27 replies to this topic

[baerrtt]

Playing Devil's Advocate here guys but first let me state that I love Lazenby as Bond and believe if he hadn't got out when he did he would've improved in the role. However the question I'm posing is one of perception or people's perception of the movie franchise. In other words in OHMSS here you had an entry that (up until that point) was the most character driven Bond film and when Connery bailed out after YOLT the producers scrambled to find a replacement. Given that (to their credit) they didn't eliminate the character stuff (Bond falling in love, getting married, Tracey dying at the end) wouldn't it have been prudent in retrospect to hire an experienced actor to replace Connery (if it weren't for his problems I'd loved to have seen Oliver Reed take a crack at it for example).

I don't say this to insult George but the fact is they had a Bond film unlike any other and a portrayal of Bond (to a cinemagoing audience) that was suprising and they hired someone, a male model who had advertised chocolate, only on the basis that he looked good. We've all heard the story that Cubby and co wanted him to be a Connery clone (given the storyline, of course, that didn't remain so) but in hiring a non-actor it bolstered the idea (I believe) that one didn't need acting talent to play Bond, even when the material was the most character driven up until that point. By the time we came to Dalton this effect had taken hold of the public and people's perception of the character, hence why (amongst other reasons) the general public didn't take to Dalton at the time of his tenure. Looking at reviews of CR last year (and the Bafta nom and Evening Standard Award for DC) it seems the stigma was there for a long time. In other words if OHMSS had an experienced talented actor in the role as Bond would ppl (the general public) have bought the personal storyline on release as opposed to later when it came to be reapraised on tv and video? Just that from the people I've spoke to (friends, co workers, family), to this day, GL (and not the film itself) seems to be the only flaw they see in the film.

Edited by baerrtt, 04 December 2007 - 11:57 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Despite George's flaws, I still think he was brilliant in the role.

[baerrtt]

Despite George's flaws, I still think he was brilliant in the role.

So do I, but I'm saying, if any one of us was Cubby, even with the fear of Connery vacating the part would you have cast somebody with virtually little or no acting experience, particularly when the material (partially) requires/required more than looking good in a tux and fighting extremely well (which George does magnificently)?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Despite George's flaws, I still think he was brilliant in the role.

So do I, but I'm saying, if any one of us was Cubby, even with the fear of Connery vacating the part would you have cast somebody with virtually little or no acting experience, particularly when the material (partially) requires/required more than looking good in a tux and fighting extremely well (which George does magnificently)?

Hmmm... well, then again, I'm not Cubby.

[LadySylvia]

I have said this in other posts. I feel that experienced or not, Lazenby's performance had added to the excellence of OHMSS. Without him that film would have fallen flat in my eyes, because I doubt that Diana Rigg or Telly Savalas could have saved it. Neither were in the movie long enough to do so. More than Blofeld's plot or Tracy's emergence as a woman in love, OHMSS, in the end, depended upon Bond's humanity and his ability to fall deeply in love with a woman. And in that regard, Lazenby did an excellent job.

Perhaps OHMSS could have been casted with a more experienced actor and still succeed as a story. But since I consider OHMSS to be one of the best movies in the franchise, I think that it owed its artistic success a lot to Lazenby's performance.

[HH007]

I think for the most part Lazenby did fine. The only part he didn't sell me on was the very end, I just didn't buy his anguish in that moment and thought they definitely could've used a more experienced actor for that scene.

That said, I do think Lazenby did the Bond franchise a HUGE favor in that he showed that other actors besides Connery could play the role.

[Bondian]

I have said this in other posts. I feel that experienced or not, Lazenby's performance had added to the excellence of OHMSS. Without him that film would have fallen flat in my eyes, because I doubt that Diana Rigg or Telly Savalas could have saved it. Neither were in the movie long enough to do so. More than Blofeld's plot or Tracy's emergence as a woman in love, OHMSS, in the end, depended upon Bond's humanity and his ability to fall deeply in love with a woman. And in that regard, Lazenby did an excellent job.

Perhaps OHMSS could have been casted with a more experienced actor and still succeed as a story. But since I consider OHMSS to be one of the best movies in the franchise, I think that it owed its artistic success a lot to Lazenby's performance.

Great post. And I'd like to add, this is the only Bond that has pathos.

The only gripe I have is the under cranked fight scenes. But then again, a drawn out fight scene would have made Lazenby's Bond look like a bad person.

[plankattack]

I see what Baerrrtt is driving at here. It has nothing to do with how I feel about OHMSS (brilliant!) and Laz (didn't hurt the film one bit).

In the public's mind, Bond was Connery and vice versa. EON had two ways to go when replacing him and they took the path of the unknown, almost trying to duplicate what they did when they cast SC (going with the unknown Scot instead of the other names that were thrown around, Cary Grant, David Niven etc). Now in hindsight you can say that all the things that weighed OHMSS down AT THAT TIME - took longer to make back it's money, general public didn't like "downbeat ending", lack of fantastical aspects (hollowed-out volcanoes, ejector seats etc), and basically Laz not being SC, were down to the lead they cast.

Perhaps EON should have gone the other route, casting the biggest star they could find - replacing SC's starpower with some of equal footing. But Cubby and Harry believed back then that the character was bigger than the star. Nearly 40years on we know they were right, but for awhile back then, it looked like they were wrong. Look at the business now - if say, Tobey McGuire were to step down as Spiderman, or Damon as Bourne, would Hollywood go with an unknown? No, a franchise would attempt to protect itself with the most bankable star it could get its hands on.

So did casting an unknown (in this case Laz) do Bond (in this case, EON in particular) no favours? At that time, you could make a case that it didn't. The series went back to SC, then to another actor, and then EON itself went through some difficult times. Creatively, the series lurched all over the place, not settling on a style and identity until TSWLM/MR.

Did OHMSS hurt the franchise? Well, depending how you feel about the fifteen or so films since, is going to shape your opinion. I love the film, and up until LTK (which I really enjoy, for all its faults) I don't feel as strongly about what was put up onscreen in between. So for me, OHMSS's failings did Bond no favours.

[J.C.D'Arc]

I think for the most part Lazenby did fine. The only part he didn't sell me on was the very end, I just didn't buy his anguish in that moment and thought they definitely could've used a more experienced actor for that scene.

That said, I do think Lazenby did the Bond franchise a HUGE favor in that he showed that other actors besides Connery could play the role.

I wonder if you realize that they shot two takes of that scene: one in which Lazenby cried and one in which he didn't. They used the one in which he didn't. "James Bond doesn't cry!" they said. Wrong choice, I think. But, of course hindsight is 20/20.

[Mr. Blofeld]

I think for the most part Lazenby did fine. The only part he didn't sell me on was the very end, I just didn't buy his anguish in that moment and thought they definitely could've used a more experienced actor for that scene.

That said, I do think Lazenby did the Bond franchise a HUGE favor in that he showed that other actors besides Connery could play the role.

I wonder if you realize that they shot two takes of that scene: one in which Lazenby cried and one in which he didn't. They used the one in which he didn't. "James Bond doesn't cry!" they said. Wrong choice, I think. But, of course hindsight is 20/20.

Actually, Peter Hunt said was the one who said that; in fact, he was closely following the novel, in which Bond smiled while delivering the closing lines.

[Peckinpah1976]

I think for the most part Lazenby did fine. The only part he didn't sell me on was the very end, I just didn't buy his anguish in that moment and thought they definitely could've used a more experienced actor for that scene.

If that's your take, then I'm fine with it but even people who don't otherwise like Lazenby tend to agree that he really nails that scene.

[LadySylvia]

Now in hindsight you can say that all the things that weighed OHMSS down AT THAT TIME - took longer to make back it's money, general public didn't like "downbeat ending", lack of fantastical aspects (hollowed-out volcanoes, ejector seats etc), and basically Laz not being SC, were down to the lead they cast.

But I feel that Lazenby's real problem was not his performance or the type of story that OHMSS was. The real problem was that Lazenby had decided not to continue playing Bond. If he had decided to stick with the role for a few more movies, I suspect that no one would be labeling him as a "failed James Bond".

[plankattack]

Now in hindsight you can say that all the things that weighed OHMSS down AT THAT TIME - took longer to make back it's money, general public didn't like "downbeat ending", lack of fantastical aspects (hollowed-out volcanoes, ejector seats etc), and basically Laz not being SC, were down to the lead they cast.

But I feel that Lazenby's real problem was not his performance or the type of story that OHMSS was. The real problem was that Lazenby had decided not to continue playing Bond. If he had decided to stick with the role for a few more movies, I suspect that no one would be labeling him as a "failed James Bond".

You're right. If Laz had done a couple more he wouldn't have been labelled as a "failed James Bond." My only point is, all the criticisms listed above were thrown at OHMSS at that time (not now obviously, the film has aged better than nearly every other entry in the series). And unfortunately for Laz, he took his share, for not being SC, for only doing one, for not immediately clicking with the general public. I'm not saying that those criticisms were Laz's fault, but he ended up being the lightning rod for them.

EON and UA didn't help either. Sure, they looked at other people to replace Laz (John Gavin!), but at the end of the day David Picker, in charge of UA at the time, made it clear that they were going to set SC back, whatever it cost them. The fact that the next film after OHMSS had the original Bond back in the lead, only helped to reinforce the notion that everything about OHMSS had been a mistake. DAF is in a very different tone to the previous entry. EON/UA weren't taking any chances - they felt that SC, spectacle, and a lighter romp of a movie would guarentee the megahit that they were used to getting with Bond.

As much as we all love OHMSS now, the general public didn't feel that way nearly forty years ago, and unfair that it is, it's Laz that carries the can for it even now. Ask any non-Bond fan if they like OHMSS (or even if they've seen it) and nine times out of ten they'll dismiss it because it stars the "other guy."

EON have always tried to find success by trying to "repeat" it. They went with an unknown in '69 because they'd done that at the start and had been right. With DAF they tried to copy GF. After Sir Rog did LALD, they wanted to bring out TMWTGG within a year (the strategy used at the start - DN, followed in concsecutive years by FRWL, followed by GF), thinking that following the original scheduling would help guarentee a hit. Even now, with Babs picking DC (a "relative" unknown compared to all the other names thrown around on the web), I personally feel that she was channelling her father in "EON knowing what's best for Bond."

Unlike 1969, circumstances thankfully vindicated that decision!

Edited by plankattack, 06 December 2007 - 06:52 PM.

[tambourineman]

OHMSS was a very bad movie to start any new actor on, let alone an inexperienced one. I think the Laz was great, but Im thinking of the audiences of the day, it was hard enough for them to accept any new actor as Bond, but then debut him in a film where the character behaved much differently then before? And then use the word "different" fifty times in the trailer? Very, very odd choices.

Edited by tambourineman, 07 December 2007 - 03:53 AM.

[Pete]

I've always found OHMSS an odd-ball in all senses. It was a film that was made "early" on in the series but it's a book that comes towards the end of Flemings writing. It was obvious that Flemimng was bringing Bond to an end at this point, with YOLT being the final chapter. I often think of it as the film that shouldn't have been made. Despite that, it's one of the best of all the Bond films. I don't think Connery at that time could have made a better film than Lazenby, who for all the critisism, nailed the part and more than nailed the ending.

[deth]

OHMSS was a great Bond, albeit different at the time. However, the one major problem I've always found, and still do despite his re-evaluation, is Lazenby. I don't like the look (not his fault there tho), and I don't like his delivery.

It seemed like every time he delivered a clever line, he looked as if "hey guys, I'm delivering a clever Bond line, see? Me, I am!"

Now, so did Roger, but Roger did it totally acknowledging how silly it all was, and that's why it worked for him... but Lazenby tried to hide it... and for me, that didn't work

[Mr. Blofeld]

I like to call OHMSS the "little island of quality", as it lies between the last two horrific Connery affairs, YOLT and DAF.

[coco1997]

Eh, "YOLT" is far from horrific, but "DAF" surely is.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Eh, "YOLT" is far from horrific, but "DAF" surely is.

Really?

It's got:

* A bored Sean Connery
* Cruddy "space" effects
* A plotline full of so many holes it could qualify as Swiss cheese
* A bored Sean Connery
* Inept villains
* The stupidest movie Blofeld (yes, even dumber than DAF's)
* Oh, and last, but not least: A bored Sean Connery

It's clearly horrific.

[lazenbyland]

I see the point of the post here.

It depends on your time scale. Personally if I felt that having a different actor in the Bond role in OHMSS reduced it as an artistic cinematic triumph, then what happened afterwards I couldn't really care less. I don't think Connery or Moore could have turned in a performance as good as Lazenby's. They had too much personality-plus

However Roger Moore showed he could play good dramatic roles and when he was under the wing of Peter Hunt in Gold and Shout at The Devil, he showed he could play serious roles as well as more light hearted ones. Who knows? Perhaps if Rog HAD done OHMSS first, then we could have a very different Roger Moore interpretation of his Bond films, assuming he carried on, which I think he would have.

I remember when he took over in 1973 and no-one expected him to portray Bond like Connery as he was such a different actor. Lazenby was compared to Connery and the audiences, at least in 1969, were hostile to any other actor playing the role, especially one who was being compared to Connery. When Connery retruned and Roger then took over for another 14 years, then Lazenby had the burden of the one-off Bond on his shoulders for a long time. It was only with the TV showings (outside the USA who had the ABC version inflicted on them) and the James Bond British Fan Club voting it the best in the series on their inaugural poll that the film started to receive the credit it was due.

I agree with the poster about YOLT. It has gone down in my estimation over the years. It has good local flavour, but I think it's one of the last remaining remnants of a time when, because it was part of Connery's first five, then people think it better than it is.

[deth]

I've never really gotten what's so great about Lazenby's performance... I've always found it bland, and uninspired... pretty much what I said a few posts up.

In all sincerity, I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me why he's so good...

I like the film, but he's a big minus... and trust me, I'd rather like him..

[triviachamp]

However Roger Moore showed he could play good dramatic roles and when he was under the wing of Peter Hunt in Gold and Shout at The Devil, he showed he could play serious roles as well as more light hearted ones. Who knows? Perhaps if Rog HAD done OHMSS first, then we could have a very different Roger Moore interpretation of his Bond films, assuming he carried on, which I think he would have.

Roger Moore didn't take Bond seriously so I don't think he would have done OHMSS. Not to mention that by the 1970s they had no interest at all in a OHMSS type film.

[MHazard]

Personally, I recoil in horror at the thought of Roger Moore doing OHMSS, but there are those who say they have seen movies where he's turned in a quality dramatic performance in a non-comedy, non-camp role. I haven't seen those movies, but I have problems believing it.

Once again, we appear to be in a parallel universe, musing on whether someone else could have done OHMSS better than Laz. I think it would have been hard for anyone to be accepted as Bond immediately after Connery, no matter how skilled an actor. The casual Bond movie fan (most of them) never read any Fleming novels and expected a movie similar to GF, TB, and YOLT. OHMSS is not any of those. Now, I'm sure there were actors who could have done a better Bond than Laz did. I can't tell you who they are, I've probably never heard of most of them. I've also argued that an OHMSS with Connery might've been the ultimate Bond film (it also could of sucked, no way to really know).

I do think Moore's life was made easier by the mess that was DAF. Even Connery fans like myself knew it was time for a change in the role. Interesting food for thought, if LALD with Moore had been made after YOLT would it have also been unsuccesful encouraging the filmakers to return with a Sean DAF and then go in a more (not Moore) serious direction with OHMSS. Personally, I doubt it. I suspect no matter how skilled the actor in OHMSS, that if it wasn't Sean, he wasn't going to be succesful. The movie public wasn't ready for a non-Sean and wasn't ready for Bond without a happy ending. Please note, OHMSS is my favorite Bond movie, although Laz is not my favorite Bond actor (OHMSS is also my favorite Bond book, so you can probably reach some conclusions there as well as my longstanding crush on Dianna Rigg).

[LadySylvia]

It seemed like every time he delivered a clever line, he looked as if "hey guys, I'm delivering a clever Bond line, see? Me, I am!"

Just about ALL of the Bonds are guilty of this. The worst cases - in my opinion - are Connery during the last 30 minutes of FRWL and Moore in MR.

[Jeff007]

I've always thought that Lazenby is one of the reasons why we are still watching Bond today. Sean Connery was one of the most famous actors in the 60's. James Bond was his role and any actor taking over would have to live up to Sean. This still happens today, obviously. George was unlucky cause everyone wanted to see Sean and not some unknown.

Now, George was the first time the public saw a different face in a Bond movie as Bond. If there was no George, there would be no more Bond. We would be buying some Box set from DN-YOLT. That's it. End of Bond. Sean quit.

What George basically did was take all the presure away from Moore for the series to continue on for as long as it is. Someone had to do it. Lazenby did.

Perhaps if they went straight with Moore, everything would of still been fine. But I don't think Moore had as tough of time in LALD as he would of if he straight up followed Sean.

[deth]

I've always thought that Lazenby is one of the reasons why we are still watching Bond today. Sean Connery was one of the most famous actors in the 60's. James Bond was his role and any actor taking over would have to live up to Sean. This still happens today, obviously. George was unlucky cause everyone wanted to see Sean and not some unknown.

Now, George was the first time the public saw a different face in a Bond movie as Bond. If there was no George, there would be no more Bond. We would be buying some Box set from DN-YOLT. That's it. End of Bond. Sean quit.

What George basically did was take all the presure away from Moore for the series to continue on for as long as it is. Someone had to do it. Lazenby did.

Perhaps if they went straight with Moore, everything would of still been fine. But I don't think Moore had as tough of time in LALD as he would of if he straight up followed Sean.

The thing is, I don't think they ever would have followed up with moore straightaway... or a least, not in a comedic style. If Lazenby is only important because he allowewd future films to be made, due to his taking the pressure from Moore, then it doesn't say much about him... any half-decent actor (and I don't consider Lazenby half-decent) could have filled that role...

... Let's not lose sight of the fact that Lazenby was hired because he could throw a convincing punch...

[Jeff007]

I've always thought that Lazenby is one of the reasons why we are still watching Bond today. Sean Connery was one of the most famous actors in the 60's. James Bond was his role and any actor taking over would have to live up to Sean. This still happens today, obviously. George was unlucky cause everyone wanted to see Sean and not some unknown.

Now, George was the first time the public saw a different face in a Bond movie as Bond. If there was no George, there would be no more Bond. We would be buying some Box set from DN-YOLT. That's it. End of Bond. Sean quit.

What George basically did was take all the presure away from Moore for the series to continue on for as long as it is. Someone had to do it. Lazenby did.

Perhaps if they went straight with Moore, everything would of still been fine. But I don't think Moore had as tough of time in LALD as he would of if he straight up followed Sean.

The thing is, I don't think they ever would have followed up with moore straightaway... or a least, not in a comedic style. If Lazenby is only important because he allowewd future films to be made, due to his taking the pressure from Moore, then it doesn't say much about him... any half-decent actor (and I don't consider Lazenby half-decent) could have filled that role...

... Let's not lose sight of the fact that Lazenby was hired because he could throw a convincing punch...

They obviously didn't intend to have Lazenby to take the presure off to make way for Moore. No way to forsee that. But that might of been what happened. i.e. Most random fans don't care for Dalton so they immediately cheered for Brosnan. If Craig failed and they hired say Clive Owen next, Owen would have an easier ride.

I wish Lazenby would of made more movies. As you said, deth, threw one heck of a punch! He had lots of guts!

[MrsMoore]

maybe I am a dyed in the wool fan of Connery and Moore, but I just think that Lazenby did a horrid job as Bond, and would have been my LAST choice for the role.