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
Agreed 👍 💯
_________________________________________________________
Anyway, what if Bond's mission had something to do with United Nations? Like maybe UN or anywhere in the Human Rights would notice England's use of Licence To Kill, and this would compromise MI6, what do you guys think?
It's not about the relevance but the morality of those agents, hear me out:
A 00 agent (upon an enemy's request; now a double agent) killed a foreigner outside of UK, now this came to UN, and was planning to implement a sanction on UK for the usage of Licence To Kill, now it's all the villain's plan so when MI6 was shut, no one would ever stop him from doing his plans, and he's planning to do the same to CIA, and the likes, so no one could ever stopped him, he's going to be a monster hiding inside a sheep's clothing and using the international law to stop the HUMINT from interfering with his plans.
Maybe something like that, then in the end would be revealed that there's this officer in UN who wants to put a sanction to UK and US for human rights violations would actually be the villain and those agents whose committing crimes were actually his men, something like that?
I actually liked to see the series tackling that Licence To Kill and its implication on the International Law.
They should have dubbed Lazenby completely, like a Bond girl.
"At the same time, he knew, deep down, that love from Mary Goodnight, or from any other woman, was not enough for him. It would be like taking 'a room with a view'. For James Bond, the same view would always pall."
Moore had no sincerity either, he played the same old thing again and again and again.
Simon Templar, Lord Brett Sinclair, James Bond, all the same.
Not serious, just playing the same philanderer jerk, his interactions with his leading ladies were really creepy to me, he's like taking advantage of them, not loving them.
Me watching Moore made me realize that Brosnan's acting in TWINE is leagues better, actually.
Lazenby could evoked the tone or atmosphere of a scene dimensionally, when he's scared I've felt it, when he's in tense moments, I've felt it, those scenes in the Moore Era never caught me the same as I was watching OHMSS, no thrill, no tension, just there.....
Actually there are many wooden actors and actresses cast in Moore's Bond films: Barbara Bach, Curt Jurgens, Carole Bouquet, Valerie Leon, the guys who played Ferrara and Locque, to name a few, even Kristina Wayborn was a bit stiff too.
Both are more worse than Lazenby.
Especially Bach, I couldn't stand her acting, nearly robotic with no facial expression, monotone vocal expressions and obvious line readings, she's almost like a talking Barbie Doll, would've been better if she's not moving, not helped that her character was badly written either, and add insult to the injury with that silly (obvious) fake Russian Accent that adds a lot to her robotic performance and she had no chemistry with Moore either, as in zero, this is like Moore being paired up with a Mannequin because they couldn't afford a real actress.
Catherine Deneuve should've gotten the part instead, the character may not be written well, but at least the actress playing her can move.
Good thing Ringo came to her life and she stopped acting, realizing that she's really not for it.
Carole Bouquet comes in the second place, but at least the character was interesting, but still, she's stiff, although not as bad as Bach, though.
So don't tell me Lazenby, the guy at least have natural, raw and life in his performance, there are far more worse.
I agree with that.
In the books, there's no way Bond could've settled down, really, not even with Tracy, assuming that she made it out alive, there's no way, really (especially with her attitude in the book, she's prone to hysteria and like Bond, she's taking things for granted, love 'em, leave 'em, think of her first relationship with her Count Husband?), I think by the next book they would've still break up, or divorced.
I think the only woman that could've gotten Bond stuck in a relationship was Vesper, I think she's the only woman for him, but alas, she killed herself.
None of the women in the books fits Bond other than Vesper, and I think that Bond was really sincere with her in the book, and Bond referenced her too many times in the books, in Goldfinger (when he mentioned her name) and in OHMSS (when he visited her grave), so, I think Vesper was the only woman that really got through Bond, in the books, the rest, not really up to him.
Yes, you said that. The thing is though, he was damned good at playing that same role, and Bond completely fits that. He had screen presence and charm and filled the screen. To me that's just better than a non-actor failing in a role. Lazenby was better at the fights, yes, but that's it. He's just not there. Watch a bit of OHMSS and then immediately pop LALD on- then ask yourself which of those has a star in the lead role.
Moore had enough sincerity to make facing off against a supervillain work, and he could certainly pull off a comedy disguise sequence. Romantic warmth and tension were also things completely inside his wheelhouse as Bond. I know you hate him because you've said it again and again, but millions around the world didn't.
Bond needs to be more than that.
Lazenby fits in OHMSS, because his portrayal fits, LALD is different, I couldn't imagine the other Bonds in it, the same for other Bond films, even Goldfinger was lighthearted in tone, heck, I couldn't imagine Moore in that.
Bond films aren't interchangeable with leads for me, each film are suited to them, that's the same with OHMSS, where I couldn't imagine any other actors in that but Lazenby, and about the star persona? That's because Lazenby didn't stuck around in the role for long, that's why.
Moore just for me comes off as too confident, and too much of a philanderer, no depth in his performances or whatsoever, it's very shallow, when he's romancing his leading ladies, I don't believe in a second that he's going to settle down with that sort of girl because there's no sincerity, all I know is, he's going to womanize again, his romantic portrayals just went too far.
Even in scenes where there's a supposed tension but Moore just couldn't able to sell it, just flat, not felt, I'm actually felt relaxed while watching those scenes of him where it's supposed to have tension.
Millions around the world? Well, from my observations (in Reddit, in YouTube, and in other Bond fandoms outside of this forum), half of the people loved him were either:
* Those who grew up with him as Bond, nostalgia effect.
* He's fun as Bond, they prefer lightheartedness in Bond.
* He's a nice person in real life.
It's interesting that Fleming added those three sentences quite late on. He must have read the original draft and thought Bond sounded too domesticated. I'm glad he made that adjustment.
This is a curious statement for me. His performance in OHMSS wouldn't have improved if he'd done more films after that- he'd still be a black hole in that film.
And I really don't think Bond does need to be more than a well-played, likeable, charismatic star lead, capable of playing humour and action. OHMSS certainly doesn't demand any more than that, and Lazenby can't fill that role. I'm not saying Moore is an actor of great depth, but he's more than capable of what that film asks for. Connery is more capable, but his Bond persona doesn't fit it, being actually slightly more cartoonish than Moore's, even. Craig would have been even better, but it's so far removed from his time that he doesn't quite fit.
But the perception at least would've changed, and none of the Bond films were perfect, right? Every one of them has black holes in it, Denise Richards in TWINE, Barbara Bach in TSWLM, if anything, Lazenby is a missed opportunity, because he could've been improved from there, add to that was his young age at the time, and there's no other big roles to associate with him, unlike Moore, who's just being Simon Templar and Lord Brett Sinclair all the time.
The character is more than that, especially the way Fleming written him, he has dimensionality, he has vulnerability, he's multifaceted even, and what you've mentioned is not enough to play the character, I mean look at Dalton's portrayal.
He's not just an ordinary action hero like say Ethan Hunt or some other action heroes out there, Bond is different from that.
Lazenby did that dimensionality well, it's natural and raw, this film is for him.
And it's the same for Brosnan's performance in TWINE, say what you say about his acting there, but I couldn't imagine any other Bond actors being in that film either, that's the same with Lazenby, Moore fits in with his films, of course, because he starred in those and those films were written with him in mind.
Every Bond Actors fits their respective Bond films, it's the same statement for Dalton demands to be in Goldeneye, I couldn't imagine Dalton in Goldeneye to be honest.
He fits more in something like LALD. All action and chases.
How? A bad performance is still a bad performance. Like how Connery in YOLT is often perceived to be rather underheated.
He doesn't, no. He does fine for a non-actor, but it's not a good acting performance, and certainly not a good lead performance in a major movie, which needs more than that. He's absent in scenes which require emotional depth, and he can't even handle the more jovial scenes well without being dubbed.
You mention Dalton, and I think he plays the part fairly well as an acting performance, but he totally misses the mark on the star side of things. He forgets that part of what Bond successful onscreen is his swagger, his self-confidence (the role is bigger than Fleming) and so he's slightly lesser somehow on the screen than his predecessors. He's obviously miles ahead of Lazenby, but GL did at least remember the swagger. Craig is the one who nailed that type of 007 performance.
His performance was natural and raw, it adds to the dimensionality.
His performance is better than the likes of Barbara Bach, Carole Bouquet, Curd Jurgens, the guys who played Locque and Ferrara (forgot their names), and I would even say that his performance is far more better than Brosnan was in TWINE.
Bad performance? I think does fine, he played such scenes very well, it's not like Connery in YOLT well he's not in the mood to perform, Lazenby just did his efforts and it worked well in the film.
He handled the jovial scenes in the PTS, the serious scene in that hotel room scene with Tracy, the bullfight scene.
The film didn't showed any emotional scenes, where? The Montage? The Proposal scene? The Wedding scene? Where?
His scenes with M were good to me, there's that employee - boss interaction in it and felt natural, there's a respect and frustration.
If anything, it's Hunt's fault, I guess.
Maybe for whatever his faults I could blame Hunt, he never guided Lazenby and mostly left him alone on his own, with Diana Rigg only became his guide.
Imagine if Lazenby was directed by Terrence Young, I think he would've guided him and shaped him into the role.
Guy Hamilton stated that, he's meant to direct OHMSS starring Connery, with Bardot, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, a Maginot Line as a lair, a chimpanzee helping Bond in Piz Gloria, and a wet Nellie Aston Martin saving Tracy.
I don't think so. The filming was endless.
Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.
Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.
Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.
It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.
Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.
Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.
I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.
Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.
Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.
Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).
He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to picture his 007 in that situation, although obviously as film actor he was more than capable.
It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish. Imagining Connery's Bond in Octopussy is even a bit hard in places; it certainly would have been nice if NSNA had given him a little bit of the meat OP has rather than just requiring him to look cool.
Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.
It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.
Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.
I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.
And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.
It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.
That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.
It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.
OHMSS is still my top two film.
Wasn’t it Maibaum who came up with the twin brother idea? I swear it made its way into treatments for at least three Bond films.
Crazy considering how stupid it is.
When Bond is listening to the count as he's listing all the documents he has assembled, Lazenby looks positively sleepy. I don't think he had "the stare" down, you know, when an actor has to convey something with just his eyes.
Or perhaps he really was bored. 😉
He tried to conveyed it in some scenes, like the bullfight scene, his scenes with Blofeld, the guy really tried, he did his best, and for that, I think it worked, had he just been directed better, and not telling every crews and staff to stay away from him and made him alone.
Well, his performance was really affected, like what I've said with his strained relationship with Peter Hunt, where he needs to rely on Rigg, and made those staffs and crews distant from him, of course, that wouldn't have been enthusiastic.
I know, he tried and did his best (and it worked for me on that matter), I think he could've brought out something better, it's just suppressed and never gave him a chance to bring it all out.
Really, I blame the shortcomings of the film to Hunt himself, I think the film would've been more greater with a better director who could built a good relationship with the cast and the lead (I know Hunt worked with them for a very long time), but he's not the one for this film, I feel, like what I've said, Hunt only got lucky in this film because he had an interesting material to worked with, a great cast, Lazenby could've brought out more (I've felt it while watching the film that the guy could've brought out something more), and some co-workers (Michael Reed, Syd Cain), it's more evident, again, after OHMSS that he never replicated that same quality, look at his two Non Bond films: Gold and Shout At The Devil, those two had interesting concepts but are lacking.
This film really shouted for Young to direct, just like From Russia With Love was shouting for Hitchcock to direct the film.
I know what you mean; and the scene where Blofeld unmasks him as Sir Hilary I'm not getting anything either- he just feels like he's pulling a grumpy face to me. And the way his eyes are darting around uncertainly just makes me feel like he didn't know how to do 'reacting' to another actor.
Really, I liked that scene, and I've felt the tension in it, it kept me to my seat.
It's tight, there's a connection that I've felt between Lazenby and Savalas.
If there's a flaw that I could point out in that scene was Savalas' accent, very American, when he's supposed to be European, he's a self made Count in that film, probably Dutch or something like that (was it Bleuchamp?), And his American Accent was very spot on that I've laughed a bit in that scene, like he's an American trying to be a European Count 😅.
I liked Savalas and his version of Blofeld, being that physical that could equal Bond, and his voice too, very maniacal, but his accent was very obvious, it's American, I think Max Von Sydow could've nailed this one, I guess? Though, I'm not sure about the physicality.
I liked Savalas' Blofeld the best though, but that accent......😅
Maybe again, Hunt could've worked it out? Having Savalas speaking a European accent? But I guess, Hunt didn't mind it and let Savalas' Yankee Accent slipped in.
Agreed. He doesn't seem to know what to do with his eyes. Reminds me also of when he is choking one of Blofeld's goons with his ski. As long as he is applying enough force, he seems into it. But when he is just trying not to draw any attention to himself, he's almost distracted from his acting, seemingly forgetting that the cameras are still rolling. His eyes are purposelessly scanning the area in front of him.
I don't want to be too hard on Lazenby. He was a very physical Bond with a lot of stamina and rough charm. But some of his blank stares pull me out of the film.