appearance of George Lazenby.

[cvheady007]

Daniel Craig has not even been signed, to our knowledge, yet he is being compared to Lazenby????

Wow...


Lazenby is better as "the" James Bond than Roger Moore, but no one else...and certainly Daniel Craig could not hold a candle to him.

Simple as that.

Edited by cvheady007, 12 October 2005 - 05:09 AM.

[jaguar007]

I think that the parallels between now and the search for Bond #2 and the subsequent making of OHMSS are hard to ignore.  Whoever Bond #6 is will have to follow a wildly successful Bond (Brosnan) just like Lazenby had to follow Sean Connery, also a wildly successful Bond.  The move was also to take the franchise back to a more serious style, and one that followed the book closely.  Supposedly, we're in that situation again as well.  I seriously hope that everyone has learned from the mistakes made the last time and put Daniel Craig or whoever the new guy is in a better position to succeed than they put George in.

not to mention both OHMSS and CR (if they stay tru to the book) have downbeat endings. Never good for a Bond on his first outing.

[Sam Fisher]

Daniel Craig has not even been signed, to our knowledge, yet he is being compared to Lazenby????

Wow...


Lazenby is better as "the" James Bond than Roger Moore, but no one else...and certainly Daniel Craig could not hold a candle to him.

Simple as that.

just CBn'ers being insulting. lol

[doublenoughtspy]

So I guess Broccoli's statement about women falling off their chairs when they see Lazenby is something you don't believe?

The man was the highest paid male model in Europe in 67-68.

He blows Craig out of the water in the handsome stakes.

[spynovelfan]

Well if George Lazenby (who was not good looking) could play Bond

Oh, come on!



What kind of standards do *you* have? That is a good-looking man, sorry.

[mcsearg]

One thing you have to tip your hat to Lazenby for, he had a killer gunbarrel sequence...

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

One thing you have to tip your hat to Lazenby for, he had a killer gunbarrel sequence...

Oh HELL YES. That scared me the first time I saw it.

[Scottlee]

Craig V Lazenby

This feels like a bit of a duff question seeing how no-one has seen Craig play Bond yet.

I've seen Craig twice (In Tomb Raider and Road to Perdition, yet still have no idea how he would fare as Bond. I just won't know until I se him wearing the tux and flirting with Moneypenny.

[Bondesque]

Laz was a great Bond for a first time actor. I think has he made wiser choicews in terms of who he listened to for advice he could have been grown into the role very very well. Yes, Craig is a better actor at this stage of his career but to judge his against LAz we would have to see his very first role.

LAz was a virgin acotr asked to carry the most iconic role in film history at the peak of it's popularity.

As for his looks compared to Daniel Craig....come on! LAz was 6'2" dark hair and handsome in a Cary Grant sort of way.

If Craig is selected he may make a great Bond and I will support him, however I think there were at least three better choices.

[Will_Brosnan_Return?]

How exactly is this man "not good looking"?


Granted Brosnan was probably a bit "prettier", maybe Dalton was a bit more "chiseled"......


but honestly I would say Lazenby was actually better looking than the two most popular Bonds Connery and Moore.

And really you could make the argument that he looked manlier than Dalton and Brosnan and sexier in a physical sense.


Daniel Craig is probably in all fairness an attractive or nice looking man.

He's obviously no Bond in looks though.


George Lazenby was extremely good looking, his close up profiles are even more impressive than Brosnan's in reality.

[flares]

Remember George was a model. I'm a fantastic looking chap, but I couldn't get a job as a model LOL.

/modesty

George rules

By the way hello everyone! Been too long

Edited by flares, 12 October 2005 - 08:06 PM.

[mcsearg]

You being too kind. Craig is a train wreck.. But if he is picked, im definately watching it.

Edited by mcsearg, 12 October 2005 - 08:45 PM.

[SecretAgentFan]

Interesting - when I saw OHMSS for the first time I did not consider Lazenby to really look like Bond or be as handsome as Connery. On still photos I actually thought Lazenby was very ordinary looking.

Meanwhile, I think Lazenby was very much Bondian looking and was a very striking looking man in OHMSS.

So, maybe it will be the same thing with Craig. Maybe we are all too blinded by the predecessor, in this case Brosnan. With the right distance (and I don