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
Yeah, what a legend. Lied to get the job, did it for fame, money and women, followed the advice of his equally dim witted agent and still the only thing he has to show for it is a few stories about rubbing doors with girls on set. The epitome of everything class isn't. And you need class to play James Bond.
He did it for the fame, money and women. So what? Didn't Connery once say he didn't want to commit to a film series but he did it to boost his career?
He has one of the best Bond films ever made to show for it.
And on top of that he almost worked with Bruce Lee. Legend.
Why randomly bring Christian into it? All his flaws aside and the "assault" none of us were there for and can't prove, I love him as a person and actor. He is hard working and gives great performances. He is compassionate and works hard to do what he can for others with his notoriety in a philanthropic way. He is a part of Greenpeace, the Fulfillment Fund, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, WWF, and the Screen Actors Guild Foundation just to name a few. He obviously loves to help and is passionate about it. When the horrific shootings at the midnight showing of The Dark Knight Rises in Colorado, it was Christian that came to console the victims and their family, taking time out of his schedule to help those who had been affected by a disaster. He has taken a kid with cancer to Disneyland just so he could enjoy himself and not worry about his affliction. He is able to put people above him and carries the accolades he gets with honor and thanks. Say what you want about Christian Bale, but the man is kind and giving, always respectful and thankful for what he has.
Like Pierce did in DAD you mean?
Nice.
And whats wrong with that? Hes the George Best of Bond - burned bright and strong but gone far too soon.
And if we're talking about money then lets look at 'the best Bond ever' Sean who was a nobody turned into a star by EON and then for years moaned on about every single penny he thought he was owed and didnt even turn up to Cubbys funeral. Now that is class.
This is a defence for Christian Bale but you are quite happy to slag George off for everything under the sun when you werent there either.
Try and construct a solid argument if youre going to rip into people.
Last time I checked, George wasn't at Cubby's funeral either. Sean had his bumpy past with Cubby, yet he made up with him at the end of it all, and that is what is important to me. Sean has his flaws, I agree, but you don't see him slagging around bragging about the tail he scored in the role. I think Sean valued the role and got out to avoid typecasting (a natural worry) and because the films were getting farther and farther from the realm of the natural into more outlandish plots that would take us into space and all that. Sean never bragged about all the women he no doubt had sex with on set, and is more private about that stuff. George acts like he wants a medal for it. And my opinions about George's promiscuity are based on his own words, I didn't need to be there. Granted, he probably makes up half or more of the crap he shells out, but still. Christian hasn't given attention to the personal matter between his mother and sister, so I can't say what happened there concretely. At the end of the day, you like Laz, I don't. Nothing will change that and it'll be better if we just leave it at that.
At the end of the day I dont really see your pronounced aversion to Laz talking about how many birds he has shagged (something Freudian there perhaps?) has any bearing on the question in hand anyway.
I dont particularly like Sean as a person with his 'Independent-Scotland'-tax-dodging-but-still-happy-to-accept-a-knighthood hypocrisy but I recognise him as a great Bond and love anything with him in.
Just like I loathe and despise everything about Ronhaldo (the greasy Portuguese one - not the proper one) but I can still appreciate his ability as a player and would be made up if Brendan managed to trick Jose into doing a straight swap for Downing.
Try and detatch for a minute your hatred of George dipping his wick and analyse his performance.
I like Rog as a person and I think Broz comes across pretty well too but that doesnt stop me from being able to still call them the weakest Bonds.
Your point is well taken. In my opinion, Pierce Brosnan best work came from Dante's Peak. Someone here wrote that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Craig all were James Bond, Brosnan only played him. I don't want to repeat myself, but he never should have been given the role, he simply didn't have the "physique" to be James Bond.
This is a valid point. The last time I saw Goldeneye, watching Brosnan the image that kept impressing itself on me was that of a 12-year old "playing Bond".
He is the man who replaced Connery and had a bigger ego not realising his film had not been released and he was following in the footsteps of the world's at the time biggest film star. His behaviour and bragging even to this day in the EON documentary shows him as being an insecure idiot. Wisdom has still not got to him.
Desmond Llewellyn said you cannot put an inexperienced actor into a role like Bond. He was talking about Lazenby. You are talking about a mega franchise and not some small obscure tv soap opera where a bad actor could get away with it.
Some say Lazenby has balls to get the role knowing full well he got the job on false pretenses. Well thank goodness he did not want to become a doctor. There have been some horror stories about people lying and falsifying information to get into a profession. Would you be happy if you found out your doctor or dentist were not qualified?
Lazenby was a liability to EON and United Artists as he was not a team player. Yes, Connery had issues with EON, but he helped raise the series to be the biggest thing in show business at the time.
Cubby's book is reasonable and seems to tally with other people's accounts of Lazenby.
Yes Lazenby looked the part but then the same people who defend Lazenby castigate Brosnan as being a male model who should never been given the role. Huh?
Personally I'm amazed Laz never became a stuntman.
Don't forget champion skier as well, @BAIN.
And what would you do without the Gospel According to St. Cubby, @acoppola? ;))
There is an interview with Lazenby somewhere within the OHMSS special features where he recounts the audition where he broke Borienko's nose. Apparently after it happened Harry Saltzman looked at him and said "We're gonna go wit you" haha
Physically, Lazenby looked really tough. I could not deny that and he looks the part. That fight in his hotel room is fantastic. He had a tough face too. Had this man actually trained as an actor, then I think he would have got to at least 2 Bond films.
Harry for sure preferred Lazenby to Moore. Lazenby was way, way tougher than Moore. Moore would not deny that! :)
But I love his film as it ranks as one of the best ever. Lazenby will always gain fans because his name always comes up and nothing beats a controversy in the franchise.
Had Lazenby been an actor, the man would have been a truly fantastic Bond. Moore would not have stood a chance. I do think Moore hung around for way too long. I watched FYEO the other day after years and man he looks too old for Bond. He just had too much of the good life and it affected his physicality as Bond.
In the Bond franchise either an actor does too many films or way too little. I would have enjoyed another Lazenby for sure.
Lazenby has that tough face. I think his film speaks for itself and is a huge success looking back. I just think George by bragging attracts extra unwanted antagonism.
He looks and plays it so well during the safe breaking scene just to name one.
I got many sources before I read Cubby's book. And George's earlier interviews where he said "I did it for the bread and broads!" does not help his case. I had a Bond book by Peter Haining back in 1987 which had a lot of actor interviews. Cubby is a reasonable man by all accounts and always says it how it is.
But those who say Lazenby is forgotten need to remember that the Bond franchise is too big to be forgotten. In a way Lazenby to Bond fans is as famous as Connery or today's Craig. A shameless plug for the Lazenby fans here!:)
It's also on the Everything or Nothing documentary.
I love Moore's charm as Bond but a lot of his fights from as early as TSWLM (rooftop fight with the bald goon) are laughable. I showed my mum that rooftop fight last month and she laughed.
At least Brosnan wasn't as clunky physically as Moore (I liked his quick but effective neutralising of the goon on the boat in GE).
Laz could probably pummel them both though.
I think it's funny how both Brosnan and Lazenby had that "boys with toys" attitude to Bond.
"ooo...this is going to be so much fun"
Oh the Moore fights are badly laughable now. Lazenby is the better fighter. He is more brutal and could take a good kicking without crying about it.
TSWLM was never a favourite of mine. It is a children's Bond film as is Moonraker. And the film does not take itself seriously. I mean The Lawrence Of Arabia music in the desert scene is stupid. Moore without his charm or humour has little else to add. 7 films and he still could not define it like Connery did with his first three.
By the Moore's later films they may as well have Albert R Broccoli present Roger Moore's stuntman as James Bond OO7! :)
The better the actor, the better Bond is. That's my view. That is not to say that Moore is not enjoyable but even in LALD I thought the villain had the menace Bond should.
I do agree that Moore and Brosnan are bed fellows as Bonds.
Lazenby was the perfect choice for a one off BOnd film in 1969. He captured the youthful exuberance of swinging London of the mid to late 60's. Connery was too over the hill at this point. Lazenby gave some cultural relevance to the series in his performance.
Brosnan was just right for a 1995 Bond film. He was the right age and coming up in the business. His 'greatest hits' approach worked at the time to revive the series at a mass level. The 90's was the first time, when many films started to become remain and were a bit tribute.
One trend I have noticed with Bond is that the longer he is off our screens the better the film does. GE was 6 years after LTK and did great. CR was four years after DAD and did great. And SF was four years after QOS and is doing very great!
I definitely think the four year gap helped Craig's acceptance. Had he been announced in 2003, I think the backlash would have been even greater than that of 2005. Brosnan was the perfect Bond for many movie goers and the protest would have been too strong.
Bond is a huge brand. No Bond has ever flopped. They all make their money back proportionate to budget.
I think if you look at the newer franchises like Batman, there is a 3 year wait inbetween films rather than the traditional 2 years to increase anticipation and have more marketing manoueverability.