George Lazenby finally recognized as a worthy James Bond actor?

edited July 2013 in Actors Posts: 11,119
As you might have known from special documentaries about 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', George Lazenby's name was deliberately deleted from marketing and promotion material by United Artists. As George was the first actor to step in the shoes of Connery, the Bond actor that media felt was irreplacable, United Artists didn't know exactly how to promote George's first Bond film.

The result was that lines like '.....presents George Lazenby as James Bond 007 in 'On Her......' were deleted. Instead they focussed much more on the actual name 'James Bond 007'. Even the looks of Lazenby were actually very Connery-esque.

A few examples of this poster- and marketingwork are the actual poster from 1969, but also the Ultimate Edition DVD covers from 2006:

OnHerMajestysSecretService.png
9215412970_c501323874_b.jpg

Buttt, that has finally changed with the new promotion artwork for the 50th anniversary BluRay and DVD sets. George Lazenby's full name is now used. Finally George Lazenby is being recognized as a very fine actor that starred in one of the best James Bond films ever :-):

9212636023_aa312cd06d_o.jpg
«13

Comments

  • Posts: 1,052
    George Lazenby finally recognized as a truly awful James Bond actor?
  • Posts: 11,119
    nah......I think it's fair to compare Lazenby's first outing with Connery's first outing.
  • nah......I think it's fair to compare Lazenby's first outing with Connery's first outing.

    =)) you must be joking!
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    nah......I think it's fair to compare Lazenby's first outing with Connery's first outing.

    Has @hullcityfan hijacked your account or is your craziness becoming more unashamed?
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Wow, if he ever gets his name in big, bold letters on the cover then he can be considered the greatest Bond actor of all time.
  • Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    nah......I think it's fair to compare Lazenby's first outing with Connery's first outing.

    Has @hullcityfan hijacked your account or is your craziness becoming more unashamed?

    More unashamed :D. I'm a sucker for these useless tiny details. Call me a Bond nerd times 1,000 hehe.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 23
    As you might have known from special documentaries about 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', George Lazenby's name was deliberately deleted from marketing and promotion material by United Artists. As George was the first actor to step in the shoes of Connery, the Bond actor that media felt was irreplacable, United Artists didn't know exactly how to promote George's first Bond film. [img][/img][url][/url]

    The result was that lines like '.....presents George Lazenby as James Bond 007 in 'On Her......' were deleted. Instead they focussed much more on the actual name 'James Bond 007'. Even the looks of Lazenby were actually very Connery-esque.

    A few examples of this poster- and marketingwork are the actual poster from 1969, but also the Ultimate Edition DVD covers from 2006:

    OnHerMajestysSecretService.png
    9215412970_c501323874_b.jpg

    Buttt, that has finally changed with the new promotion artwork for the 50th anniversary BluRay and DVD sets. George Lazenby's full name is now used. Finally George Lazenby is being recognized as a very fine actor that starred in one of the best James Bond films ever :-):

    ThunderballFever said:

    I would agree that ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE was a poorly promoted film. As far as it being one of the best Bond films, in my opinion, OHMSS belongs in the same group with DR. NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL. It has always done well in polls conducted over the years by Bond fans. It was recently voted Number 1 in the 007 magazine readers "Greatest Bond Film of All Time Poll."

    Over the years, most of us thought Lazenby did a commendable job in the acting department but, certainly not up to Connery's level. However, he has an excellent screen presence and his fighting skills are superior to those of Connery's or Craig's. With the exceptions being the climatic fight between Bond and Red Grant aboard the Orient Express in FRWL and the cinematic event in GOLDFINGER which took place inside Fort Knox between Bond and Oddjob.

    It's too bad George only did the one film. It would have been interesting to see him grow into the role with more acting experience under his belt. But, as other people have said: "Then there may have never been a Roger Moore era."
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 23
    Interested Bond fans can check out (THE BOND MARKET OHMSS COLLECTIBLES) for more details on this subject and what is actually available.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    doubleoego wrote:
    nah......I think it's fair to compare Lazenby's first outing with Connery's first outing.

    Has @hullcityfan hijacked your account or is your craziness becoming more unashamed?

    More unashamed :D. I'm a sucker for these useless tiny details. Call me a Bond nerd times 1,000 hehe.

    Oh, OK then. I didn't know whether to ask who your oculist was, or for the address of the Amsterdam cannabis house you must be frequenting :P
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 23
    One last thought. What if Roger Moore had taken over from Connery after "YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE" instead of Lazenby? I believe Moore was not available anyway, as he was starring in the highly popular british T.V. series "THE SAINT." It's an entertaining thought to say the least.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Whereas Connery debut is a better performance I'll take OHMSS over DN every time.

    Guess I've been smoking something yes?

    Moore in OHMSS would have been a big mistake, OHMSS ruined by his gutteral sounds as he gets punched. Lets face it he did an admirable job, if he didn't the film wouldn't been as recognised as it was. I don't believe for one second people love this film and don't appreciate Lazenby's efforts.

    I actually prefer his Bond to Moore, yes I've been smoking that stuff again.
  • Shardlake wrote:
    Whereas Connery debut is a better performance I'll take OHMSS over DN every time.

    Guess I've been smoking something yes?

    Moore in OHMSS would have been a big mistake, OHMSS ruined by his gutteral sounds as he gets punched. Lets face it he did an admirable job, if he didn't the film wouldn't been as recognised as it was. I don't believe for one second people love this film and don't appreciate Lazenby's efforts.I actually prefer his Bond to Moore, yes I've been smoking that stuff again.

    Sorry to tell you then, but many people feel exactly that way about his acting. The action scenes are another matter, of course, that doesn't require good acting (see Chuck Norris).

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Lazenby a great actor - certainly not
    Lazenby a better actor than DN Connery - definitely not
    Lazenby a passable actor - probably
    OHMSS a classic - unquestionably

    It would have been interesting to see Lazenby in DAF. Unfortunately he was his own worst enemy and I have no sympathy. As Dr. Lucien Sanchez once put it 'If you act like a cheap arsehole, expect the shittiest portion' - and if you get that reference I love you a lot.
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,494
    RC7 wrote:
    Lazenby a great actor - certainly not
    Lazenby a better actor than DN Connery - definitely not
    Lazenby a passable actor - probably OHMSS a classic - unquestionably

    It would have been interesting to see Lazenby in DAF. Unfortunately he was his own worst enemy and I have no sympathy. As Dr. Lucien Sanchez once put it 'If you act like a cheap arsehole, expect the shittiest portion' - and if you get that reference I love you a lot.

    I wouldn't even go as far as to call George an actor. That actually requires proper training. An action star just has to deliver passable lines and be good at punch-ups.

    Nice to see you back!

  • Posts: 12,837
    Lazenby wasn't the best actor but he did a good job in OHMSS and I don't believe that Connery could've done a better job (he was past his prime by this point).
  • Posts: 5,634
    Still have George as the sixth placed Bond. That's mostly because he only did the one release so there's simply not much to judge on. Had he continued in the part and his meddling agent not poked his nose in, he could easily be in about third or fourth position now if he had made another two or three Bond adventures

    Think he gets unfairly criticized sometimes. An australian should never really be allowed anywhere near the part of James Bond 'British' secret agent, but it's true to say, Lazenby did OK for his one and only part. One of the best Bonds for hand to hand combat and action scenes, a far improvement in that department on some of the names that came after him, so at least he had something going for him
  • Posts: 1,860
    Not great actor but a terrific 007.
  • nick_007nick_007 Ville Marie
    Posts: 443
    I have a love-hate relationship with Lazenby and have had one since I first saw OHMSS nearly ten years ago. There are some things about him I just cannot swallow and yet there is nobody else I'd rather see star as James bond in OHMSS.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Well, my rating of the 6 James Bond actors:

    1) Sean Connery (Especially in DN, FRWL & TB)
    2) Daniel Craig (Especially in CR & SF)
    3) Timothy Dalton (Both his two films are great)
    4) George Lazenby (Only one film, but makes almost every fan's TOP 3 of best Bond films)
    5) Roger Moore (Especially in LALD, FYEO & OP)
    6) Pierce Brosnan (Kicked off nicely with a solid all-round typical Bond film, but all his following 3 films were shittier than his very first, GE)
  • Posts: 5,634
    @Nick That's the whole thing though isn't it. Lazenby actually worked for OHMSS, and you simply couldn't envisage anyone else in the part that year. Connery was too old, Moore maybe a little too early, (LALD was the perfect introduction), and you can pick any other possible name to have done it at the end of the 1960s, but as only one man actually got the part and did the release, we can only make judgments on that one name. Lazenby got the nod, did the film, did a very good job of things, and as before, wouldn't have anyone else in the part (that year) in retrospect
  • Posts: 11,119
    @Nick That's the whole thing though isn't it. Lazenby actually worked for OHMSS, and you simply couldn't envisage anyone else in the part that year. Connery was too old, Moore maybe a little too early, (LALD was the perfect introduction), and you can pick any other possible name to have done it at the end of the 1960s, but as only one man actually got the part and did the release, we can only make judgments on that one name. Lazenby got the nod, did the film, did a very good job of things, and as before, wouldn't have anyone else in the part (that year) in retrospect

    Hence this new enjoyable post I made ;-). It gives you perhaps a new perspective on each actor's first Bond outing :-): http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7199/rank-each-bond-actor-in-their-1st-bond-film-poll#Item_2
  • Posts: 122
    OHMSS grate film brilliant story line Wrong actor lazenby was never a good choice for bond and did one film for a reason i think because OHMSS had such a strong story line it stands up as a well recieved bond film but lazenbys perfomance was poor you never got a feel that that he was the stone cold killer that bonds ment to be the others have that edge even moore with his comic style had a killer hiding behind it all.
    but you never get that feeling from lazenby that danger factor is missing. thats why i rate lazenby at the bottom of my bond table. but OHMSS in my top ten films

    1. connery {
    2. craig { craig and connery subject to change lets see how craig does in the next
    two films hes the closest contender for the top spot just been let down
    by quantum
    3.dalton
    4.brosnan
    5.moore




    6. lazenby

    top 10 films
    SF
    GF
    FRWL
    CR
    OHMSS
    YOLT
    GE
    TLD
    LALD
    TWNE
  • edited July 2013 Posts: 3,333
    I think some of you are giving George a hard time here just for the sake of it. "Brilliant script... wrong actor" is just one of the many comments here. But as most of you know Roger Moore wasn't available so you can exclude him from the list. Also wipe Connery as he no longer wanted to be part of the franchise at that point. Some here even believe that Timothy Dalton was up for consideration but that was just a bit of PR puff for when they announced him for TLD. Dalton was never screen-tested so let's leave him off the list. Which just leaves John Richardson, Anthony Rogers, Robert Campbell and Hans de Vries who were the final choices alongside Lazenby.

    Well, I'm not sure what happened to Anthony Rogers but his last acting job was Camelot which happened to be the same year as his audition for Bond. John Richardson ended up being dubbed in Italian Giallo movies soon after, and as for Hans de Vries, his biggest role was playing a Cyberman. In fact out of that list, apart from George, I can't see one suitable candidate that would of been an improvement over the final choice. My one complaint is that the producers or director should have insisted on an acting coach being present on the entire shoot which would of helped smooth out some of the more awkward deliveries in the 1st Act. If it's just the fact that he's a model turned actor, then we should also reserve the same hatred for Channing Tatum, Mark Wahlberg, Ashton Kutcher, Matthew Fox, Josh Holloway, Ian Somerhalder, James Marsden, and Brandon Roth.
  • @oorogers- except for TWINE and switching Moore and Brosnan, that's an excellent list of films and actors. I still can't decide between Dalton and Craig for #2 in my "holy trinity" of Bond actors. Hopefully a traditional BOND24 will help solve that in time for me.

    I also agree 100% with your assessment of OHMSS and why it manages to be great despite Lazenby's obviously very green performance in it. Generations of Bond fans have recognized just what you've said, although it took awhile for the movie itself to be seen as a great one in the series. I'd also add the support cast that made the strong storyline really go, as well as Barry's brilliant and innovative soundtrack. OHMSS is one of those rare movies that succeeds in every way short of the lead actor.
  • Posts: 1,994
    Lazenby has always been much maligned as an actor, I think due in part that he was the one to succeed Connery and also because of his hasty departure from the series. Following directly on the heels of Connery, he neither looked like Connery or sounded like him (yes, I know the voice is dubbed.) Moore was an easier transition because fans had already gone through the process once. With a third Bond, you knew you weren't getting Connery.

    I saw OHMSS when it first came out. I enjoyed the film very much, was very disappointed it didn't star Connery, but I didn't dislike Lazenby, I just wasn't used to him. Since owning the film on DVD, I have seen it several more times, and it just keeps getting better each time. What a different and mature film from the direction the series was heading. In my opinion, the only subsequent film that has the same feel is CR.

    But, about the acting. To me the best way to evaluate the acting is to watch part of each film with the sound off. Evaluate their gestures, their walks, their body movements, and particularly concentrate on their faces. How do they utilize their expressions? What do they do with their eyes? How do they react? How do they show you they are thinking?

    Lazenby is quite good, far better than the more experienced Moore, who I feel never fully believed he was Bond, which I think accounts for the plethora of silly expressions, even when he was trying to be serious and threatening.

    It would have been a very different film with Connery, in some ways perhaps not even convincing. And with the other guy? Moore would have been less.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Some interesting points above from @Baltimore007, @Bondsum and @CrabKey (theres also @SirHenry's predictable and repetitious Chuck Norris comparisons - but hey, you cant have everything).

    I think with hindsight its possible to say that if not Laz then who?

    Connery would have been an awful choice and it would have his worst performance of the lot given that he would have been even less motivated than for YOLT but not had the motivatin of the biggest fee ever paid to an actor of DAF. He would have not so much telephoned it in as had it delivered by carrier pigeon.

    Moore I just cant see delivering the hard edge and seriousness the script demanded. Can anyone seriously picture him welling up with emotion in the final scene? I love Rog as much as the next man but thats just not him.

    Dalton at his peak would have been spectacular in this story but despite being only 7 years younger than George was simply too young to carry it off. George I feel comes across as older than his years in the film and even then hes only just old enough.

    So unless anyone can think of someone amazing staring us in the face we would be left with EON's shortlist of 5 which, going on looks alone, appears more like an audition for a serial rapist than it does Bond. And seeing as all have them have disappeared from trace ever since and as I doubt any of them they had the ability to walk into a casino with the smoothness of George or lay Yuri Borienko out then it seems he probably was the only logical choice.

    I'll concede to the George haters that if Laz was the only choice then you have to say the competition for one of the biggest acting jobs in cinema was pretty sparse but nonetheless I wouldnt change a thing.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    CrabKey wrote:
    I saw OHMSS when it first came out. I enjoyed the film very much, was very disappointed it didn't star Connery, but I didn't dislike Lazenby, I just wasn't used to him. Since owning the film on DVD, I have seen it several more times, and it just keeps getting better each time. What a different and mature film from the direction the series was heading. In my opinion, the only subsequent film that has the same feel is CR.

    That's a great story. I agree with you that OHMSS is indeed one of those rare films that keeps getting better with each subsequent viewing. It took a while but it's no surprise that eventually this film found it's audience and received the praise that it rightly deserves.

    CrabKey wrote:
    But, about the acting. To me the best way to evaluate the acting is to watch part of each film with the sound off. Evaluate their gestures, their walks, their body movements, and particularly concentrate on their faces. How do they utilize their expressions? What do they do with their eyes? How do they react? How do they show you they are thinking?

    Lazenby is quite good, far better than the more experienced Moore, who I feel never fully believed he was Bond, which I think accounts for the plethora of silly expressions, even when he was trying to be serious and threatening.

    It would have been a very different film with Connery, in some ways perhaps not even convincing. And with the other guy? Moore would have been less.

    Facial expressions and body movements are indeed a vital part of any actor's repertoire. It is essential that we see an actor's very nature (or their concealment of it, especially when playing a spy) through their eyes. Are the eyes not the window to the soul? Assuming that one believes in the concept of a "soul" that is.

    However, you cannot discount the voice as part of the total package. An actor's voice can arguably be his biggest asset. Vocal inflections are just as important as facial expressions in my book. The very best actors can incorporate both skills and seamlessly weave a fluid interpretation of their character's psyche into our imaginations.

    I cannot support this idea of yours that Lazenby is superior to Moore. I think that overall, barring the fighting scenes, Moore could have done a much better job in the role back in 1969. Have you not seen his work in The Saint? He's damned good as Simon Templar. It might be the best role he ever had as an actor. If anything, perhaps he did not do enough to distinguish himself from The Saint in his earliest James Bond appearances.

    With that being said, I think that the result would have been the same. Audiences would have still had a hard time accepting anyone not named Sean Connery as Bond. Also, I really wouldn't want anyone but Lazenby starring in OHMSS. We would have all loved to see what Connery could have done with it when he was still interested in the role but it was not meant to be.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Moore I just cant see delivering the hard edge and seriousness the script demanded. Can anyone seriously picture him welling up with emotion in the final scene? I love Rog as much as the next man but thats just not him.

    Yes I can see it. FYEO proved he could play a harder edged Bond. As far as the crying goes... I would have liked to see him have the opportunity. I understand your skepticism though.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited July 2013 Posts: 11,139
    oorogers wrote:
    OHMSS grate film brilliant story line Wrong actor lazenby was never a good choice for bond and did one film for a reason i think because OHMSS had such a strong story line it stands up as a well recieved bond film but lazenbys perfomance was poor you never got a feel that that he was the stone cold killer that bonds ment to be the others have that edge even moore with his comic style had a killer hiding behind it all.
    but you never get that feeling from lazenby that danger factor is missing. thats why i rate lazenby at the bottom of my bond table. but OHMSS in my top ten films

    1. connery {
    2. craig { craig and connery subject to change lets see how craig does in the next
    two films hes the closest contender for the top spot just been let down
    by quantum
    3.dalton
    4.brosnan
    5.moore




    6. lazenby

    top 10 films
    SF
    GF
    FRWL
    CR
    OHMSS
    YOLT
    GE
    TLD
    LALD
    TWNE

    The bit I've bolded I vehemently disagree with. Lazenby was lethal and makes Moore, Dalton and Brosnan look comparably wimpish or at least tame. Besides Craig and Connery no other Bond actor has anything physically impressive to show that comes anywhere near the brutal grace of the opening beach fight and the fight in Tracy's hotel room.
  • Posts: 11,119
    doubleoego wrote:
    oorogers wrote:
    OHMSS grate film brilliant story line Wrong actor lazenby was never a good choice for bond and did one film for a reason i think because OHMSS had such a strong story line it stands up as a well recieved bond film but lazenbys perfomance was poor you never got a feel that that he was the stone cold killer that bonds ment to be the others have that edge even moore with his comic style had a killer hiding behind it all.
    but you never get that feeling from lazenby that danger factor is missing. thats why i rate lazenby at the bottom of my bond table. but OHMSS in my top ten films

    1. connery {
    2. craig { craig and connery subject to change lets see how craig does in the next
    two films hes the closest contender for the top spot just been let down
    by quantum
    3.dalton
    4.brosnan
    5.moore




    6. lazenby

    top 10 films
    SF
    GF
    FRWL
    CR
    OHMSS
    YOLT
    GE
    TLD
    LALD
    TWNE

    The bit I've bolded I vehemently disagree with. Lazenby was lethal and makes Moore, Dalton and Brosnan look comparably wimpish or at least tame. Besides Craig and Connery no other Bond actor has anything physically impressive to show that cones anywhere near the brutal grace if the opening beach fight and the fight in Tracy's hotel room.

    Completely agree here. For that reason, you should vote in this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7199/rank-each-bond-actor-in-their-1st-bond-film-poll#Item_22. I posted similar arguments there:
    I'm quite surprised that George Lazenby as an actor is still scoring that low. I think it's mainly because of the rather 'negative image' he has.

    Sean Connery had the big advantage that he was the first ever actor to play 007. But was he really that 'glorious' as an actor? Connery and Lazenby are actually quite similar, in that they both had rather 'different' jobs until they got their first major breakthrough: Modelling, bodybuilding, coffin builder....to name a few.

    And if I compare Dalton's first outing with Lazenby's first outing, then I am certain: Lazenby is the better one. It starts with Lazenby's fantastic fight scenes, differently edited compared to Connery's fight scenes. Actually, Lazenby set a little standard here that we only saw back when Jason Bourne and Daniel Craig as 007 came to the cinemas.

    The love/romantic scenes Lazenby did in 'OHMSS': Ab-so-lu-te-ly stunning. The wedding proposal scene, the actual wedding, Bond in shambles when Tracy got killed. It were pure acting highlights, that Moore, Dalton and Connery actually never had. Perhaps it's only matched by Craig's acting in 'CR' and 'SF'.

    Sorry, I just don't get Lazenby's low ratings as an actor. Considering where he comes from......I think he was a major talent. Hence the fact he was nominated in 1970 for a Golden Globe in the category 'Best Newcomer' for his role as 007. None of the other Bond actors managed to get such a nomination in their first outing as James Bond.
Sign In or Register to comment.