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
He wasn’t directing or writing them though, the action wasn’t down to him. He was good at the fight stuff but he just wasn’t a star, it went the right way.
But there's no arguing with success and the success of Eon since 1969. Change the timestream then, and the franchise likely would have played out and ended some time ago.
I agree with this. I'm as disappointed as anyone that there was never a proper follow-up to OHMSS, but Lazenby, even if he stayed on, was a casting mistake.
He might have lasted two or three films, but that's it. So it would be a Dalton-to-Brosnan casting scenario, except more dire.
Joanna Pettet ! Oh the films DEFINITELY could have used more Joanna Pettet !
Why would that have happened? I’ve never heard any suggestion that Hunt didn’t direct any more because Lazenby wasn’t involved. In fact he actually directed more films starring Roger Moore that he did with Lazenby.
I said films, not specifically Bond films. Peter Hunt directed Shout At The Devil and Gold, both starring Roger Moore. If he preferred to direct films starring Lazenby than Moore he had a funny way of showing it! :D
Sean Connery and Daniel Craig weren’t stars when they first started playing Bond, they were well respected actors, but didn’t have that star power until they started playing Bond. I’m sure had Lazenby acted more professionally on set, and had actually stuck around, he would’ve gotten that star power, and could very well have been the best Bond. I’d say the action is largely down to Lazenby’s physicality and prowess, in conjunction with Peter Hunt’s filming, and John Glen’s editing. I agree with one of the posts above that had Lazenby stayed, Peter Hunt would’ve remained as well, and it’s the loss of Hunt that really breaks a lot of the 1970’s Bond films. Gone are the kinetic action scenes of the 60’s Bond, and in their place are slow, poorly executed, and poorly edited action sequences that pale in comparison to what the series had brought before. Lazenby was also much more vulnerable than both Connery and Moore, and in the socially conscious era of the late 60’s and early 70’s, an era in which on screen heroes had become much tougher, harder edged, and brutal, Lazenby’s Bond would’ve fit perfectly, and the films wouldn’t have felt as if they were keeping up with the trends of the day, which is an issue that has plagued the series post OHMSS, and still somewhat plagues the franchise even to this day. I’m not here to say Lazenby is the best Bond, that EON hasn’t had its triumphs since 1969, or that Bond died after OHMSS. Because clearly that didn’t happen, and Lazenby sits at the bottom of my ranking of the actors, but I do love him as Bond, and him being in last place is because he stupidly chose not to do more, thus how could I put his one performance as Bond above the other great performances we’ve gotten from Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig. But I strongly think had he and Hunt continued, this franchise wouldn’t have nearly died on two separate occasions, and perhaps the series wouldn’t have resorted to borrowing other film trends as much as it has.
Dalton in TLD was much better received than Lazenby, and Dalton lasted only two films. (Finances also derailed Dalton, but Brosnan was ultimately more popular.)
Lazenby would probably have suffered a similar fate after DAF or LALD.
It's a strange thing, which actors take off as Bond and which don't. My bet would be that Lazenby wouldn't.
Of course they did: that's why they got cast as Bond. They were both having successful careers.
They took off from there, sure, that's the exposure of Bond, but they had star charisma in them and that's what the producers spotted. Lazenby never did- they thought Bond was a big enough draw in itself and quickly decided that was an error. Call in Connery.
What are you basing that on? As I say, Hunt directed more films with Roger Moore than he did with Lazenby so the signs don't seem to be that he wanted to work with Lazenby more.
That's another quite big reach, I think.
The difference between Lazenby and Dalton was that audiences weren’t ready for that darker, more brutal Bond that Dalton portrayed. They’d just come off of 7 lighthearted adventures with Roger Moore, and to have Dalton put them off slightly. Another issue with that comes down to why Dalton chose to leave. Everyone says MGM executives wanted Dalton out and Brosnan in, and I’m sure that was true to some extent, but I doubt Dalton was ever going to be doing more than 3 Bond films. He would’ve came back for Goldeneye if he didn’t have the commitment of at least doing more films after that, which is why he declined to return. I do think Lazenby would’ve taken off in the role if he had stuck around though, I mentioned earlier that he would’ve perfectly matched the other darker, more socially conscious heroes of the late 60’s and early 70’s.
If that’s true, then list the big box office successes that both Connery and Craig were in before Bond. You’d probably have about one or two from each actor and that’s it. They weren’t big movie stars, they were relatively unknown, respected actors. If they were big stars when they were cast then Connery and Craig would’ve started off with humongous salaries for their first films.
And I base the Peter Hunt quote off of something that the man actually said himself. He’s quoted as saying that had Lazenby stuck around, he would’ve returned for Diamonds are Forever.
And there’s no reach about what I’ve said, because I can list at least 10 different occasions where the franchise has riffed off of other films/genres, even up to today.
Doh ! I stepped RIGHT INTO THAT !
Well I wasn't trying to trick anyone, I did say he 'didn't direct any more', meaning Bond films.
That's the nice version of the story, but the truth seems to be that MGM didn't want him back and he didn't actually get the chance to decline.
I’d like to have a source on that truth, because I’m going to take what Dalton himself says over anyone else.
I’d argue that the tonal shift actually began in Goldfinger with the hiring of Guy Hamilton.
It's been covered lots of times on here: read 'Some Kind of Hero', the excellent book covering the production of all Bond movies. They speak to the MGM executives who confirm that they didn't want him back.
Dalton wouldn't be a great unbiased source for this: obviously he (most probably his agent) wouldn't want it to sound like he was ditched. Why on earth wouldn't he want to do more Bond movies? Look at the rubbish he went on to make in the 90s. He was desperate to star in The Beautician and The Beast?
I’ll have to take a look into it. By all means if I’m wrong then fair enough I’m wrong, but I just took Dalton’s word himself. There’s an excellent interview he did with Vanity Fair about Penny Dreadful, and opening up about his decision to leave the franchise, and it made me understand why he chose not to come back. I’m sure that MGM story is also true though, film executives have always been incredibly slimy. Seems to me like the real reason is all murky and not clear enough, much like why Lazenby chose to leave.
And to answer your question, he’s stated that he hoped he would’ve taken the best elements of his first two films, combine them into his third, then leave. My guess is he didn’t want to keep playing the role into his 50’s, this is also the same man who turned down an audition for Bond at 25 because he felt like he was too young, it’s out of love and respect for Fleming’s creation, which is why he’s the perfect embodiment of Fleming’s Bond.
I don't know who bungled the Brosnan/TLD announcement/contractual negotiations, but poor Dalton was the collateral damage.
Studios don't have a problem keeping on stars they don't like, so long as they're popular.
I’ll agree with that, I think everyone hyped themselves up for Brosnan that they might’ve been disappointed that Dalton ended up with the part. Sad because I’m somebody who loves what both of them did. This could also go onto explain why Goldeneye was such a phenomenon when it came out in 95.
That’s assuming audiences are taken to him.
I think half of them were and half weren’t, or at least that was what the critical reaction at the time seemed to suggest. I’m sure the announcement of him not doing any more before the film even came out was what was the final nail for Lazenby in the eyes of the audience; why go see the new Bond if he isn’t doing any other films after? That also hurt the box office I think.
I don't think it's slimy, it's good sense. Why relaunch a series with a lead who never quite captured the audience's imagination? Much better to kick off with someone new who they're curious to see.
Yeah maybe, or perhaps they just decided to go with someone else to get the series going again.
Precisely, yes. Dalton was fine, he functioned as Bond, he just didn't capture the public's imagination. He wasn't lovable, he wasn't funny, he wasn't particularly sexy or cool, but he functioned as Bond. Unfortunately audiences generally like all of those other things in their stars.
Fair enough, problem is with so many sources saying so many different things, it’s hard to find out the actual truth behind what happened behind the scenes. I’m inclined to agree because what you say of Dalton technically is true, he wasn’t the most successful actor to take the part, and for all the reasons you mentioned, instead he went straight to the novels, and that’s respectable these days, hence why there’s been a reevaluation of him as Bond, but on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Cubby, Barbara, and Michael would’ve just thrown Dalton aside purely because MGM didn’t want him, at least not without putting up some kind of fight.
Here's the most relevant page I think:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p8XZCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT419&lpg=PT419&dq=alan+ladd+jr+timothy+dalton&source=bl&ots=6WktftEBn5&sig=ACfU3U3mCgs3tYovZv3DTXCUFQYkmScZjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi99sf96NbzAhUzlVwKHS-PCggQ6AF6BAgiEAM#v=onepage&q=alan ladd jr timothy dalton&f=false
Hard agree.
I don't think there's anyway they would begin the process of creating a film before that whole Amazon/MGM merger gets settled and the legal landscape is clearer.
Like — they don't have a script, they don't have a director. There's no way they could cast the part before they have either of those things.