The Man who Should Have
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 1,092
    I look at two Bond actors who actually blew it.
    GEORGE LAZENBY
    PIERCE BROSNAN

    George had some big shoes to fill after Connery had so established the screen persona of 007. He had one of the most engaging source novels and that EON team behind him. What should have been a great success story in the history of filmmaking, he ends up as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
    His arrogance and bad business decision to turn down EON's offer of a seven picture deal leaves many thespians scratching their heads. Me, I would have not taken seven pictures, I would have done four. He could have made audiences forget about Sean had he carried bond into the seventies. He had that Barry score, Binder's beautiful titles, a great leading lady, good cinematography, Peter Hunt, and Richard Maibaum's script. (Maibaum himself has said that the OHMSS screenplay was the best he'd ever done for a Bond picture.) George's one film has attained a cult status. Yet he choose to walk away. Fool.

    Brosnan, unlike Lazenby was welcomed with open arms by an adoring (and Bond starved)public. The veteran EON team was gone. Barry basically retired, Maibaum out, Binder was dead, Cubby was in poor health, a bunch of new directors who had not earned any 007 chops were now calling the shots. Brosnan had four films to get it right and he fell flat. Like a cross between Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm and Bride of Frankenstein. This miserable creature stumbled into theaters and fell flat on it's ugly face.

    Oh, what could have been. Lazenby had so much going for him, acted in a great film and then walked away and his tale is a woeful one. Brosnan was the peoples choice and his films fall flat. He was finally released after EON decided to reboot with a younger and new actor. Adieu Pierce.
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 3,155
    OHMSS69 said:

    I look at two Bond actors who actually blew it.
    GEORGE LAZENBY
    PIERCE BROSNAN

    George had some big shoes to fill after Connery had so established the screen persona of 007. He had one of the most engaging source novels and that EON team behind him. What should have been a great success story in the history of filmmaking, he ends up as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
    His arrogance and bad business decision to turn down EON's offer of a seven picture deal leaves many thespians scratching their heads. Me, I would have not taken seven pictures, I would have done four. He could have made audiences forget about Sean had he carried bond into the seventies. He had that Barry score, Binder's beautiful titles, a great leading lady, good cinematography, Peter Hunt, and Richard Maibaum's script. (Maibaum himself has said that the OHMSS screenplay was the best he'd ever done for a Bond picture.) George's one film has attained a cult status. Yet he choose to walk away. Fool.

    Brosnan, unlike Lazenby was welcomed with open arms by an adoring (and Bond starved)public. The veteran EON team was gone. Barry basically retired, Maibaum out, Binder was dead, Cubby was in poor health, a bunch of new directors who had not earned any 007 chops were now calling the shots. Brosnan had four films to get it right and he fell flat. Like a cross between Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm and Bride of Frankenstein. This miserable creature stumbled into theaters and fell flat on it's ugly face.

    Oh, what could have been. Lazenby had so much going for him, acted in a great film and then walked away and his tale is a woeful one. Brosnan was the peoples choice and his films fall flat. He was finally released after EON decided to reboot with a younger and new actor. Adieu Pierce.



    Try convincing the Brosnan fanatics of this over in the Brozza-rating thread!
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 4,676
    Bean would have been mounds better than Brosnan.

    I blame Cubby. His smitten for Brosnan ruined a great potential of a decade.
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    Posts: 7,914
    Lazenby did blow it by leaving. But it's his agents fault (I heard he fired him afterwards).

    But I don't think in any way Brosnan did. I don't think he "fell flat", even if you don't like him, millions of others did and it shows in the box office, GE was highly praised and TND wasn't really criticised. Even DAD got mainly mixed reviews instead of negative ones, only TWINE is a Brosnan film that is below 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. And even when critics didn't like his films, they often praised his performance. So he was popular and made money for the series, I really don't see how he fell flat.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 2,253
    Lazenby only blew it by quitting. I'm sure he kicked his own ass for years after that. Looking at his movie by itself, he rocked it.

    Pierce also didn't blow anything (giggle :\"> ). Anything wrong with his movies was purely not his fault
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 4,806
    Whether you liked Brosnan or not you can't argue that both him and his films (all four of them) were big hits financially so, in terms of falling flat, I don't know if I'd agree with that. The public (and many Bond fans at the time believe it or not) loved him.

    Unfortunately most of his films don't hold up in 2012. While there is some good stuff in each they are often cheesey and at times quite poorley written - though GE remains one of my favourites.

    Ironically it wasn't Pierce that made possibly, in hindsight, the worst creative decision in the series history, an entirely CG-orientated sequence. Yet, because he was the star of DAD he carried the can.

    One thing is clear - Brosnan is STILL a very popular 007 as well as a well liked star. A work colleague the other day looked at me with utter disgrace when I implied Daniel ("pout face" as he called him) Craig was better.

    Brosnan still gets cheers when he appears on tv shows and I for one know I'd be joining in if I was there - he's my childhood idol for crying out loud.

    But to say he "fell flat" isn't true - at least in the wider perspective - as he was (AND IS) very well liked.

    Actually if you want a Bond that promised big things but ultimately failed to win over audiences (at least in that rather small country called the US) look at Timothy Dalton. I don't get the impression many were sorry to see him go - there's a controversial view.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,915
    'He could have made audiences forget about Sean had he carried bond into the seventies".

    Oh, that's rich. The thing is, you call Laz a fool (not wrong) for not taking the deal, but how was he to know that the film would be successful enough? Did he not quit before it was released?
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 2,253
    He did quit before the release-- thanks to that numb-nuts of an agent
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,915
    Does anyone know what the agent said exactly? Did he say that the role would flatten soon, and Laz should get out now?
  • DouglasQuaidDouglasQuaid
    Posts: 112
    I think his agent told him that spy movies would become a thing of the past once the 1970's came around.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego
    Posts: 3,103
    Bain hit the nail on the head.

    Whether people here like it or not, Brosnan was popular in the eyes of the general public and he was the right man for the job at the time. Could his movies have been better? You damned right but they weren't atrocious abominations...even DAD has some redeeming qualities.

    Brosnan is nowhere the best Bond imo but he did help save the series and he put bums on seats. I think some people overreact and are way too harsh on Brosnan but guess what, he's secured his place in cinematic history and he's moved on with his life despite his whining after he wasn't asked to return.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 4,806
    Brosnan did get me into Bond so he's not that bad in my book ;)
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 1,092
    BAIN123 said:

    Brosnan did get me into Bond so he's not that bad in my book ;)



    Like old Desmond said: "Our favorite Bond is the one we first saw...."
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,915
    OHMSS69 said:

    BAIN123 said:

    Brosnan did get me into Bond so he's not that bad in my book ;)



    Like old Desmond said: "Our favorite Bond is the one we first saw...."


    That's not true. I saw the Brosnan films on TV at a young age, yet Connery is my favorite, for obvious reasons.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 2,177
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    OHMSS69 said:

    BAIN123 said:

    Brosnan did get me into Bond so he's not that bad in my book ;)



    Like old Desmond said: "Our favorite Bond is the one we first saw...."


    That's not true. I saw the Brosnan films on TV at a young age, yet Connery is my favorite, for obvious reasons.


    Well there are exceptions to every rule, you are one.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 4,806
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 said:

    OHMSS69 said:

    BAIN123 said:

    Brosnan did get me into Bond so he's not that bad in my book ;)



    Like old Desmond said: "Our favorite Bond is the one we first saw...."


    That's not true. I saw the Brosnan films on TV at a young age, yet Connery is my favorite, for obvious reasons.


    I first saw a clip of GF before I'd even seen GE. Connery failed to get me hooked back then ;)
  • SirHenryLeeChaChingSirHenryLeeChaChing
    Posts: 2,329
    doubleoego said:

    Bain hit the nail on the head.

    Whether people here like it or not, Brosnan was popular in the eyes of the general public and he was the right man for the job at the time. Could his movies have been better? You damned right but they weren't atrocious abominations...even DAD has some redeeming qualities.

    Brosnan is nowhere the best Bond imo but he did help save the series and he put bums on seats. I think some people overreact and are way too harsh on Brosnan but guess what, he's secured his place in cinematic history and he's moved on with his life despite his whining after he wasn't asked to return.



    What impressed me the most about Pierce was that he genuinely loved being Bond and living out his dream since he was little. I don't think the other actors could claim his level of enthusiasm in that respect.

  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 1,092
    Of course there are exceptions. I was only quoting old Desmond.
    As much as I liked OHMSS, Connery is my favorite Bond actor (he was the first one I ever saw and who I grew up with)

    Many younger fans really connected with Roger Moore and I have friends who proudly say Roger is "James Bond".

    Interesting how some of you Brosnan fanatics gravitate to Connery despite the fact that it was Brosnan who introduced you to the character.
    Just a thought.... ;)
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 4,806
    OHMSS69 said:

    Of course there are exceptions. I was only quoting old Desmond.
    As much as I liked OHMSS, Connery is my favorite Bond actor (he was the first one I ever saw and who I grew up with)

    Many younger fans really connected with Roger Moore and I have friends who proudly say Roger is "James Bond".

    Interesting how some of you Brosnan fanatics gravitate to Connery despite the fact that it was Brosnan who introduced you to the character.
    Just a thought.... ;)



    I will admit Connery is the king. He was in most of the best films.
  • SandySandy
    Posts: 2,478
    I admit Lazenby completely blew it, taking such an advice from his agent? What went on in his mind?
    Brosnan's case is different, I guess he was too "confortable" and fascinated with the role, but he didn't really get the character. Considering that he has done very well in other roles it's a pity how his take on Bond turned out to be.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 4,806
    Sandy said:

    I admit Lazenby completely blew it, taking such an advice from his agent? What went on in his mind?
    Brosnan's case is different, I guess he was too "confortable" and fascinated with the role, but he didn't really get the character. Considering that he has done very well in other roles it's a pity how his take on Bond turned out to be.



    I get the impression Brosnan became too arrogant and enjoyed himself a bit too much in the role sometimes.
  • Samuel001Samuel001
    Posts: 10,183
    Sandy said:

    I admit Lazenby completely blew it, taking such an advice from his agent? What went on in his mind?



    In short, Lazenby signed a contract with his agent, Ronan O'Rahilly, whereby every decision he made must go through O'Rahilly first. Lazenby wanted to continue but O'Rahilly thought differently and, in the end, advised him leaving was the right thing to do. Lazenby being different to work with for some, on On Her Majesty's Secret Service didn't make his chances of staying on board any easier. That seven film contract should have been signed, then everything may have been OK.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,915
    BAIN123 said:

    OHMSS69 said:

    Of course there are exceptions. I was only quoting old Desmond.
    As much as I liked OHMSS, Connery is my favorite Bond actor (he was the first one I ever saw and who I grew up with)

    Many younger fans really connected with Roger Moore and I have friends who proudly say Roger is "James Bond".

    Interesting how some of you Brosnan fanatics gravitate to Connery despite the fact that it was Brosnan who introduced you to the character.
    Just a thought.... ;)



    I will admit Connery is the king. He was in most of the best films.


    That isn't the reason. Why do you think those films were so good? Sean.
  • Master_DaharkMaster_Dahark
    Posts: 2,253
    Yeah- with the exception of DAF, Connery is the best part of each of his movies



    *preferred Lazenby in DAF
  • thelordflasheartthelordflasheart
    Posts: 1,369
    It's easy to say that Lazenby "blew it" using the benefit of hindsight...but at the time the decision to leave the series would have seemed justifiable to many actors.

    How many film series have gone on to have 14 really popular entries? Film series in the 1930s and 40s did so but the entertainment world had changed a lot by 1969, including the introduction of TV. Then there's also the fact that Connery created an instantly iconic character that was one of the great ones in the history of film. Pretty much anyone that followed him would be seen as second-best or as lacking in comparison (I believe that Dalton said that a man would have to be a fool to follow Connery). For those of us who are older imagine if in 1989 Harrison Ford had decided to quit as Indiana Jones and Speilberg announced that they were starting production on the next film with an unknown, untested male model. Now multiply your reaction in 1989 to that by several factors (Bond was a much more huge phenomenon in the 60s than Indiana Jones was in the 80s).

    But on top of all that the youth/hippie/counterculture movement was really taking off. At the time it would be easy to see that the loss of Connery wouldn't be the only stumbling block to the continued success of the films; Bond was looking increasingly square and unhip. So as ridiculous as it looks now, I can see how a relatively newbie to the movie world could be convinced that the Bond series was a dead end.

    As for Brosnan he brought the box office for the Bond films back to levels of success that surprised even some Bond fans. While his films may not be classics (although I think that GE ranks as a "modern classic" Bond film) they were very popular and secured the continued long-term success of the series - after LTK many fans (myself included) thought that the series had outlived its attraction to modern audiences and was finally finished. While Brosnan may not have given the best performance as Bond he looked good compared to many of his predecessors. More charming and handsome than Dalton, younger than Moore, more experienced and suave than Lazenby.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    Lazenby didn't blow it so to speak, the poor guy only got the chance to do one release, and on the 'advice' of his excellent agent, we never got to see his true potential, he would of been fine in Diamonds in place of an out of sorts Connery

    And while I never really liked him as Bond, to suggest Brosnan failed as James Bond is hogwash, he did not too bad a job over the seven years and four appearances, this clearly may be a green light for more Brosnan bashing (or George) but they both did not too bad a job, Brosnan was fine in Goldeneye, even better in TWINE, it's just the two others I take issue with, but he really couldn't be fully culpable for the disaster that was his final appearance
  • Creasy47Creasy47
    Posts: 7,107
    Wait, what's wrong with Martin Campbell?
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    Nobody has said there is anything wrong with Campbell so far as I can tell. I even go as far to say that he did better work with Casino Royale than Goldeneye
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7
    Posts: 13,915
    Baltimore_007 said:

    Nobody has said there is anything wrong with Campbell so far as I can tell. I even go as far to say that he did better work with Casino Royale than Goldeneye


    I agree. I don't see that as a bombastic opinion.

  • Creasy47Creasy47
    Posts: 7,107
    Baltimore_007 said:

    Nobody has said there is anything wrong with Campbell so far as I can tell. I even go as far to say that he did better work with Casino Royale than Goldeneye



    @OHMSS69 stated that they were dealing with directors that hadn't earned their 007 chops yet; understandable, because you can't quite earn praise until you do the film, but I think he handled GE just fine, and CR even better.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 4,578
    Campbell was untried with 007 for his directorial debut in '95 but we have seen clearly, on not one, but two occasions, what a fine job he did and a success it was, I thought Goldeneye would be hard to beat, but somehow he managed it, the man takes all the accolades going
Add a Comment