George Lazenby vs Pierce Brosnan

1235

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I voted for Brosnan but I do like Lazenby and I think he deserved a few more films. And in real life he's a legend.

    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 didn't lie. He set up an "accidental" meeting with cubby and got himself the part.

    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.
  • Posts: 3,333
    Why don't you feel the same way about Christian Bale, @0Brady? At least Lazenby never got arrested for assaulting his mother and sister just before the London premiere of his biggest film, nor did he conduct a profanity-ridden rant at the at the director of photography on the set of "Terminator Salvation" and have it recorded for all the world to hear. That's hardly classy. Why don't you overlook Lazenby's minor shortcomings which pale into insignificance compared to Bale's? The reason why I ask is that I know you're a huge Nolan Batman fan and wouldn't allow the poor reputation of its lead actor to spoil your overall enjoyment of the films. That's how some of us feel about Lazenby.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondsum wrote:
    Why don't you feel the same way about Christian Bale, @0Brady? At least Lazenby never got arrested for assaulting his mother and sister just before the London premiere of his biggest film, nor did he conduct a profanity-ridden rant at the at the director of photography on the set of "Terminator Salvation" and have it recorded for all the world to hear. That's hardly classy. Why don't you overlook Lazenby's minor shortcomings which pale into insignificance compared to Bale's? The reason why I ask is that I know you're a huge Nolan Batman fan and wouldn't allow the poor reputation of its lead actor to spoil your overall enjoyment of the films. That's how some of us feel about Lazenby.

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    RC7 wrote:
    I think a lot of people are very good at inadvertantly riding the crest of a wave.

    Like Pierce did in DAD you mean?
  • Posts: 1,859
    Bale has not had a TV series created for him like Lazenby did. How's that for a for coming out of left field.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I think a lot of people are very good at inadvertantly riding the crest of a wave.

    Like Pierce did in DAD you mean?

    Nice.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    RC7 wrote:
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    I think a lot of people are very good at inadvertantly riding the crest of a wave.
    Like Pierce did in DAD you mean?
    Nice.
    Couldn't resist the opening you left me.... \:D/
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    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.

    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.
    Why randomly bring Christian into it? ... the "assault" none of us were there for and can't prove,

    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.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    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.

    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.
    Why randomly bring Christian into it? ... the "assault" none of us were there for and can't prove,

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    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.
    Is it okay if I merely like OHMSS, and disregard Laz's personal foibles? :-/
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117

    [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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    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.
    Is it okay if I still like Brosnan's first three as good lightweight 'cinema' Bond movies despite his not having commanding directors able to mould him into a better Bond?
  • Getafix wrote:
    I think we, hard-core Bond fans in general, agree that Pierce Brosnan was being given poor material to work with in his last 3 outings as Bond. No one will discuss that. To what heights Brosnan could have bring Bond as a character, given good plots and good writing, we'll never know.

    One thing I do realize, now after having read Bond fans opinion about it, is that Brosnan, being stuck with a bad team of writers, was still able to kept the franchise alive. Just for that he must be praised.

    I just can't shake the feeling a cosummate or proficient actor like Timothy Dalton would have flatly refused to play in such poor films, DAD being the top of it all.

    There's some truth in this. But bear in mind that the films are often tailored to the actor's strengths, therefore Brozza was given material that that EON thought would suit him. TWINE provided him with plenty of opportunities to show a more complex Bond and he blew it. The result was DAD - surely EON's response to his below par performance in the previous film.

    Also, was the base material in QoS particularly good? Not especially and yet Craig still manages to put in a decent performance.

    No other actor was as consistently poor as Brozza and for that he must take a lot of the blame.

    Contrast him with Laz who hadn't even acted before and Brozza has no excuses whatsoever.

    I agree with Getafix here and disagree with JohnBarryFan. I'm always surprised when people use the "Oh, if only he had better scripts!" defence of Brosnan.

    Short of OHMSS and LTK no Bond actor was given as much meaty, emotional moments to work with as Brosnan. Death of Paris, all of TWINE, first part of DAD...over and over again Brosnan was given his chance to shine and he couldn't put the puck in the net. Imagine what Dalton or Craig could have done with those scripts...a good actor can inject a lot of life into a poor script by making interesting choices in line delivery or reactions, a poor actor can suck the life out of what should be a knockout scene if can't bring conviction or an interesting take on it.

    Brosnan had his chances, he just couldn't deliver. And I say this as someone who liked him. Liked him, but understood his limitations.

    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.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    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.
    Balderdash, like stocky Moore in later years or short Craig was or are... your focus here is too tight IMO.
  • Someone here wrote that Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Craig all were James Bond, Brosnan only played him.

    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".

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Craig says something like this in the 'Becoming Bond' documentary from Casino Royale. When asked if he'd dreamt or being Bond when he was younger, he said yes, but that was playing Bond when he was a boy, not being Bond. There's a difference. Brosnan did not know there was. He lived off his "the first film I saw was Goldfinger" vibe.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    I am surprised at the defence of Lazenby who lost Bond through his own stupidity and pride. The furthest I can defend him is by saying he did a good job for a non-actor but his inexperience as an actor shows so obviously in OHMSS and I have Connery before him to prove that.

    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?



  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    Personally I'm amazed Laz never became a stuntman.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,333
    I think the ego issue was most likely down to George Lazenby being at the time the world’s highest paid male model, and like most "supermodels" there comes with it an inflated ego and a sense of self-entitlement. Lazenby, who erroneously believed Bond was a relic of the sixties whose popularity was waning, mistakenly opted to leave the series. This may make him guilty of having shown poor business judgment and taking the wrong advise, but the fact is he did indeed click with audiences.

    Don't forget champion skier as well, @BAIN.

    And what would you do without the Gospel According to St. Cubby, @acoppola? ;))
  • @0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Out of intrest, where would you rank OHMSS?
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    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
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    Personally I'm amazed Laz never became a stuntman.

    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.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    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

    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.

  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    bondsum wrote:
    I think the ego issue was most likely down to George Lazenby being at the time the world’s highest paid male model, and like most "supermodels" there comes with it an inflated ego and a sense of self-entitlement. Lazenby, who erroneously believed Bond was a relic of the sixties whose popularity was waning, mistakenly opted to leave the series. This may make him guilty of having shown poor business judgment and taking the wrong advise, but the fact is he did indeed click with audiences.

    Don't forget champion skier as well, @BAIN.

    And what would you do without the Gospel According to St. Cubby, @acoppola? ;))

    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!:)
  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    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

    It's also on the Everything or Nothing documentary.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    .
    Personally I'm amazed Laz never became a stuntman.

    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.

    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"
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    edited December 2012 Posts: 1,243
    BAIN123 wrote:
    acoppola wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    @acoppola. I suppose both Laz and Broz had a "male model" quality about them (Laz WAS a male model) but, with all due respect to Broz, Laz was superior when it came to fighting. He had that "rough and tumble" quality about him that Brosnan didn't really posses. Laz apparently got the job because he could swim, ride and fight dirty (he broke a stuntmans nose) - characters Bond had.

    .
    Personally I'm amazed Laz never became a stuntman.

    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.

    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.



  • Posts: 1,497
    Two different actors for two different eras of the series. Brozza wouldn't have worked in OHMSS, but the Laz wouldn't have worked for GE and so on.

    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.
  • acoppolaacoppola London Ealing not far from where Bob Simmons lived
    Posts: 1,243
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Two different actors for two different eras of the series. Brozza wouldn't have worked in OHMSS, but the Laz wouldn't have worked for GE and so on.

    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.

Sign In or Register to comment.