›

Could George Lazenby have been better than connery?

jamesdutjamesdut
edited June 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 95
Having read the MI6 interview with george Lazenby and rewatching inside OHMSS on dvd Peter Hunt states that Lazenby could have become the best ever bond? I think i could agree with him as his performance was actually quite good acting that is very convicing in action and emotion. Seeing as he had no acting experience and did almost all his sceans in one take gives him even more creadibilty to how good he was and could off got better. OHMSS is such a good film in almost every way that as much as i like DAF with connery, Lazenby could of easily done that film as good if not better? Plus it may of had a more dramtic feeling as getting revenge on Blofelt for killing his wife could have been heighlighed more. Like QOS follows CR, DAF was suppose to follow OHMSS. Anyhow i suppose if that had happened connery would not have been bond for a sisth time and who knows Moore may not have been cast if Lazenby became popular. Funny how things could of turned out.
«13

Comments

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    No.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    I agree that Lazenby probably had more potential than he showed in OHMSS and could in fact have grown to become a very good Bond. But saying he might have been better than Connery is like saying that Ed Wood might have become a better film maker than Stanley Kubrick. The answer is no.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Who knows, I wouldn't have ruled out the possibly, as Lazenby worked through his 7 or 11 film contract.
  • jamesdutjamesdut
    Posts: 95
    yer im personally not saying that its what Peter Hunt the director of OHMSS said, i pesonally like moore the best. I'm just heighlighting the fact that Lazenby was not as bad as some people and the media portray. Also connery looked slightly boared in DAF as if he was only doing it so he could do other films he wanted to, as where Lazenby could have carried on becoming a well known bond as oppesed to only fans remembing he was bond.
  • dragonskydragonsky
    Posts: 2,491
    we cant talk about this cause Laz made only one movie,i really like his performance as Bond but he should have done more movies before we should judge him
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    Better than Connery? Probably not... but did he have the potential to be GREAT? Absolutely!! 8->

    Everytime we do one of those 'rank the Bonds' threads, Lazenby's always on the bottom- not because he's bad, but because he never had the chance to grow into the role the way the others did.
    Prime example- if Roger Moore ONLY did Live and Let Die, he'd have been at the bottom instead of Lazenby. Because Roger stuck around and made the Bond role HIS
    Similar with Brosnan. Although the movies themselves got progressively worse, his comfort and confidence with the role got much better with every film. If Brosnan did GoldenEye with his Die Another Day level of experience, it would have been terrific!

    So like I've said before, one of the biggest tragedy's of the Bond series is Lazenby not sticking around. He planted the seed but he didn't grow
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    Laz IMO was certainly better than he's often given credit for but nonetheless I wouldn't call him the best Bond based on that one (partly dubbed) performace. Its hard to imagine him topping Connery - no one has arguably topped Connery.

    Might I add also that, whilst OHMSS is generally well regarded nowadays, Lazenby's presence is still somewhat controversial. Some people say he's as wodden as a plank in an otherwise great film. Others say he "nailed it". Me, Im somewhere in the middle, he's not as memorable as the others (IMO) but he does give a decent effort nonetheless.

    So, better than Connery? Doubtful, but he could certainly have been good had he stayed around.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Lazenby definitely still had room to grow in the role - but i would be lying if i didn't think that he often times was very wooden....

    with that being said, for not being a trained actor, and basically just making the jump from being a male model, he did an admirable job - and i would've liked to see him do a couple more...

    but i don't think he could've surpassed Connery.... we are 5 actors removed from Connery, and he still hasn't been surpassed as THE quintessential Bond..
  • Agent005Agent005
    edited June 2011 Posts: 562
    Given good scripts, good directors, and a good supporting cast to play off of, I believe Lazenby could have been much better than Connery as an actor. As far as being better than Connery at Bond, that's all a matter of personal taste. Good acting doesn't necessarily equal a good Bond.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    thats a lot of ifs that need to happen though Agent005... lol

    Lazenby lacked that real natural charisma that Connery had..... Connery's swagger and attitude was enough to carry a sub par Bond film, and make it enjoyable to a degree - like Diamonds Are Forever... i'm not sure that Lazenby had enough to carry through a film like that.... granted, had he done Diamonds Are Forever, it probably would've been different... but, i couldn't picture Lazenby in what DAF turned out to be - and still pull off the same wit and charm that Connery did...

    again..... it's hard to judge based off of one performance what he could've been - we'll never know....
  • Agent7FAgent7F
    Posts: 825
    No.
    I agree with you
    we cant talk about this cause Laz made only one movie,i really like his performance as Bond but he should have done more movies before we should judge him
    I don't agree with that
    Better than Connery? Probably not... but did he have the potential to be GREAT? Absolutely!! 8->
    Nobody can be better Sean as James Bond.

    Everytime we do one of those 'rank the Bonds' threads, Lazenby's always on the bottom- not because he's bad, but because he never had the chance to grow into the role the way the others did.
    Prime example- if Roger Moore ONLY did Live and Let Die, he'd have been at the bottom instead of Lazenby. Because Roger stuck around and made the Bond role HIS
    Similar with Brosnan.
    Well the other 4 beside Connery & Moore did more then 1.

    So like I've said before, one of the biggest tragedy's of the Bond series is Lazenby not sticking around. He planted the seed but he didn't grow
    Laz IMO was certainly better than he's often given credit for but nonetheless I wouldn't call him the best Bond based on that one (partly dubbed) performace. Its hard to imagine him topping Connery - no one has arguably topped Connery.
    Well You can say that again,Even I said once before in this forum. Somebody said too as I remember.
    Might I add also that, whilst OHMSS is generally well regarded nowadays, Lazenby's presence is still somewhat controversial. Some people say he's as wodden as a plank in an otherwise great film. Others say he "nailed it". Me, Im somewhere in the middle, he's not as memorable as the others (IMO) but he does give a decent effort nonetheless.

    So, better than Connery? Doubtful, but he could certainly have been good had he stayed around.
    That true.
    Given good scripts, good directors, and a good supporting cast to play off of, I believe Lazenby could have been much better than Connery as an actor. As far as being better than Connery at Bond, that's all a matter of personal taste. Good acting doesn't necessarily equal a good Bond.
    005 what you wrote that I don't agree.
    To say today George Lazenby is the worst Bond today.
    Best & worst Bonds
  • Agent005Agent005
    Posts: 562
    thats a lot of ifs that need to happen though Agent005... lol
    I guess that what I was meaning to say is that with the proper training, environment, and a communicative director, Lazenby could have easily become a great actor. The potential was undeniably there.
  • j7wildj7wild Suspended
    Posts: 823
    could?

    he was better than Connery!
  • 001001
    Posts: 1,575
    No, Not better than connery.
  • jamesdutjamesdut
    Posts: 95
    if you take away all the other connery films except Dr NO and judge only on the one film performance of both then the argument is probaly not as clear? Yer connery was brillint in Dr no with his swagger and deadly kill approach, while Lazenby was equally good in OHMSS with more emotion. Conclusion i make is that Lazenby would have been regared as a good bond by all if he had carried on in the role, as Connery was.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Considering that Lazenby never once acted before, he could have skyrocketed if he had taken acting lessons, and assuming luck with the directors (I understand Hunt milked him quite good). I don´t like to say better or not better than Connery, because Lazenby was a different personality than Connery.
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    I prefer him to Connery as is. Had he actually gone on to do more films...well that could have been epic.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited June 2011 Posts: 15,718
    If you take DN and forget the rest of the Connery outings... Connery still has the edge, but not by much. Had Lazenby continued... it would have been great. But he would have taken the time of Roger Moore... :-(
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    I agree that Laz could have been great but I don't think he had the star power or presence to rival Connery. However, he would have likely given slightly more human performances. As for the people who say he was wooden or say that he was great - I agree with you both! He has a couple of scenes that are cringe-worthy to me in terms of how wooden and monotone his line readings are. Yet he has other scenes (presumably shot later) where he's nothing less than excellent. He was certainly picking up quickly and given the right advice and nuturing environment could have done quite well.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
    Serendipity - he was the right guy at the right time for the right Bond movie.

    OHMSS - everything came together just right for GL. Music, script, co-stars - it was just right.

    And there lies the problem - there wasn't a script that I think would have suited GL until TD and PB's outings.

    I could also see him in CR - the deliberate similarities with OHMSS was EON and DC's masterstroke.




  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Serendipity - he was the right guy at the right time for the right Bond movie.

    OHMSS - everything came together just right for GL. Music, script, co-stars - it was just right.

    And there lies the problem - there wasn't a script that I think would have suited GL until TD and PB's outings.
    Problem? The scripts were written for other actors. If Lazenby had stayed on board they would have written the scripts accordingly.

  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    edited June 2011 Posts: 3,494
    Considering that Lazenby never once acted before, he could have skyrocketed if he had taken acting lessons, and assuming luck with the directors (I understand Hunt milked him quite good). I don´t like to say better or not better than Connery, because Lazenby was a different personality than Connery.
    I gotta say it, "acting lessons" was the first thing I thought. That and he had every advantage in the well-oiled machine and a top notch cast surrounding him. George really didn't have to pull off too much, he had the look, he fought extremely well and we know that and a little bravado was why he was hired. It's impossible to say how well he would have continued to do, so why not speculate, but lessons to cure that wooden delivery of his would definitely have helped.

    Connery would have absolutely knocked OHMSS into a stratosphere rarely reached in movie history. It would have been the ultimate Bond film as well. I've seen nearly everything Sir Sean ever did, and his performance in the final scene would have amazing. He was and always will be one of the legends of cinema. So, to answer the question, I now refer to the gospel of Scashy...Codswallop :-))
  • 00Beast00Beast
    Posts: 4,762
    Ehh....I'm not sure. Lazenby was just all right in OHMSS, but I could definately see him developing more into the role of Bond. Perhaps it is, for me at least, that OHMSS is not one of my favorites, so Lazenby seems worse to me than he really was. If he had done DAF and maybe one more, than we could have had a really great 007 on our hands. Again, it's just the time thing. We're left to judge his performance by one movie and one portrayal as 007, so it is a bit of a disadvantage for him. Who knows, maybe he would have been better than Connery?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    could?

    he was better than Connery!
    Obviously not. There's no way anyone can ever beat the FRWL, TB or DN Connery. Lazenby's physicality is his strongest point in OHMSS, that and how he pulled off the sentiments in the final scene. I respect the man for that. However, Connery had some amazing moves, e.g. in the Bond versus Grant brawl. As for playing the emotional cards, I'd actually argue that while Connery was never given an opportunity quite the same as Lazenby, there are moments where his eyes read a combination of sadness and anger. Kerim's death springs to mind. Besides all this though, Connery had extra material to show. His gentlemanliness, his easy-going attitude, the seductions, the marvellous ease with which he delivered his witty one-liners. Seriously, I don't presume Lazenby was at the peak of his talents in OHMSS but could he ever have gotten better than Connery? I believe some of his later acting is sufficient proof that he couldn't.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    OHMSS didn't make as much money as YOLT, but then YOLT didn't make as much as TB. It wasn't Lazenby's fault, the Bondwagon was beginning to waiver a little. As such the films needed a shot of good natured humour and OTT action. DAF did that, and LALD simply upped the formula to please the masses.
    Now, Lazenby, had he signed his contract would have been given a light hearted vehicle next to get the wheels back on and make Bond popular again.
    Had he been more professional he would have been a great Bond, but his attitude and prickly manner (still noticeable today) would have got him sacked within three films anyway.
    As great as Connery? Probably not, but a great Bond non-the-less
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    I think Lazenby was great in OHMSS and wish he would have continued on as Bond through the 70s (although I am also a fan of Moore) - but I doubt very much that he would have been a better Bond than Connery, who had a subtle inflection to his acting that cannot really be learned and that Lazenby just did not have.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370


    Obviously not. There's no way anyone can ever beat the FRWL, TB or DN Connery. Lazenby's physicality is his strongest point in OHMSS, that and how he pulled off the sentiments in the final scene. I respect the man for that. However, Connery had some amazing moves, e.g. in the Bond versus Grant brawl. As for playing the emotional cards, I'd actually argue that while Connery was never given an opportunity quite the same as Lazenby, there are moments where his eyes read a combination of sadness and anger. Kerim's death springs to mind.
    One of the things that people often don't take into account in the "What if Connery had done OHMSS?" discussion is that Connery was clearly bored and resentful by that time. The idea that the script for OHMSS would have inspired him to hit new heights of dramatic acting seems a bit of a stretch for me, although some people do cite that as a reason why he would have "snapped back into it".

    Connery is my favourite Bond but that has more to do with presence and charisma than raw dramatic talent. It was really interesting to me to listen to the commentary track for TB. It was pointed out that Bond was really moved by telling Domino about her brother's death and the hurt he caused her. It pointed out that his hand shook after he gave her the watch and dog tags, and that he then put on his sunglasses so she couldn't see the hurt and regret in his eyes. But I never would have known that if they didn't point it out! So Connery did have some opportunities to show his range but it wasn't as broad as it perhaps could have been.
  • ShorelineShoreline
    Posts: 251
    This is the sort of debate that keeps fan forums burning alive.......what if????
    Not in a million years would ol`George come close to the sparks coming off Seans heels. In actual fact, we don`t really have much to judge Lazenby on, one film, and half of that was dubbed. But I think this in itself is telling enough, he couldn`t cut it, and I doubt he would ever have. He never really made it as an actor, the film offers never came for him. Bond was a golden oppertunity that could of led onto a serious career in film for someone with talent.....he was lucky to have had a shot in the first place.
    I understand why some fans route for the underdog, and the big attraction for OHMSS was the ending, amongst fans, due to it being unlike any other Bond ending. But if you ask me, the film demonstrated that it takes a little more than looks to be taken seriously. Added to that, he comes across as a bit of an ass during his short lived moment as Bond....and don`t tell me that was due to bad advice from his agent.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Interesting point there, @thelordflashheart.
    One scene that always comes to my mind is the laid-back nonchalance Connery shows when he and Tiffany have a talk in the Las Vegas hotel bed. That was something he never showed before in a Bond film, and it fits very much to what Lazenby did sometimes in OHMSS. So I guess Connery could have done more with the character if there would have been a respective concept.
    But in the end I agree that Connery´s main thing was his presence. The best example is maybe his Oscar for The Untouchables, which he got despite the fact that he spoke with a strong Scottish accent even though his character was an Irishman.

    @Shoreline: It comes down to the man´s character. As I said above, he did what he did in OHMSS without any experience as an actor. So you can´t really say he hadn´t got any talent. If he would have taken his job seriously and worked on himself and his skills he could have become something much bigger no doubt. It has nothing to do with the idea of routing for the underdog, though.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Given good scripts, good directors, and a good supporting cast to play off of, I believe Lazenby could have been much better than Connery as an actor. As far as being better than Connery at Bond, that's all a matter of personal taste. Good acting doesn't necessarily equal a good Bond.
    005 what you wrote that I don't agree.
    To say today George Lazenby is the worst Bond today.
    Best & worst Bonds
    Have you ever seen Lazenby perform as an actor in the many years after OHMSS? He's a fine actor but certainly no match for Connery's stamina, charisma and infinite sexual arrogance.

    @Agent7F 005 didn't write contradicting things. An actor can be a better actor in general but less equipped to play a certain part. Take Mila Jovovich and Rachel Weisz for example. Clearly Rachel's the better actress but Mila's the better Alice in Resident Evil. At least I don't think Rachel could be such a good Alice. Same way, I'm convinced that Dalton is a better actor than Brosnan but many people rank him lower as Bond. (not me though)

Sign In or Register to comment.