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 on 2, 3, and 4.
As for 1, I think *any* actor following Connery that first time was doomed to fail.
So Lazenby was perhaps the most important meta-sacrificial lamb of the series.
OHMSS is my favorite film but I don't know if Lazenby would have been any better on a follow-up as an actor, possibly worse if Hunt weren't involved.
He was so expertly edited by Hunt and as much as people (not me) hate the dubbing, it's kind of ingenious to have George Baker "supplement" Lazenby's performance.
I still say that OHMSS would have been ten times better with Roger Moore in the role. I watched Vendetta For The Saint last weekend, and that deadly serious but urbane performance would have been exactly right for OHMSS.
I don’t think I knew he did that! :)
That said, what prevented Lazenby from continuing as Bond was not the public reaction (OHMSS was not a flop and the reviews were overall good) but himself. Announcing he was quitting the role before the film even opened made for horrible press. He could have continued in the role if he had wanted to and was prepared to obey the producers and charm the press.
We now know why Lazenby refused that awesome multi-picture deal. He was, by his own admission, young, stupid and -- uh -- not very sober? ;-) I guess he regrets it now, but he's also learned to live with it. Personally, I can barely understand a choice like that. He really was a wild and loose cannon, wasn't he? One wonders in what direction the series would have evolved if Lazenby had stayed on and assuming Bond #7 would have been OHMSS² rather than the DAF we got. If successful, it's doubtful that Moore would ever have gotten a shot at Bond. And this is where fantasizing about such a scenario becomes impossible for me. The '70s era would probably have been different. Would the films have been successful? Would I want to live in a world without Moore's Bond and Moore's Bond's films? I guess not. But... It certainly would be interesting to spend some time in that alternate reality in which OHMSS led to OHMSS², and Lazenby continued with a stable track record of good to awesome Bond films.
OHMSS is now, at least in the Bond community, regarded as one of the very best. I'm not sure how Lazenby factors in. Is the film considered awesome despite, regardless of or (in part) because of Lazenby? I know where I'm standing. I absolutely love this film, and Lazenby is an essential part of that love. His energy and relentless arrogance work exceptionally well for me; they make sense in that film. Still, I'm sure the Connery of FRWL and GF would have rocked in OHMSS. The Connery of YOLT? Not so much.
Maybe that's my controversial opinion for today. ;-)
Well it’s impossible to prove of course, and I’m not sure I’d agree with it: a better, talented star is always more likely to be received better than a guy who isn’t an actor, even if folks are unsure about the idea of a replacement at all. And I think that after The Saint, it wasn’t a huge leap for the public to accept Moore as Bond, because the two were so similar. We know that Moore was a strong, effective lead right from his first film, and Lazenby wasn’t.
So I agree with @DarthDimi in this regard.
That is one thing Moore had thar Lazenby hadn't when he got the role (and nobody else did except Brosnan, but in a lesser capacity): an existing fanbase.
I'm sure Moore would have had a somewhat better reception than Lazenby, but I'm also sure he would have received flack by directly following Connery, who had owned the role in the public's perception. Every commonly voiced criticism Moore received--woodenness, lack of Connery's physicality, TV actor's presence, being a lightweight ("a pastry chef's idea of James Bond," as the Chicago Reader wrote) would have been amplified. No matter how good Bond actor #2 actually was, he still would have been knocked for not being Connery, the only Bond up to then.
I don't think Moore was much stronger, he just had enough name recognition to gain public interest, even though The Saint and The Persuaders had not been smash hits in the US. And the reception of TMWTGG suggests that the public went to LALD for its novelty value but weren't enamored enough of Moore to save his follow-up from disappointing box office.
Maybe, it obviously would have been mentioned, but the assertion was that any actor would have received equivalent criticism, and I don't think that's true because you'd be dealing with someone who would have made a better job of it. Moore did follow Connery directly, of course.
You just have to watch the film and compare the performances though. One is a lead actor starring in a movie, the other is a guy over his head struggling to make an impression. He makes a decent enough fist of it, but he's no star. Moore is clearly a stronger lead.
There is one American who could have sold DAF: Adam West. DAF is a homage to the campiness of Batman 66. And Adam West could have mixed Connery’s dryness and Moore’s campiness to pull off the role in that silly movie.
As for Dalton: I agree. Cold War ending, too many people being on the series for too long, namely Maibaum, MGW writing and John Glen not being the best at directing actors. Dalton needed stronger writers and directors, to truly click as a whole.
Here’s my controversial opinion: Michael G. Wilson is a terrible ideas man. He should honestly just stick to producing than writing. Some of his ideas were (and are) too extreme both seriously and silly for James Bond.
Except all of his fight scenes are heavily edited and sped up, so this idea of Lazenby being great in fight scenes rings false. Once again, it’s Peter Hunt doing all the hard work to sell Lazenby as Bond.
You could say that for any actor. Even within the same movie (Franks elevator fight vs Bambi and Thumper is night and day).
If Lazenby had gotten himself together and allowed himself to be taken under the wing by Hunt and more experienced people, it could have been "Casino Royale 1.0" (It's not the best direct comparison because Craig was already an established and very competent actor). And if all the stars aligned (literally) the media and general population would be less inclined to bash the incumbent actor and movie (look at Casino Royale - it shut up the naysayers very quickly). Lazenby, and the producers, did nothing to quell the flames. Only recently has OHMSS become more of a media darling
I have seen Lazenby in a lesser film by Al Adamson and what little he had to do in that one at least showcased his physical abilities without too much film trickery. I know that OHMSS was edited in such a way that the film became more kinetic during its fight scenes and whatnot, but Lazenby could definitely throw a punch. All the Bonds could and can, but Lazenby's fighting feels heavily influenced by personal experiences roughing up the male competition when he was younger and looking to score in a bar down under. His fights feel less choreographed and less precise but more brutal and savage. Editing and such aside, the way Lazenby moves in the film and lashes out would make me think twice about upsetting the man in real life. Hunt may have helped the fights look more intense, but I have no doubt that Lazenby's body as well as his temper were assets during the filming of those fights.
A lot of ifs, but they don’t make up for Lazenby’s deficiencies as an actor.
Case in point the foster brother angle for Blofeld was MGW’s idea. This is likely why he hasn’t had a screenwriting credit since the 80s. Without Maibaum, he had no one to temper his ideas.
Exactly. I would also argue that some of the fights in OHMSS could have benefited from less editing. The fight right outside Draco's office door comes to mind. Lazenby didn't need the editor's help to the point where we get visual echos on top of the ones we hear. A bit "overproduced" in my opinion.
I love how Lazenby moves, including when he's just walking. There's a controlled "rush" in how he walks. He has those shoulders of his straight up, a primitive signaling of strong masculinity. His eyes scan the area first and then adjust to the pleasant or suspicious or dangerous nature of the situation. On top of that, he is always the tallest man in the room. Even when in Sir Hillary's outfit, you just don't want to mess with this guy. He walks like a predator closing in on his target. Yeah, I guess I really like Lazenby's physique.
Just playin' with ya dude... ;)
Exactly.
I like that idea! :)
Yes, I see Dalton giving giving much bigger, more charismatic performances in other movies and wonder if he wasn't being directed poorly in his Bonds.
Yes, GL's strength is his physicality in the fight scenes.
Indeed, it's of its time so interesting as a sort of time capsule, but really way too much. It has dated as much as DAD's 'speed ramping' effects have.
Regarding Daltom, he was also unfairly perceived as second choice. If not an usurper to the heir apparent that was Brosnan.
1) There's too much going on.
Strange, colourful and useless bars, weird moving elements, ... QOS is the absolute worst in this regard. Absolutely meaningless circles, dots and lines flash all over the screen, but it takes ages before useful information appears. If I were doing a desk job at MI6 all day, having to look for intel hidden in a kaleidoscopic jungle of sensory distractions, I'd go home an epileptic.
2) Things make noises.
When my PC is processing something, it only produces a faint sound if the cooling system is doing extra work. My software isn't beeping while zooming in on something or printing out a text on the screen. One ping informs me of a finished search. That's it. Why is the MI6 software going BEEP BEEP BEEP BEEP with every dotted line appearing on screen? Haven't we evolved past Blade Runner's video system from 1982, when all of this was new and cool and futuristic?
3) It looks childish, not professional.
I play video games that present their menus in flashy colours and full of beeps and whatnot. But any software even remotely professional uses colours very sparingly lest they distract, works with the dullest of fonts and gives me what I need instantly rather than zoom in over a ten-second interval (with beeps) or print out intel word for word. And, again, it . makes . no . sounds!
I like the computer screen Natalya sits at when trying to reprogram the goldeneye in Cuba. A blank, grey-ish screen ready to take lines of code. That's what I'm talking about. QOS, meanwhile, tries to feel extremely sophisticated but actually looks like it's getting ready for us to play Dance Dance Revolution. Yeah yeah, the Bonds exist in a fantasy realm and such, but they still want to make things look really cool and professional in every other way. Then stick to sober but useful designs, with as few unnecessary cosmetic distractions as possible. This isn't Star Trek, Star Wars or The Forbidden Planet. Every high school student is taught to drop stuff that moves, unnecessary animations, colour schemes with more than two or three colours and things that keep you waiting from their presentations. But MI6, for some reason, chooses '70s space funk as a template for their highly sophisticated spy software? Yeah, so not really.
Blame it on Purvis and Wade reading the wrong science fiction magazines. That’s honestly how they start writing Bond screenplays.
I get where you're coming from, but man oh man do I love MK12's radically impractical operating system in QoS....! :x
My heart always lifts when I see Controversial opinions about Bond films at the top of the front page because I know I will enjoy the posts.
I think it's a common thing in movies in general, especially spy thrillers: computing always looks overly complicated and flashy. Rule of cool I guess.
+1!