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
Yes, but the film made it better than the book (the OHMSS romance in the book didn't worked), the film improved upon it, the film made the impossible, possible of the believability of Bond and Tracy relationship, through developing Bond and Tracy's love story, by lending more time to have each other which the book failed to provide.
I agree, I'm actually tired of these OHMSS arguments and it's been going on for years, those are the same old complaints, for a Bond film, It's the best love story that we have.
Aye, the book was fairly terrible. Even the final assault on Blofeld's lair was told in passing.
Not the first, nor the last, occasion in which the film sorted out Fleming's mess.
I mean I think her reaction to be called by SMERSH shows her complete lack of composure in the spy-game. She questions all her jokes, and nearly throws a spoon out of a window and then panicked decides to see her fate. Fleming says she's just in the English translation department. Klebb thinks lowly of her, as a "silly chit of a girl." And the plan was to kill her, so clearly they didn't really think much of her anyway. Bond says she doesn't seem much like a Russian spy and is too gay to be anything like an operative
A large motivation of hers is fear as well. Her lovers and family are threatened if she doesn't go through instructions. She thinks if she confesses anything to Bond she'll be thrown off the train and she'll lose both Bond and be punished by Moscow. Instead if she complies she naively thinks she'll get the best of both worlds: Bond will love her and they'll in England together and she'll be able to be a spy. She doesn't think her betrayal of Bond is particularly important and states that she won't think he'll care.
I think that's probably the one thing Bianchi nailed the most, a beautiful innocence opposite Bond.
The movie doesn't sink but it doesn't exactly help. There are many flaws in other films that I am willing to forgive before this one.
I'd rather "be bored" by TB than watch Lazenby dubbed. ;)
Ah, fair enough, chief
Your opinion, but put in my mind that Lazenby was not the only actor in the series to be dubbed, and again, fairly reasonable if he's under a disguise of someone else, in this case, Sir Hillary Bray, he went through extensive training and research to copy Bray to make himself unrecognizable that in return, nearly succeeded, when Blofeld didn't recognized him.
But it's your perspective and opinion, after all, the way we look at these films were subjective.
Thank you for further explanation 😊.
I always did think a better film for Lazenby would have been LALD. It’s essentially a chase movie, and would have benefitted his physicality more than OHMSS.
Maybe, but I did recently watch LALD quite soon after OHMSS, and it really is striking just how much better Roger is when you put them alongside each other. In fact, I'd actually say that Lazenby would fare worse in LALD because it's quite small and Bond feels even more front and centre of it to me.
Watching this scene in his hotel room with Rosie I was struck by just how much Roger is doing: he's being playful and half winking at the camera, he's being suspicious, he's being a spy, we're laughing with him at times, he's the butt of the joke at other times too. I just imagine George's rather disconnected, charisma-free presence in this and the whole thing dies.
Yes, LALD is the kind of movie he would have needed.
Moore is more charismatic anyway. Lazenby would have killed the series in the long run.
Well, I think that's a bit harsh, but Lazenby could've been good in a more physical film, a bit more like the Connery films. I think Moore took it in a different direction, and I also think Moore is still under-appreciated in his acting skills. The LALD fragment shows his range clearly. He is by far the most convincing womanizer, even more than Connery. I even think his ruthlessness works really well when applied, exactly because he does it seldomly. His kick off the cliff of Locque is as convincing as can be, and carries more weight than any other Bond actor could've given.
The thing that made Moore more appealing as Bond, let's face it, was his star quality, he's an already known guy, a big star, while Connery made James Bond came to life (he started it), Moore, with a known name under his belt was his strength.
I'd guarantee you that if Moore was unknown and no-name guy, people would've still disliked him and yearned for Connery.
I remember an actor who was considered for the role but he had turned down the role because he's unsure of himself if he could fill Connery's shoes, I don't remember who he was but that was his reason, so that's the difficult job of it, unless, you put an actor there that would favor the people, in this case, it's Roger Moore whom the public already know at the time.
The thing with Bond is, it could flop if the leading man alienated the audience, look at Craig, how many people were against him by the time he was cast just because he looked differently from the traditional Bond look: robust, blonde, not so much good looking, not as tall as the other Bond actors, I would bet that had he didn't continued, we would be looking the same towards him the way we treat Lazenby.
The audience are alienated by Lazenby, they're not familiar with the guy ("who's this man? He's not Connery!") He's pretty much unknown and had a big shoes to fill after Connery's departure, no actors considered at the time had the guts to take on that responsibility, it's difficult, even if I were an actor considered for Bond in 1969, I would be skeptical against replacing Connery, it's such a big shoes to fill, I don't want to risk myself replacing the ultimate James Bond star, so kudos for Lazenby for having the guts to take on that role, replacing Connery was an impossible task that might as well have the series die off without him in the lead, because for many, he's James Bond and no one else could take that away from him.
And that's the people tend to overlook, they all about criticizing him but not looking at the other side of the story, not looking at the main reason of why it happened, Lazenby made it possible that there could be an actor who could play James Bond other than Connery.
And even with a big actor take on that role (let's say have the bravery to face the unknown of replacing the giant), the people would've still preferred Connery, people also easily took Moore in the role because there was a guy who played the role before him that's not Connery, and for people, they've just accepted that truth that any actor now could play James Bond, but for them, might as well be it an actor who they know, than an unknown.
Lazenby paved the way.
Lazenby had a tricky time replacing Connery, but I think his performance in OHMSS was too inconsistent, and I can understand there’s an element of him being a bit flat. I think he gets a better reaction now because there are moments of vulnerability to his performance (although even then I’m not sure it always works) but I think it’s hard not to acknowledge he’s a bit wooden at times and doesn’t quite have what Connery and Moore did.
We, as fans accepted Craig just as we accepted Lazenby, and we appreciate his performance in it.
But outside of the fandom, both of these two are are not widely received, remember DCINB.com (Daniel Craig Is Not Bond site), some unfairly said that Craig ruined the franchise, most of the comments in Calvin Dyson's YouTube videos are criticizing Craig, even in Critical Drinker's NTTD review Craig has been ridiculed as 'thuggish Bond', 'Russian Bond who looked like Putin', 'Ugly Bond', 'Blonde Bond', and even 'Woke Bond'.
Craig is sometimes being compared to Brosnan, even deepfaking Brosnan's face in Craig's Bond films.
Like had Craig only done CR, he wouldn't have been received well, and would be looked at the same view as Lazenby (many people liked OHMSS despite of Lazenby, and the thing would be probably the same for Craig had he only done CR, "it's a great film despite of him" kind of thing, because, people are alienated by him, they're not used to have Craig as Bond whose looks are very opposite from what one should expect from a guy playing James Bond, heck, some comments I've read online also loved CR but didn't liked Craig, and some are even wishing that Brosnan have done that film instead).
I think people warmed up to him by the time he made Skyfall, it's his most successful Bond film and people came to appreciate him more after that, Craig grown into the role, but still, there are still many people who disliked his Bond, and I think his detractors are coming back again with NTTD (he killed Bond), but he's appreciated for CR, just as Lazenby is now being appreciated for OHMSS.
While Lazenby's performance was not perfect by any means, he's being appreciated nowadays, and I think he would've grown into the role just like Craig did, his performance tend to be emphasized because he only have one film, but had he done more, I think people would accept him and he would've been better.
Nah that's not true, Skyfall was the first billion dollar Bond: people love Craig as Bond.
Nope, he was a hit as soon as people saw CR.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/nov/10/jamesbond.danielcraig
"Daniel Craig is a fantastic Bond"
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/casino-royale-2007
"Yes, Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond"
I don't specifically remember Dyson's review criticising Craig beyond certain moments (in fact I think he actually praised Craig quite a bit for his performance and many of the decisions he made. Actually he was quite positive about much of the film in general. I think it was the ending and final act he had the most issues with and explained how he felt the entire film had been based around it/why he didn't overly like it. But actually I think he had a lot of nice things to say about it). No idea who that other person is.
The DCNB thing I vaguely remember (it looks really unhinged in hindsight!) But I also remember people being quite impressed with CR and Craig when it came out. Looking at reviews of Lazenby from the time I don't think the reaction is comparable.
What a time to be a Bond fan, haha.
I'm not sure I'd agree. I don't know what the circumstances of Craig leaving the role would have been in this hypothetical universe, but I do think looking at reviews from the time and remembering the reaction he definitely made an impact as Bond.
Oh, every Bond actor is someone's least or most favourite, and by the end of certain eras fans tend to get jaded.
But again, not sure if I agree. I remember QOS got a bit of pushback as it wasn't seen as being as good a film as CR, but Craig himself was still praised as Bond. I definitely got that sense from the time. It's one of the reasons there was actually a lot of excitement for SF - because Craig was a popular Bond.
This is all hypothetical honestly, and gets into the realm of speculation. But I do think the reaction to Craig as Bond in CR alone was more positive than Lazenby's in OHMSS. It comes down to some factors beyond Lazenby's control (ie. the fact that he took over from Connery, the fact that the film itself was a different type of Bond film). But I think there's a difference in terms of that reaction.
It's interesting reading retrospective reviews (the ones from '69 aren't always positive about Lazenby at all). You get stuff like this:
It's a bit backhanded a compliment in many ways, and acknowledges Lazenby's limitations as an actor and as Bond. But you can make the claim he works for the film (I don't always think so). Anyway, I think while OHMSS is remembered fondly, and to some extent Lazenby too which I think is great, I think he's still quite a controversial Bond in many ways. Even his fans would acknowledge his performance isn't perfect.
I mean the people in the comments section in those YouTube Reviews.
Like what I've said, I think the general public (the viewers) came to love Craig in Skyfall, yes, like what I've said before, it's his most successful Bond film and I think by that time, even his critics and those skeptical of him as Bond came to accept him by the time that film came out.
He was a massive hit right from CR. Some folks didn't love him, they're still moaning about him today on these forums, but he was praised pretty much universally for CR and that's why they rushed a sequel out. People wanted more. SF was hugely anticipated, which is why it was so huge. Were you a fan when CR came out?
Ok, well a lot of the comes down to who the channel's audiences are. Get the right channel and you could easily have something like a DCNB situation! For Dyson I suspect the people commenting in his videos aren't dissimilar to us having overly long discussions with different viewpoints (I suspect his channel has a relatively broad spectrum of Bond fans anyway). From what I've seen of his videos (and to be completely honest he's the only Bond reviewer I'd bother with on Youtube - the rest just seem to be talking heads going on 10+ minute monologues without any editing) he's quite positive about Craig even if he's criticised the films.
I think you can say the same about most of us! Fans just like to complain about stuff they love.
It's pretty much the film reviews I watch from him, so that's mostly what I have to go from. I think he's generally quite good at balancing critique with why he likes the films. And ultimately he's making these video reviews that are over an hour long and require some sense of in-depth critique. I'd say for Bond channels he's the only one I can really stand (again, so many of them I've tried to watch are just random people talking to a camera not saying very much, and often you get the sense they genuinely dislike some of these films. I'd rather not waste 10 or 20 minutes of my time and read what people have to say here about Bond in about 5 minutes. Honestly, it's likely more interesting).
You can be a fan of something and still be critical of it - the two aren’t really mutually exclusive. I can think of at least one flaw in every Bond film or one element that I don’t enjoy - that doesn’t mean I don’t like the films.
So what? That’s his opinion. I’ve seen you bash Goldeneye before, does that mean we shouldn’t expect consistency from you? Or should we chalk that up to your opinion and move on?
Well, It's Moonraker. It's like Tarzan's yell. If you forgive that, you can forgive everything. The question is, why don't you do it?
I’m not sure if I follow your argument.
Amongst fans maybe; with the general audience I think less so as they've all been huge hits.
I agree they’ve all been huge hits - but how much of general audiences liked each film after paying to see them? How can we gauge that specific metric? I suppose RT or IMDB user reviews are a good indicator but even then I don’t think that would account for the entirety of the general audience. It doesn’t really matter though since EON ultimately achieved their objective which is to make loads of money off of these films to keep producing more.
I agree - I think this is just simply what happens when an actor plays a role for so long. The quality of the work is not always going to be consistent and that isn’t going to please everyone.
I suspect that if Amazon really fumbles this up then we’ll all be going back and starting to appreciate even the lesser loved EON films. Lord knows that’s the mindset I’m embracing now as we head further into uncharted territory.