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
It would have been a bit weird if Savalas had turned up in DAF, because other than the pre-credit sequence, the camp Charles Gray Blofeld feels nothing like the Blofeld who killed Bond's wife in OHMSS.
The script would have to be altered too. The dialogue between Bond and Blofeld is so light and friendly at times, it feels like they're almost long lost buddies exchanging good natured banter - `jealousy from you, Mr. Bond. I'm flattered'.....`If I were to break the news to anyone, it would be to you first. You know that....,' `we deeply sympathise', etc.
=)) HARSH but funny.
Look. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a wonderful film. I wouldn't change a hair on its glorious head (well... remove the "he had lots of guts" line. That's all, though). George Lazenby did a fine job in it, I don't even think of Sean Connery while watching him. He carries the role off quite well. Those who call him wooden need to look up again the definition of the term, it means someone who doesn't convey emotion, who comes off as robotic, unnatural. Lazenby conveys emotion well, especially in proposal scene and the crushing ending, and he's not at all robotic or unnatural, he's entirely human.
Sure. Connery may have done a good job. He may also have come off bored and done with the part, as much or maybe more than he was in YOLT. It's a moot point because he wasn't in it, Lazenby was. The producers had to replace the unreplaceable and quickly. This was completely new territory they were in. Thankfully they got someone who could do the job, and continue the series, and it was good, damn good actually. It most definitely could have gone the other way, with someone who actually was wooden, all wrong for the part. Dodged that bullet. Right on Laz.
I like the fact that out of all the other actors who played Bond, Lazenby is the one closest to Connery in terms of physical looks. He really is Connery Mk 2, in the same mould and style.
Lazenby's acting appears slightly wooden at times (looking bored during Hillary Bray exchanges in Blofeld's office, watching Ruby hypnotised, etc.) but this was down to lack of experience, nothing more. Had he done another few Bond's he definitely would have grown in the part.
And as you said, certain scenes he actually nails it (particularly the tragic ending).
I much prefer Lazenby to Brosnan, and probably even Moore too.
Connery getting the paycheck he got for DAF really shook things up in Hollywood. Not long after, successful leading actors were able to get those lofty checks when demand was high enough. Robert Downey Jr. is probably the last real movie star to be able to have a studio bend over backwards for an actor, and Disney is notoriously known for being penny pinchers.
I don't think so. His Bond style changed for DAF for example, based on the demands of the script (increased humor and levity) and is different from his more serious style in the Young films. I have little doubt Connery would have changed his approach if a Bond film made genuine dramatic demands on him, and the Connery who played in Marnie, The Hill, and Woman of Straw would have likely welcomed this (especially if the producers had made him happy with a paycheck commensurate to his status).
Yeah, looks that way. Ah! And Connery gave his to charity. A rare noble act at that time.
Yeah but he was able to golf, gamble and bone Lana Wood and Jill. Quite an experience he had. No wonder he wasn't grumpy.
Lol, he's Bond after all.
It's his youthful Australian swagger seeping through. I feel it's the wrong performance for a story like OHMSS, which in the novel has Bond becoming weary after many years of service. Connery in 1969 would have easily played that up if Hunt had him stick to that aspect of the novel.
I do think Lazenby would have been more perfectly suitable for a movie like LALD where it's mostly a fast pace action film. Nothing too demanding of an actor, he'd only have to play up the charm.
If Lazenby did LALD, I think he would have fit better in a more faithful adaptation. Have Peter Hunt direct and Richard Maibaum write both in the style of OHMSS. The LALD that we know is pure Guy Hamilton and Tom Mackiewicz camp in the style of Roger Moore. Have Lazenby’s dramatic Bond moment be Felix Leiter’s shark mauling. Possibly with James Earl Jones as Mr. Big.
I never thought about that before, but that's a damn good point. Older Bond for one of the later novels. Connery would have fitted that perfectly. Then youthful Bond in one of the earlier novels. I can see the Laz swagger working much better in LALD, now you come to mention it.
Question is, would Lazenby have wanted the gig by the early 70's? It sounded like he was getting influenced by the hippy movement by the turn of the decade, and may have changed his priorities and goals by the time LALD came knocking. Who knows. All hypothetical stuff, but nice to chew over...
Although I'm a defender of Lazenby's performance in OHMSS, I readily admit that it would have been ideal to see him first in a more action-oriented installment, allowing him to make the role his own. Rather than in LALD, I would have been inclined to see him make his debut in an adaptation of TMWTGG as it was apparently a possibility on the table at the time. To be honest, that would probably have been ideal for the Lazenby fan that I am.
Did he bone Jill as well ? :)
OR
Yes, because if he was in it he would keep bumping into George Lazenby.
However, flipping the question to Would OHMSS Be Better with Connery instead of Lazenby, the answer is possibly. But possibly not.
Connery would have been amazing of course, but Lazenby's youthful swagger works well. Watching him in the film is an eye opener. How can an inexperienced actor look so comfortable?
Case in point, when Lazenby enters the casino? He confidently glides in as if for all the world he belongs there. Compare it to both Dalton and Brosnan who both made the mistake of holding themselves ramrod straight, glancing hither and thither with mean expressions on their faces, acting their socks off and both looking like they'd never been near a casino in their lives before. And you wonder who the actual actor is? Later at the card table he equipped himself so very well and Connery is all but forgotten.
I read that Lazenby was wooden? He had his moments indeed (some of his dialogue with Draco's men in the car was excruciating), but he was always expressive in an understated way (as cinema acting should be), and it was all there in his face - hiding from Bunt and her men, declaring love for Tracy, the final scene in the car.
I do wonder how Connery would have played it. I'm sure he would have been excellent, but Lazenby pulls it off well enough for the question to be moot.
I heard he dated both while on set.
I read that Lana Wood said she had sex with him nothing about Jill yet.
+2
BOTH.
Oh, you meant which suit, not which actor. I definitely prefer Lazenby’s. Looking sharp with the
pink shirt. A little more on this side of timeless, as opposed to Connery’s very much of the time ugly cream suit (and I like cream).
What about felix's tie ? How bad is that ? :)
Felix in Dr no and Thunderball is stylish and cool.