›

Could George Lazenby have been better than connery?

2

Comments

  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370

    @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)

    DarthDimi, that's a good point. An old acting teacher of mine had the opinion that almost every person had at least one good performance in them, or at least one good *character* (interestingly, he didn't think that the character had to be anything like the actor's own personality). I think that helps to explain so many of those actors and actresses who are supposed to be the "next big thing" but then disappear after only a couple of movies.

    I also believe that a person may not have the intuition or skill to be a good actor on their own but that a good director can help draw a good performance out of them. If someone can't speak lines in a naturalistic manner or doesn't have a lot of presence that's pretty hard to overcome, but a lot of other things can be molded through direction.

  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    It's all a matter of having charisma DarthDimi. You need to connect with the audience and if you don't you won't make it on film. I'm sure Dalton IS the better actor overall than Pierce and Roger but those two just have more charm onscreen IMO. They have a sparkle that fits in better with the movie world. Dalton is a good actor but he is more stage orientated than screen orientated, that's probably why both Pierce and Rog are ranked higher in general.

    I think its interesting that, out of all the actors, Lazenby is probably the least successful however. You're probably right flasheart about the director drawing a good performance out of them. I remember seeing an interview with Hunt where, prior to shooting the last scene of OHMSS, he left George waiting around for a long time.

    George himself also apparently had the book on his lap in the scene, hence one of the most poweful scenes in the whole series was created.

    Having said that George was never really an actor. If he was he would surely have been more successful in other projects as well as Bond. I know that he was about to start a film with Bruce Lee just before Lee died but if he was THAT good, surely some other big wig in Hollywood would have picked him up.

    He just quite never had the charisma that the others seemed to have. His arrogance probably didn't help either.
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 3,494
    Anyone who has doubts about Sir Sean pulling off the end of OHMSS, let alone showing how great an actor he is when it comes to romance, should watch "Robin And Marian".
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    @SirHenryLeeChaChing: No question Connery has and probably had the acting chops to be able to pull of an emotional scene like that one. The problem is the context. Sean Connery, for 5 films, had established a definitive icon in James Bond at the height of Bondmania. The final scene with Connery simply wouldn't have worked (as well--again, yes he could have pulled it off). Sean's Bond was cool, suave, too sure of himself to show emotion. OHMSS needed a younger, green, more sensitive Bond. Casting Lazenby was just right in this regard.

    @BAIN123: Of course Lazenby wasn't an actor--that's not really a debate. And Kung Fu movies don't exactly give him the chance to show off his range. The reason he wasn't picked up by some other Hollywood big wig because he burned his bridges, he snuffed his lucky break. He was perceived as the guy who failed at Bond at the time. It's his cross to bear of course, but just because he went on to do Kung Fu movies, is not testament to his performance as Bond. Had he stayed on there is every bit of a chance that he could have blossomed into a fine Bond and a good actor while at it. As good as Connery? Impossible to tell--I don't think Lazenby's potential films would have ever been as big as Connery's films commercially. But I do think it is very possible that Lazenby films could have been as good as Connery's if not better.
  • 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.
    Problem? The scripts were written for other actors. If Lazenby had stayed on board they would have written the scripts accordingly.


    I accept my (moral) (intellectual) (physical) inferiority.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited June 2011 Posts: 11,189
    I must admit I would have preferred to see Laz come back and do at least one more film (if anything to give OHMSS a consistant follow-up) than have Connery come back for DAF.

    I'm sure he could have been a more appreciated Bond had he stayed on and been allowed to grow into the role. However, the general consensus between the general public, the majority of hard-core Bond fans and critics is that Connery would always have made the better 007 even if Laz had stayed. I do enjoy Lazenby in OHMSS and think he did he did a fine effort but ultimately Connery does hold himself better. He's just more entertaining in general IMO (plus he isn't dubbed).

    I've seen a few internet reviews from fans and they are divided. As I said before some say Laz was great and others say he was "dull and wooden". Based on this I'm not sure he would have been overall "better" than Connery.

    I don't know, its another "what if" question :-S
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    However, the general consensus ... is that Connery would always have made the better 007 even if Laz had stayed.
    There's no denying Connery's amazing presence and unmatchable iconic panache in the role. But I think Lazenby was just good enough with a penchant for emotional range that he could have helped make a series of films that could have superseded Connery's films. He may have not been the better Bond, but him simply doing the job, combined with Peter Hunt's direction, I think had the chance to be the best of the lot. So maybe I'm arguing on behalf of the director here, but I think Lazenby did the job well enough to make for potentially superior films. Roger Ebert in his review at the time basically made this same point, that OHMSS proved that the James Bond character had been so established and beloved that it didn't really matter who was playing him, as long as all the ingredients were there.

    (Does anyone have that link?)
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    I accept my (moral) (intellectual) (physical) inferiority.
    Don´t worry, you´re still the coolest member we´ll see all day ;-) .
  • namideonamideo
    Posts: 6
    I don't think so. In fact the more I think about it, I'm not sure the series would have been as successful had they pressed on with Lazenby instead of Roger Moore. For all his merits Lazenby was more of a poster boy - a new face they just slapped on because they had no idea how to creatively cast the part. Had he been a much more experienced actor he would have had more leverage, but he was pretty limited in his abilities. I know people often cite OHMSS as being the most emotionally charge film in the series, but when you think about it, from an acting standpoint the film was structured in such a way that really didn't require a hellva lot from Lazenby's part. Granted, Connery's films were much the same, but the difference is that Connery can give a strong performance when inclined, whereas Lazenby really can't. I mean, yeah, his line deliveries are fine but he doesn't play with the part like the other actors do, and because of it he doesn't have the same level of charisma, which is why I basically rank him last. He was a good Bond, but there was definitely room for improvement, and I don't think he could've really sustained the series for more than two films.
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,370
    I think that Tarantino nees to give Lazenby a prime role in one of his films to show what he could do. Don't think of Travolta in Pulp Fiction; think of Robert Forster in Jackie Brown.

    That I would LOVE to see.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    It's unfair to compare anyone to the mighty Sean. Lazzer would certainly have been a greater Bond than the next three had he done a couple more.

    What strikes me is that the Producers, despite the problems Lazzer had with Ms Rigg and Mr Hunt, saw enough in this 'non-actor' to offer a 7 film contract!
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    No.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    I think that Tarantino nees to give Lazenby a prime role in one of his films to show what he could do. Don't think of Travolta in Pulp Fiction; think of Robert Forster in Jackie Brown.

    That I would LOVE to see.
    Wow genius post and idea right there !! Let's call Tarantino !! :-bd
  • TracyTracy
    Posts: 1,708
    (I understand Hunt milked him quite good)

    Holy gay innuendo *chuckles*
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    No. Not that Connery is a watermark of Bond, but I struggle to see Lazenby being better than Craig, let alone any other Bond.
  • QsAssistantQsAssistant All those moments lost in time... like tears in rain
    Posts: 1,812
    No! Connery is way better than Lanzenby. While Lanzenby was a good Bond, he is still the worst out of all the actors to play Bond.
  • forgotmyusernameforgotmyusername
    Posts: 2,782
    he's not the worst but I recognize the unfathomable injustice of my insignficant voice drowning out the singular wisdom of yours.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    JBFan626 wrote: »
    However, the general consensus ... is that Connery would always have made the better 007 even if Laz had stayed. <br />
    <br />
    There's no denying Connery's amazing presence and unmatchable iconic panache in the role. But I think Lazenby was just good enough with a penchant for emotional range that he could have helped make a series of films that could have superseded Connery's films. He may have not been the better Bond, but him simply doing the job, combined with Peter Hunt's direction, I think had the chance to be the best of the lot. So maybe I'm arguing on behalf of the director here, but I think Lazenby did the job well enough to make for potentially superior films. Roger Ebert in his review at the time basically made this same point, that OHMSS proved that the James Bond character had been so established and beloved that it didn't really matter who was playing him, as long as all the ingredients were there. <br />
    <br />
    (Does anyone have that link?)

    Imagine if Lazenby had done a string of Bond films all directed by Hunt, and all of them as true to the books as OHMSS. I think Connery would still be seen as the ultimate Bond, but no doubt Lazenby s star would have shone infinitely brighter.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I'm unsure if Lazenby could have bested Connery but OHMSS is my favourite Bond film & I think it's a downright shame that he didn't stick with the role. I'd have loved to see him, Telly Savalas & Hunt team up again for DAF.

  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    I find it hard to imagine anyone being better than Connery, but it would have for sure been interesting to see Lazenby take proper acting lessons and do several more Bond films.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 4,813
    I admit it's difficult to imagine him being better than Connery, BUT you must also consider that it wasn't until Moore's third film that he finally got comfortable and found his stride, and even Brosnan's performance seemed to get better with each film (too bad the movies did the opposite). So one would think Lazenby would have at least improved substantially with another 2 or 3 movies under his belt.

    To me, what sort of tips the scale the other way is the fact that Lazenby did continue to act, not as Bond of course, but he never really got any better. Actually, his best work was OHMSS and it was his first role! Granted he had tons of help in the form of a great director and supporting actor/actress... Lazenby as Bond is an interesting case indeed.

    You can only daydream the potentially awesome revenge movie that is Lazenby's Diamonds Are Forever and sigh 8->
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,217
    He would have improved and could have put his stamp on a new era but surpass Connery, never.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited July 2016 Posts: 2,341
    Being offered 7 pictures seem like quite a bit, but I understand EON wanted to lock him in for as long as possible. Had he listened to the right people he would have signed a 4-5 picture deal, took some acting classes, and worked on his acting resume by getting more gigs between Bonds. And like Connery, hang up the Walther PPK (probably around 1979)

    It is a good bet (a damned good one) that he would have been accepted and eventually loved as James Bond in the 1970's. (Just imagine him in LALD minus the humor elements ie, the chase at the airfield, and Kanaga's OTT death)

    Would EON have taken the path to "lighten up the films" with the tongue in cheek humor had they had Laz on board?

    That is another discussion. We all know that DAF would have been a serious revenge flick and follow up to OHMSS but when EON have kept the dark formula or would they gone the way they went after 1971?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    My understanding is that EON wanted to pander to the US audience constituency post-OHMSS. I'm not sure where I read that, but I'm sure I did. That's why DAF & LALD were set primarily in the US. So it's possible that they would have gone the 'lighter' route after all as Bond was evolving in the 70's in that caricature direction ("You just killed James Bond!") even prior to Roger's arrival.
  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 4,016
    Much as I like Lazenby in OHMSS and think his vulnerability worked for the film, Connery is a different class. Look at him in the early films, he makes it look so easy.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited July 2016 Posts: 9,117
    LeonardPine wrote: »
    Much as I like Lazenby in OHMSS and think his vulnerability worked for the film, Connery is a different class. Look at him in the early films, he makes it look so easy.

    You've disproven your own point: 'Look at him in the early films.'

    Yes the Connery of DN and FRWL in OHMSS would have been superb. But the disenchanted, bored and phoned in efforts of half of TB, YOLT and DAF? No thanks. I'll take Laz every time.

    I'd go as far to say it would have ruined the film we got as starting in GF and proceeding through TB to YOLT Connery stopped playing Fleming's character and just played partly himself and partly the cinematic Bond of Rog and Broz - the wisecracking superman. This portrayal for OHMSS would have been awful.

    Tim of TLD and Dan of CR would have been perfect in OHMSS as would early Sean, but Sean with where he was with the character in 1969 would have been detrimental to the masterpiece we ended up with.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    No.

    The very best case scenario would be being able to challenge Brosnan for that #5 spot.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 12,837
    I can't imagine any Bond doing as well in OHMSS as Lazenby.

    Connery set the standard but that sense of "making it look easy" is exactly why I'm glad he wasn't in OHMSS. When Lazenby escapes from Piz Gloria, I get the sense that be actually fears for his life in a way that wouldn't have worked with Connery's larger than life portrayal imo. And there's no guarantee he would have put the effort in anyway given how bored he was. As powerful as it would have been to see Connery's Bond finally fall in love then have it taken away, I just can't see it working.

    Moore's Bond is pretty much a cartoon character. I love him, he's very entertaining, but I'm sure even he'd agree that he'd be the wrong Bond for this film.

    Dalton is my favourite Bond. And he showed with his scenes in TLD with Kara that he could have sold the romantic side of the film. And while he's great in the action scenes I also think he could have sold the physical vulnerability well. But I think he's a little too intense. He's very Flemingesque but it's the Bond of the TLD short story, the world weary burnt out assassin, that he excelled at. I think he comes across as a little too cold and detached to surprass Lazenby.

    Brosnan could have sold the emotional side really well and given how much he wanted to explore the idea of Bond actually having feelings for someone (Paris was put into the TND script because of this) I think he deserved a film on par with OHMSS. He could have sold the emotionally vulnerable side really well but as much as I love him (my second favourite after Dalton), he does have a tendancy to overact sometimes and like Connery, I think he comes across as a bit too superhuman to fit the Bond of OHMSS. I think that he would have been good, he's probably the second most suitable imo, but still not as suitable as Lazenby.

    Craig is a fantastic actor and he can sell the emotional stuff really well. However like Dalton he can sometimes come across as a bit too cold and detached and while that's fine and actually quite Flemingesque, I'm not sure it'd fit OHMSS. But he's the best actor to have ever played the role so I have no doubt he could have altered this accordingly. But there's another problem, the main problem, and that's the physical side. Lazenby appears constantly human. His escape down the mountain is tense because he actually seems to struggle and fear for his life. Craig is a wrecking ball. The only time he's ever really seemed in real peril is the stairwell fight in CR (and even then he battered him and didn't seem at all affected by the cuts from the machete) and the train fight in SP (which doesn't really count, even Connery seemed vulnerable when pitted against an immortal henchman).

    One of the reasons OHMSS as a film is so special to me is that despite the Connery hangovers (the awkward cringe inducing one liners) James Bond is Fleming's Bond. Lazenby seems like a real human being in a way that none of the others do. I can actually imagine him lounging around the office fulfilling the role of a bored civil servant and despite his lack of acting experience, and a couple of wooden moments, he really pulled it through.

    So I'd argue that Lazenby already was a better Bond than Connery in a way: he was better at being Fleming's Bond. Yeah a lot of that is probably down to the script and direction but I also can't imagine any other Bond fitting it as well as he does, he definitely deserves credit. I think in an ideal world, Connery would have quit while he was ahead (DN, FRWL, GF, then a different film for his fourth) and Lazenby would have got the role sooner and done the entire Blofeld trilogy (properly, in order).

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    thelivingroyale wrote: »
    I can't imagine any Bond doing as well in OHMSS as Lazenby.

    Connery set the standard but that sense of "making it look easy" is exactly why I'm glad he wasn't in OHMSS. When Lazenby escapes from Piz Gloria, I get the sense that be actually fears for his life in a way that wouldn't have worked with Connery's larger than life portrayal imo. And there's no guarantee he would have put the effort in anyway given how bored he was. As powerful as it would have been to see Connery's Bond finally fall in love then have it taken away, I just can't see it working.

    Moore's Bond is pretty much a cartoon character. I love him, he's very entertaining, but I'm sure even he'd agree that he'd be the wrong Bond for this film.

    Dalton is my favourite Bond. And he showed with his scenes in TLD with Kara that he could have sold the romantic side of the film. And while he's great in the action scenes I also think he could have sold the physical vulnerability well. But I think he's a little too intense. He's very Flemingesque but it's the Bond of the TLD short story, the world weary burnt out assassin, that he excelled at. I think he comes across as a little too cold and detached to surprass Lazenby.

    Brosnan could have sold the emotional side really well and given how much he wanted to explore the idea of Bond actually having feelings for someone (Paris was put into the TND script because of this) I think he deserved a film on par with OHMSS. He could have sold the emotionally vulnerable side really well but as much as I love him (my second favourite after Dalton), he does have a tendancy to overact sometimes and like Connery, I think he comes across as a bit too superhuman to fit the Bond of OHMSS. I think that he would have been good, he's probably the second most suitable imo, but still not as suitable as Lazenby.

    Craig is a fantastic actor and he can sell the emotional stuff really well. However like Dalton he can sometimes come across as a bit too cold and detached and while that's fine and actually quite Flemingesque, I'm not sure it'd fit OHMSS. But he's the best actor to have ever played the role so I have no doubt he could have altered this accordingly. But there's another problem, the main problem, and that's the physical side. Lazenby appears constantly human. His escape down the mountain is tense because he actually seems to struggle and fear for his life. Craig is a wrecking ball. The only time he's ever really seemed in real peril is the stairwell fight in CR (and even then he battered him and didn't seem at all affected by the cuts from the machete) and the train fight in SP (which doesn't really count, even Connery seemed vulnerable when pitted against an immortal henchman).

    One of the reasons OHMSS as a film is so special to me is that despite the Connery hangovers (the awkward cringe inducing one liners) James Bond is Fleming's Bond. Lazenby seems like a real human being in a way that none of the others do. I can actually imagine him lounging around the office fulfilling the role of a bored civil servant and despite his lack of acting experience, and a couple of wooden moments, he really pulled it through.

    So I'd argue that Lazenby already was a better Bond than Connery in a way: he was better at being Fleming's Bond. Yeah a lot of that is probably down to the script and direction but I also can't imagine any other Bond fitting it as well as he does, he definitely deserves credit. I think in an ideal world, Connery would have quit while he was ahead (DN, FRWL, GF, then a different film for his fourth) and Lazenby would have got the role sooner and done the entire Blofeld trilogy (properly, in order).

    A post of a quality that is rarely seen on here (unless I have written it). I salute you Sir.

    There's a case to made that Laz is the best Bond of all because he is the most everyman and that is how Fleming's Bond comes across; he's not spectacularly witty, he's not a superman, he gets hurt, he gets frightened.



  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    The stars aligned for Lazenby on OHMSS. First and foremost it is a wonderful film, with an excellent supporting cast, Barry's best score, probably the best cinematography of the series (although TSWLM & SF probably give it a run), and a deeply meaningful Fleming story. Second but not least, it had an excellent director in Peter Hunt, who really delivered on the action front and was a master editor.

    Quite frankly, it would have been difficult for any actor to screw up OHMSS. I think many of the other actors would have been grateful for an opportunity to showcase their skills on a film such as this.

    Lazenby is extremely 'cool' in the film, and very confident when he needs to be, and has been mentioned, genuinely vulnerable in key moments. However, he doesn't, in my view, transcend the film like Connery, Moore and Craig have done in their best outings. This is despite his appearing in probably the best story. All three of the others are actors first and foremost, and the requirements of Bond in OHMSS are not necessarily Oscar or thespian worthy.

    Therefore, I don't personally see how he could have been better than either of these three, who I think could have nailed the part in this film.

    Sorry but good though Laz is in OHMSS, the answer for me to the OP's question is a resounding 'no'.
Sign In or Register to comment.