› ›

Rank the actors

1…457910…41

Comments

  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    edited January 2012 Posts: 1,778
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    He shouldn't be wooden and bark his lines like Lazenby I can tell you that much.
    At least Lazenby didn't come out of water in tight trunks, and spout cheesy lines like "I have no armor left, You've stripped it from me". Also, Lazenby is the man, you don't know what you're talking about.

    Im sorry I think it's you who don't know what you're talking about. Much smarter people than you have agreed that Lazenby was passable at best but defiantly a lesser Bond. Craig isn't just liked by the general audience but by hardcore fans too. This site is made up of Bond fanatics and just look at their rankings. Lazenby is consistantly on the bottom. You can't even back up your arguement. All you can say is that you yourself know what is best for the series and that hardcore and casual fans alike know nothing.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Much smarter people than you have agreed that Lazenby was passable at best but defiantly a lesser Bond.
    What an arrogant and pompous thing to say. Are they only smart because they share the same opinion as you? Also, what your idea of what a "smart" person is seems to be someone who basically climaxed to CR and Craig's performance.
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Craig isn't just liked by the general audience but by hardcore fans too.
    So what? Someone likes James Bond a lot. It doesn't mean their opinion is the ultimate opinion. Also, not all "hardcore" fans love Craig. Actually, if someone actually did know how James Bond is and should be, they wouldn't have liked Casino Royale.
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    You can't even back up your arguement.
    I actually just referenced a quote from CR that I thought was pretty awful, you're the one who hasn't named actual reasons Lazenby was bad other than the old "he was too wooden" line. Also, nice spelling. I see I'm conversing with a genius here.

  • SJK91SJK91
    Posts: 1,310
    I just don't understand why Craig fans think non-Craig fans are idiots and vice versa. I mean, come on now: just because one has a good/bad opinion on Daniel Craig's Bond doesn't make them a 'true' Bond fan or a 'hardcore' Bond fan or whatever. We are all Bond fans here and we have different opinions, holy cow!

    I happen to be a fan of Daniel Craig's Bond and Casino Royale (I didn't care too much for Quantum of Solace, though). So how does liking or disliking a certain Bond film make one an idiot??????? Gah I just don't get it!
  • DoubleOhhSevenDoubleOhhSeven
    Posts: 1,778
    @Dr_Metz This was a pretty civil board until you came claiming you're the only one that knows what James Bond is about. You've basically said that both casual and hardcore fans that dismiss Lazenby aren't as smart as you, don't understand the character and are "uneducated" as you put it. There's a reason Lazenby is consistently ranked as the worst Bond. It's because his performance was simply nothing special and can't compare to the likes of Connery, Craig, or Dalton. The only thing is that Lazenby benefitted from the fact that everyone else on OHMSS knew what they were doing and carried the picture. Im not saying he's a bad guy. He's simply not a good actor. I don't know how I can explain that to you unless we were both in the same room watching OHMSS. But I think you're claim of Lazenby being a better actor than Craig is kinda ridiculous. Even Lazenby fans will admit that the two are on a seperate level. Lazenby himself would probably admit that Craig's performances are better. You're the one making the absurd statement here. It's like saying George Clooney's Batman was better than Christian Bale's.

    As far as Craig's blue trunks go again it's a very mut point that Craig-haters seem to make. You'd might aswell just say Craig sucks because he's blonde. Stop living in the past. Craig has proven himself. Lazenby never did.

    And as far as my spelling goes Im sorry I don't bother to double-check for you. Most people on this aren't childish and look for grammer mistakes. I guess we're all just "uneducated" and can't match up to your level of brilliance.
  • timmertimmer
    edited January 2012 Posts: 4,622
    I think if one looks at the data, Brozzer I believe is consistently ranked as the worst Bond. He seems to take the most abuse.
    IMHO, as a hardcore Bond fan - Sean and George rule. Sean defined the role on screen. All others must be measured by the Sean standard. I think Laz and Rog measure up best -for different reasons.
    I root for DC to be the best Sean/Bond he can be, but I still would have gone with Cavill, if I was doing the picking. Cavill has a great Bond look, and he moves really well too, just like Sean and George did.
    But DC is here for the long haul. He's our boy now. Be the best Sean you can be Dan!!
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,203
    The way I see it Lazenby was...meh and is ranked at the bottom for me. Not that he didn't have his moments. He was just quite dull and un-charismatic compared to the other actors IMO. He did get better as OHMSS went on and the end scene was pretty much spot-on but overall his performance was fairly underwelming. Perhaps not his fault as he wasn't an actor but nonetheless this occasionally showed.

    It also didn't help that he was dubbed for probably the most "talky" section of the film. Craig may be a bit "brutish" but he's a more engaging actor than Lazenby.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    You've basically said that both casual and hardcore fans that dismiss Lazenby aren't as smart as you, don't understand the character and are "uneducated" as you put it.
    What did you expect me to say to what you said? You said "Well I guess everyone is dumb except you." What did you want me to say to that? "Sorry DoubleOhhSeven, you are better than me in every way"?
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    It's because his performance was simply nothing special and can't compare to the likes of Connery, Craig, or Dalton
    Compared to Connery and Dalton, yes, they were better. But Daniel Craig hasn't exactly wowed me with his performances. Also, OHMSS was Lazenby's first ever film, and I think he did pretty good, considering that.
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Even Lazenby fans will admit that the two are on a seperate level.
    Find a Lazenby fan who will say that.
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    As far as Craig's blue trunks go again it's a very mut point that Craig-haters seem to make.
    It wasn't just that, it was the corny lines, failed attempt to be "dark", and just the general vibe of the film. It looks and feels like a USA network series, akin to Burn Notice or something.
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Stop living in the past.
    It's a 50 year-old series. That's basically saying anyone who likes Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, or Brosnan is "living in the past".
    DoubleOhhSeven wrote:
    Most people on this aren't childish and look for grammer mistakes.
    Now that's just funny.

  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Craig is popular at the moment, time will tell if his legacy is enduring, Pierce Brosnan was well liked by the general media and the people I knew when he was playing the part, that's how the world works these days, whatever is new is hip!

    Talking from my own experiences, when I was growing up Lazenby was considered nothing more than a punch line and Timbo was ranked as pretty awful and wrong for the part, purley from people i spoke to and the general opinion in the press, these two have a decent following on here and in general I think it would be fair to say that they have gained popularity over time?
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    I would definitely consider myself a Lazenby fan, but... the man is not an actor. He even admits that himself! So it's not just me being mean, lol

    I've actually been wondering lately, having seen some other movies with George, if the only reason he's as good in OHMSS was because of Peter Hunt-- and maybe Diana Rigg. Without a doubt, that's the best acting he's ever done right there, in his first movie!
    Lazenby's an action man, not an actor. It's really a shame he never got to do those movies with Bruce Lee because he would have been right at home.
    Which is of course not to say he's not enjoyable to watch!

    It's just that in terms of actual acting, if, say Sean Connery is a 'Laurence Olivier', then Lazenby's more like a 'Schwarzenegger'. LOL

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,203
    When I watched OHMSS recently I thought Laz would have been very good as a stunt man.
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    Lazenby IMO acted well enough to play Bond. He kept things simple. I tought he did a great job. He was very convincing as 007. Too bad he couldn't have done more films. He would have got even better.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    timmer wrote:
    Too bad he couldn't have done more films. He would have got even better.
    I would have liked to have seen Lazenby go up to '75, let Moore do TSWLM in '77 and another one in '79, and then maybe have Lazenby return for FYEO and OP.

  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    @Dr_Metz-
    I like that idea! That way we'd still get Rog. I'd even keep him for FYEO-- then let Dalton come on in
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    As much as I like Rog, I would have preferred that Laz do all his films. He was much younger than Rog, but he didn't age well, if you look at shots of him in his 40's. Dalts maybe could have jumped in by OP.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    I'd even keep him for FYEO-- then let Dalton come on in
    That's what I was considering as well. It's sad that the Bond film timelines we are making up are much better than the one we have in real life.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    Master_Dahark wrote:
    I'd even keep him for FYEO-- then let Dalton come on in
    That's what I was considering as well. It's sad that the Bond film timelines we are making up are much better than the one we have in real life.
    The timelines we have in our minds will always be better than what we get. It's our own dream metaphorically and fictionally coming true.

  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 401
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    The timelines we have in our minds will always be better than what we get.
    Which is sad but true. But there is probably someone out there who loves every Bond film and wouldn't want the timeline any other way.

  • timmertimmer
    edited January 2012 Posts: 4,622
    My ideal Bond timeline would be thus, allowing that Sean could not be coaxed back for more 70's films.
    DN- DAF Sean
    LALD - FYEO Laz
    OP - LTK Dalts (this was his decade)
    GE -DAD (someone other than Broz, but who else was in the running)
    CR-SF and beyond, Henry Cavill

    My perfect Bond timeline would be Sean for DN- AVTAK (14 films and then graceful retirment, but no - Sean had to do other things. Actors! Grrrr!)
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    timmer wrote:
    GE -DAD (someone other than Broz, but who else was in the running)
    I would choose Dalton as a Brosnan replacement. I don't care if he would have been 55 by 2002.
    timmer wrote:
    My perfect Bond timeline would be Sean for DN- AVTAK (14 films and then graceful retirment, but no Sean had to do aother things. Grrrr!)
    The series probably would have ended with AVTAK. The general public would never have accepted someone else in the role after that long a Connery tenure.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,203
    timmer wrote:
    Lazenby IMO acted well enough to play Bond. He kept things simple. I tought he did a great job. He was very convincing as 007. Too bad he couldn't have done more films. He would have got even better.

    I agree but the fact is he didn't. What we got was his one and only performance which was, at times good and at times wooden. Also, its irritating that he's dubbed for what is probably the most "talky" part of the film.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    Posts: 401
    BAIN123 wrote:
    I agree but the fact is he didn't.
    And that's the depressing reality of the situation. We can imagine what a longer Lazenby era would have been like, but it will never exist.

  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    Dalts was born 1946 so he would have been shooting GE at age 48-49 (1994-95)
    Considering the film series was being relaunched in 1995, and that Dalts wasn't the most popular Bond (not like Rog or Broz), I would have left him retired, but there must have been a better Bond than Broz to pick from.
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    timmer wrote:
    but there must have been a better Bond than Broz to pick from.
    Ralph Fiennes?

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,356
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    but there must have been a better Bond than Broz to pick from.
    Ralph Fiennes?

    Liam Neeson was also a contender at the time.
  • timmertimmer
    Posts: 4,622
    Oh well, what's done is done. All of the films work as great Bondian entertainment, even the Broz films.
    I wish DC the best. The more influence he can channel from Sean, the better!
    Post Craig - let's hire another youngster in the Sean tradition. Audition a hundred young actors, if need be, till we find the one with both the right look and the right mix of menace and charm. Keep thinking Sean. Sean Sean Sean. Don't be tempted to lower the bar. Be disciplined people.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    timmer wrote:
    Oh well, what's done is done. All of the films work as great Bondian entertainment, even the Broz films.
    I wish DC the best. The more influence he can channel from Sean, the better!
    Post Craig - let's hire another youngster in the Sean tradition. Audition a hundred young actors, if need be, till we find the one with both the right look and the right mix of menace and charm. Keep thinking Sean. Sean Sean Sean. Don't be tempted to lower the bar. Be disciplined people.

    You speak such wise, truthful words. We think alike, our great minds. /:)
  • Dr_MetzDr_Metz
    edited January 2012 Posts: 401
    timmer wrote:
    Keep thinking Sean. Sean Sean Sean. Don't be tempted to lower the bar. Be disciplined people.
    I don't mean to be rude, but if all the Bond actors ever tried to do was to try and be like Connery, none of them would have had any uniqueness to them.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,723
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    Keep thinking Sean. Sean Sean Sean. Don't be tempted to lower the bar. Be disciplined people.
    I don't mean to be rude, but if all the Bond actors ever tried to do was to try and be like Connery, none of them would have had any uniqueness to them.

    Well my ideal franchise would be an endless loop of 5 films a-la Connery-TB/FRWL then 5 films a-la Moore-TMWTGG-MR, and then back to Connery, etc.etc.etc.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    My loop would be Connery (1962-65), Moore (1973-77) Dalton (1987-89) Brosnan (1995) (1999) and Mr Craig (2006)

    Apologies to George
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,203
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Dr_Metz wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    but there must have been a better Bond than Broz to pick from.
    Ralph Fiennes?

    Liam Neeson was also a contender at the time.

    He would have been good IMO. Its funny that him and Brozza later ended up starring together in Seraphim Falls - not a bad film.
Sign In or Register to comment.