It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Each actor has been James Bond and we the audience generally accepted them in the role.
I’m hoping that this trend continues with the next actor, and have every faith that it will.
I would argue though that generally the new Bond channels or tries to channel the previous. Except for Craig and maybe Dalton. But even TLD had elements that felt very much like remnants from the Moore era. And for all the changes Moore brought to Bond, he's not very different from the Connery in DAF (if anything he's more serious).
Lazenby was miscast. At least the new actor, whoever it may be, won't be worse than him.
Agreed, good writing is key and unfortunately very rare today.
I think Lazenby was fine, sure his acting was left to be desired but he looked the part, he had the Bondian looks, he still matches Fleming's description of the character (lean, tall, handsome and black hair), he'd lost his opportunity when didn't continued to the role. Yes, every new Bond actor will be better than him in terms of acting, but he's not miscast.
In terms of miscast, to be honest I think it's Craig (Blonde, Small, not that conventionally handsome and muscular), many people even comparing him to Red Grant, he's far from Fleming's description, he didn't looked like Bond.
But despite of it, he did well in the role, he's a great actor and owned the part.
And that's the thing, it's all subjective. However, can you really say that George Lazenby ruined OHMSS, playing James Bond? Sure he has his problems as an actor. But he possess the qualities we associate with the cinematic Bond.
And yet he was universally accepted as Bond by the cinema going public. As you say @MI6HQ he went on to own the part.
It certainly is subjective, but the initial statement was that none of them have been miscast ‘no matter your personal thoughts’, which is as close to saying it’s an objective fact as we can get, and so folks are going to disagree. Personally I think he was miscast because he’s not really up to the job.
Do you think OHMSS would've benefited by having Connery play Bond? @mtm
The only downside is that he wouldn’t have been as good in the fights as Lazenby was.
There’s actually a Saint movie which came out the same year, and one sequence in that is that Simon has to escape from a villain’s mountaintop castle, make his way down the mountain and escape into the village, evading capture by the goons. It’s all rather tense and Moore plays it dead straight, and it’s hard not to think of OHMSS.
Lazenby would have worked in Casino Royale, as it depicts a fresh, young, and beginner bond if that's the case.
I feel I'm being overly harsh on poor Lazenby. I do think he had some great moments in OHMSS. Like I said, it's not the easiest story to introduce a new Bond with, so under the circumstances he did well. But he wasn't an actor, at least not one who had honed his craft in the same way the other Bond actors did prior to playing the role. And it shows.
That’s a great point about him being an older, more jaded version. Dalton’s “if he fires me I’ll thank him for it” take would have worked, although I think he’d still have struggled charisma-wise. Plummer or Reed though, yes, lovely stuff. I can certainly imagine a Reed Bond more with his heart on his sleeve.
I feel Oliver Reed could have either played Bond or a villain... probably even within the same space of time. Very unique cinematic actor, lots of intensity and screen presence. That said I suspect Broccoli and Saltzman dodged a bullet by not having him. The guy would have been an absolute nightmare to work with. Would have made Connery look like a Saint.
Plummer in his prime looked like a convincing likeness of Fleming's Bond. Great actor too. But I doubt he would have been very committed due to his stardom.
Connery is a great actor who could’ve brought more to the role. But feels he’s being cheated by Broccoli and Saltzman. However he’s shown his acting ability in previous Bond films and The Hill.
And would go on to wow audiences with his talent.
Timothy Dalton was a young up and coming actor who, would play Bond, and do a tremendous job when the time was right. But in ‘68-‘69 had he honed his craft fully.
I do like @mtm suggestion of Roger Moore in Majestey’s. I’ve never pictured him. But it’s actually a good call in hindsight.
I'm afraid to share my real thoughts here, but to be honest, Craig wasn't convincing playing a fresh, beginner, and young Bond either, and as you said here, arrogant, something that he didn't conveyed.
And being cynical thing, I didn't saw that in Craig's portrayal either.
Like what has been said on so many discussions, he comes off as Bourne more than Bond.
No against Daniel, I really liked him as an actor and I really think he's sexy, but I didn't felt that he really matched what the script and the novel's story had demanded him to do.
He's much more convincing as a weary and tired Bond, that's why I think he's portrayal in his later movies was (as for me) better, because he really fits.
That's why I think Lazenby could have carried it off, Lazenby was arrogant in real life, he can release his own persona in this story, Young and arrogant.
He may not be an actor, but I think his own personality really fits the story.
To be fair, I think the writing did make Craig's Bond more arrogant and Craig himself portrays it well. Especially his interactions with Vesper when they get to Montenegro. Bond even becomes a bit more jaded/cynical after Vesper's death so it's there. Even at the beginning with him breaking into M's flat there's a plausible level of impulsiveness that suits a Bond earlier in his career. It's not a creative decision I'm always fond of (I think Bond works better as a blunt instrument and not as a rogue doing things for the 'greater good' along the lines of Bourne or Jack Bauer) but that's just me.
I'd also say that I never got the sense Bond in CR was meant to be overly young. Just at an early point in his 00 career (it's a pretty elite title, so you'd have to be plausibly in your 30s to get it... anyway, I think the concept of an overly young Bond was watered down as the drafts of the script went on and kinda went away when Henry 'Action Man' Cavill was rejected). I do agree though, Craig's Bond was more interesting when he was jaded and older as in SF, but I generally think that film is better written in terms of Bond's character than CR anyway.
As for Lazenby, again, it depends on how well he could have portrayed these qualities. I do think his acting improved slightly even after he left the Bond role.
Agreed @talos7
It's very interesting really and he could play it closer to Fleming/books.
He has the potential.
1. No because Mads wasn’t even acting when Connery was Bond. .
2. No because he is too old for her.
3. No because Sean doesn’t spar with a child.
I did a thread about it years ago: what an OHMSS with Moore as Bond would have been. I think he would have pulled it beautifully, I also think it would probably have made his tenure far more serious overall. I will always argue that Moore was the most convincing widower of all the Bonds.
It is interesting reading about what was changed as the drafts went on. I've heard about versions where Bond had never worn a tuxedo before, ones where he's an ex-SAS soldier etc. I suspect these elements were being toned down long before Craig came into the mix though. I'd argue there's nothing in the script we got that suggests Bond is meant to be in his 20s. In fact I get the sense he's actually very accomplished with some years of service behind him. I mean, is there any reason he'd be below 30 at this point in his career? The 00 number is implied to be very hard to attain and is rather prestigious within the service. You have to have experience and a proven record that suggests you can do the job. It's just not the sort of thing you'd normally entrust to a 23 year old (roughly Henry Cavill's age at the time) even with the physical requirements.
And that drafts made me afraid that Bond was departing from how his author created him, but I'm glad that it didn't happen.