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
I thought George was a fantastic Bond.
I suppose it comes down to overheads. Pierce continues to make movies and probably rakes it in, but what are his living costs, with a large family, expensive homes etc?
It would be interesting if we could find out the net worth of the 6 actors.
Sean Connery - $300 million
George Lazenby - $100 million
Roger Moore - $90 million
Timothy Dalton - $10 million
Pierce Brosnan - $80 million
Daniel Craig - $95 million
Connery's far and away above the rest, but that's to be expected. Lazenby obviously made much more in real estate than I would've thought reasonable, so he did in fact surpass Moore. But then again, the list of spacious mansions that he owns is, well, very impressive.
Dalton's mostly a television worker and his films are generally not as successful, so unfortunately he's at the lowest (still, $10 million is a dream figure). I believe Moore's tenure was what afforded him the $90 million - he didn't act much post-Bond and many of the non-Bonds he did during the 70's and 80's weren't commercially successful.
As predicted, Brosnan is raking in the cash as he continues to act. Craig, of course, is the biggest name of the lot at the moment, and I expect his net worth to be second only to Connery when he retires.
Dalton looks on the low side considering he has a successful USA show under his belt.
Dalton definitely isn't as extravagant as the others (I believe some article last year mentioned he was driving a Toyota Rav4). But he has been in some decent films recently, and I'm assuming he'd get quite a bit even for things like Toy Story. And then, of course, there's Penny Dreadful. Still, $10 million is, as I said, a dream figure for any of us on this board.
I still find Lazenby's net worth the most shocking figure. He has approximately the combined net worth of his two successors in Moore and Dalton. Moore, in turn, has the combined net worth of his two successors in Dalton and Brosnan. But back to Lazenby - he declared himself broke in the 70's and his acting career never truly flourished, so that's some damn good real estate to be making $100 million and having all the mansions he has. Apparently he makes quite a bit from turning up at most of the Bond conventions?
I agree, he does seem to be the biggest anomaly.
google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi8jquM08fLAhWHtA4KHQjtCp84ChAWCBswAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftherealdeal.com%2Fissues_articles%2Flazenby-melanie-lazenby%2F&usg=AFQjCNFduqrikEfyqbbdqGjxEC9DC6Ts8Q&bvm=bv.117218890,d.ZWU
I wouldn't be surprised. She said he was 'annoying' and a bit of a 'dick', etc., which when referring to a handsome fella' is often women-speak for 'I find him irritatingly alluring but hate myself for it'.
Anyhow, glad to see this thread is kept alive - I for one rate Laz for his fresh (if somewhat naive) take on 007 after having been handed the impossible task of filling SC shoes.
His exuberance and boyish arrogance come across in his performance, and is nicely tempered by the vulnerability that is so well integrated in the script. He balances these two things well.
It also has to be said that with a lesser leading lady his performance would have been far poorer. He had a great actress to play off off.
My main gripe with it is actually not that he's not a true actor, but more that he comes accross as too young and fresh for me to accept his world-weary Bond who is ready to give it up after 'all those years' and settle down with Tracy... that was clearly (see Fleming's novel) a part meant for a more mature 007. But I'm nitpicking really.
That makes sense. I did expect Dalton to be a little higher, too, but again, $10 million is more than I'll ever have.
Also, to correct something I said earlier - I have no doubt that Craig will make enough to surpass George's $100 million in a few years. He only has to come back for Bond 25 and he'll be skyrocketing past that number (he's already at $95 million), and given his acting talent, he could be sought after for some pretty big hits after he retires from Bond, so I'm absolutely confident that he'll surpass George. I think the real question is whether Brosnan can make the $20 million or so to surpass George, because he's in his early sixties now and this is probably where his acting career wanes.
I do try to keep all 6 Appreciation and News threads alive, but people tend to open new threads instead of keeping these moving. I guess it's difficult to think of new ways to discuss actors whose association with Bond ended nearly 50 years ago.
Indeed. I can't imagine the conventions would make up any respectable fraction of George's net worth, which is probably comprised of almost entirely real estate investments. He certainly is one of the more successful people in the field, and as a result, he's living incredibly luxuriously. Interestingly, he was apparently the highest-paid model in the world in the 1960's before he became Bond.
I still find Dalton's $10 million net worth estimate to be a bit... conservative in comparison to the rest. Apparently he was paid close to $20 million for his two Bond films alone, and Penny Dreadful is currently one of the most popular names in its genre. But numerous websites seem to support that net worth, and I don't suppose that worrying about his finances is relevant to this thread.
In a recent interview, Dame Rigg also stated that he was a real pain on set and only has himself to thank for not having fulfilled his potential.
I've always wondered, if Lazenby wasn't also handicapped by the visual style of OHMSS, besides being the one to follow Bond. Purely visually, if you compare YOLT, DAD and OHMSS, I find the visual style of OHMSS very different from the Connery-movies. You can tell that Hunt had been a film editor; the editing in OHMSS is far more dynamic and fast paced, especially in the action scenes. So I've often wondered if the public not only had to adjust to a new actor, but to a radically new visual style as well - which may have hampered the appreciation of Lazenby even more.
Does anyone have this feeling as well, or am I not seeing things clearly?
In any case, for me, OHMSS is a classic in the franchise - top 5 material.
A superb Bond film.
RE: Lazenby and the death scene - I didn't find it particularly moving or exceptional. It's a memorable scene due to its meaning within the Bond oeuvre, but although Laz didn't screw it up, I don't think he necessarily aced it either. A little more expressiveness (in voice intonation particularly) wouldn't have been uncalled for. Not Dalton/Della levels certainly (heavens no!), but just a little more.
:)) Not entirely sure they agree on that one themselves. Some interesting comments by Diana Rigg on
Great actress and unforgettable as Emma Peel.
I'm just glad we didn't get another "Della!". It was a much more realistic approach to the death scene of a loved one.
Yes, my feelings exactly.I've been saying this for years, which is why I don't follow trends or groupthink that mandates you only love Connery and see the others as imitators. I love each actor equally for what they brought to the role, especially Laz (who for a first time actor is really exceptional and not all that stiff when you compare him to the almighty Connery).
Having said that, he lacked the 'menace' or 'threat' that most of the other actors brought through their acting expressions, but made up for that with his incredible physicality and screen charisma.
So when Moore donned the tux, he was considered the first of Connery's actual successors, since it was apparent at that point that Connery would no longer be returning for Bond. I mean, I didn't have universal knowledge on people's perspectives about Lazenby then, but as far as what I saw, he wasn't considered a successor to Connery, just a temporary stand-in when Connery got cold feet.
Also, for arrogance, Moore handled that pretty well with his Bond introduction in LALD.
PS. Just so you know, @stun_harvesting, from someone who remembers the Lazenby/Connery/Moore switchovers - Moore went on record at the time saying Lazenby going before him made his job easier. If he'd followed directly in Connery's footsteps (OHMSS) he believes audiences might have reacted badly to him, too. Not that OHMSS was a flop, mind.
As I've said elsewhere, he had the best score, the best and most meaningful Bond script, a superior cast (Rigg is a much better actress than Seymour was in 1973), far better locations in the film etc. etc. He didn't screw up, and he held his own very well, but Moore was able to carry a very idiosyncratic film in LALD, whereas Laz was given 'gold' to work with.