What Lazenby & Dalton Nailed where the others mostly Failed

2

Comments

  • Posts: 7,500
    Getafix wrote: »
    A Lazenby DAF would have been truly amazing.

    With Peter Hunt and Savalas returning as well. That would have been something...
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    He would have been better than John Gavin, but that's not saying much
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Let's be real here- Laz would have been a great Bond in one or two more, and Dalton to follow would have rocked as well, but literary Bond would have driven the series into the ground.
    The public wanted nonsense. They always will. We nutty fans must be grateful for every morsel of Fleming we get in films these days.
  • Posts: 11,425
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Let's be real here- Laz would have been a great Bond in one or two more, and Dalton to follow would have rocked as well, but literary Bond would have driven the series into the ground.
    The public wanted nonsense. They always will. We nutty fans must be grateful for every morsel of Fleming we get in films these days.

    I am primarily a fan of the films, not the books. I have only read MR, which was enough to confirm to me that although perhaps Connery is not Fleming's Bond, those early Connery films capture the spirit of the books better than anything since. I just feel that the mixture of reality and fantasy in the early films seems to perfectly match the mood I picked up on in MR. Perhaps I should read more of them and I'd have an even greater appreciation of Dalton.

    But any way, by point is that I enjoy the films as films, and not consciously because of the source material that they're based on. Having said that, it's often noticeable that when the source material is Fleming, the stories tend to be stronger, and the films are much better.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Well lazenby is merely the answer to the question of who played James Bond after sean connery, but before roger Moore. He was never an actor. Dalton was always more of a stage actor or character actor. Aside from bond, he was never a leading man
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Mr Rochester?

    I think this is perhaps part of the difference between the UK and US. Dalton was reasonably well known in the UK and was a bit of a hearthrob. May be not quite Colin Firth in Pride and Prejudive proportions, but not the almost complete unknown that he appears to have been in the US.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    JCRendle wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    As a kid, the one thing I didn't like about both of them was this very thing I now find so interesting in their Bonds.
    Dalton- well he's a trained Shakespearean actor so I expect no less, but Lazenby? Where did he get that good performance from? Did he just let his inner child loose to 'play-act'? :))
    I think it's precisely because he wasn't a trained actor, he played it more like he would react, rather than how the "character" would react.

    This is a bit of a silly take on acting training... the implication here being actors are trained to react as the "character" would, and not how they would? That actors are trained to be bad actors?

    Have you taken any acting training?
  • Posts: 11,425
    JCRendle wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    As a kid, the one thing I didn't like about both of them was this very thing I now find so interesting in their Bonds.
    Dalton- well he's a trained Shakespearean actor so I expect no less, but Lazenby? Where did he get that good performance from? Did he just let his inner child loose to 'play-act'? :))
    I think it's precisely because he wasn't a trained actor, he played it more like he would react, rather than how the "character" would react.

    This is a bit of a silly take on acting training... the implication here being actors are trained to react as the "character" would, and not how they would? That actors are trained to be bad actors?

    Have you taken any acting training?

    I don't think that is what was meant.
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 1,552
    Have you taken any acting training?
    Yes. What I meant was, they would attempt to get into the mind of the character and in a way it would affect how they acted.

    There are different kinds of acting methods - for example, the Stanislavski method has the actors using their own experiences to better connect to the character they're playing and to become the character. Method acting has the actor almost literally becoming the character - much like Heath Ledger becoming the Joker in The Dark Knight - he let the role completely take over.

    So it's not a "silly take", some actors are trained to "become the character" and act as the character would, not as they would - they can create back stories to the characters that only they know about, but is woven into the characters. It can make the characters more realistic and believable and it can help audiences forget that an actor is in a role and just see the character for the character.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,526
    JCRendle wrote: »
    Have you taken any acting training?
    Yes. What I meant was, they would attempt to get into the mind of the character and in a way it would affect how they acted.

    There are different kinds of acting methods - for example, the Stanislavski method has the actors using their own experiences to better connect to the character they're playing and to become the character. Method acting has the actor almost literally becoming the character - much like Heath Ledger becoming the Joker in The Dark Knight - he let the role completely take over.

    So it's not a "silly take", some actors are trained to "become the character" and act as the character would, not as they would - they can create back stories to the characters that only they know about, but is woven into the characters. It can make the characters more realistic and believable and it can help audiences forget that an actor is in a role and just see the character for the character.

    Interesting information, my apologies for misunderstanding.
  • Posts: 1,552
    JCRendle wrote: »
    Have you taken any acting training?
    Yes. What I meant was, they would attempt to get into the mind of the character and in a way it would affect how they acted.

    There are different kinds of acting methods - for example, the Stanislavski method has the actors using their own experiences to better connect to the character they're playing and to become the character. Method acting has the actor almost literally becoming the character - much like Heath Ledger becoming the Joker in The Dark Knight - he let the role completely take over.

    So it's not a "silly take", some actors are trained to "become the character" and act as the character would, not as they would - they can create back stories to the characters that only they know about, but is woven into the characters. It can make the characters more realistic and believable and it can help audiences forget that an actor is in a role and just see the character for the character.

    Interesting information, my apologies for misunderstanding.

    No need to apologise, I could have put it a little clearer.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2015 Posts: 17,691
    Getafix wrote: »
    I am primarily a fan of the films, not the books. I have only read MR, which was enough to confirm to me that although perhaps Connery is not Fleming's Bond, those early Connery films capture the spirit of the books better than anything since. I just feel that the mixture of reality and fantasy in the early films seems to perfectly match the mood I picked up on in MR. Perhaps I should read more of them and I'd have an even greater appreciation of Dalton.

    I am also primarily a Bond film fan, and read the books to augment that. But in reading the character as a guy who doesn't consciously draw attention to himself, and is in ways an introvert that scores with babes mainly because he falls for them so honestly was a shock. The novel Bond is a MUCH more complicated beast than the cinema one. I find Dalton's Bond to be the closest to literary Bond in the cinema venue. The best of both worlds, as it were.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 2015 Posts: 4,554
    When looking at the topic of what Lazenby and Dalton "nailed" I was thinking of something along these lines...

    ba1417bbd2f786f3176f1e52ce3250ef.jpg

    kell_tyler_the_living_daylights.jpg

    Gotta get my mind out of the gutter.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Me too.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Ha! Lazenby could have nailed rigg, but he screwed the pooch instead by not being able to keep it in his pants
  • Posts: 533
    I've thought this myself. More so with Lazenby than Dalton. but I can see it there, as well.


    I have to agree with this statement. All of them have expressed fear and other emotions on a realistic level. But I agree that this was more the case with Lazenby and Dalton.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    What these two better??? Umm ..yes, they knew when to quit :D
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Lazenby imagined what it would be like not being able to feel like a kid in a candy store when it came to screwing all the girls. Yep. Fear;)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I feel we've gone through all of this before. People got caught up in the fear thing, but with Lazenby it is a matter of vulnerability. He may have not have had the acting chops of the others, but he certainly (and maybe because of his lack of polish) was able to portray a genuine air of vulnerability that the others could not. Maybe that is even "un-Bondlike", but it was refreshing.

    Craig can do fear, CR showed us that.

    Not sure Craig has conveyed fear to me.
  • Posts: 14,842
    JCRendle wrote: »
    I think he displayed fear quite well here, rather than feeling pissed off at having to deal with the problem...

    indeed. In fact the first two Connery Bonds have moments when he looks genuinely vulnerable.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    I think Tim was overly serious, I did not find his Bond charming. But he was a Bond fo his time 80's were all about the action flicks Rambo, Terminator I think thats the audience they were trying to pull in.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think Tim was overly serious, I did not find his Bond charming. But he was a Bond fo his time 80's were all about the action flicks Rambo, Terminator I think thats the audience they were trying to pull in.

    That statement doesn't really add up. If you're trying to pull in the Arnie and Sly crowd, why would you cast a skinny RADA alumni in the lead role?
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Not tied to that chair, with Vesper in the adding room, about to get the rope treatment? I think he oozes fear.

    Need to watch it again, but fear wasn't the overriding emotion. Defiance. Devil may care defiance an 'F You' desire to go down fighting. But not predominantly, or even particularly fear, no. Although I think it's fair enough if that's how you interpreted it.
  • Posts: 14,842
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Not tied to that chair, with Vesper in the adding room, about to get the rope treatment? I think he oozes fear.

    Need to watch it again, but fear wasn't the overriding emotion. Defiance. Devil may care defiance an 'F You' desire to go down fighting. But not predominantly, or even particularly fear, no. Although I think it's fair enough if that's how you interpreted it.

    He was afraid. In a desperate, resigned way.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Not tied to that chair, with Vesper in the adding room, about to get the rope treatment? I think he oozes fear.

    Need to watch it again, but fear wasn't the overriding emotion. Defiance. Devil may care defiance an 'F You' desire to go down fighting. But not predominantly, or even particularly fear, no. Although I think it's fair enough if that's how you interpreted it.

    He was afraid. In a desperate, resigned way.

    From my perspective, one of the great "sh!# my p@nts" moments of acting ever displayed. What's more he did it while still appearing cool on screen. I remember thinking, this is how Bond would panic. With class, even while naked and strapped to a bottomless chair with his privates hanging out.

    Only Lazenby has done it as well in the village of Lauterbrunnen while escaping Blofeld's thugs imho.
  • Posts: 1,548
    Lazenby is not a proper actor. Anything half positive he brought to the role Daniel Craig can do a million times better.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    That's no joke. Lazenby was never an actor. He was the creation of eon who thought they didn't need Connery and wanted so badly to prove it. 1971 wasn't a good year for them
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Regarding Craig and the torture scene, he's the only actor (and the only Bond) who the audience has heard literally screaming his head off in pain. The others have shouted and grunted a bit but not to the level Dan's Bond took it.

    (sound quality isn't that great)

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    What about Connery in TB when strapped to the exercise equipment. He squeeled like a pig imo.
  • edited March 2015 Posts: 11,189
    Not to the point where YOU feel it though. Plus there was loud dramatic music over the top of that so the effect wasn't quite the same IMO. Here, its the sound editing that adds to the tension.The swishing of the rope plus the "thuds" and Dan's screams help make a scene that causes me wince EVERY time.
Sign In or Register to comment.