The GEORGE LAZENBY Appreciation thread - Discuss His Life, His Career, His Bond Films

145791028

Comments

  • Question, was Roger Moore signed to a multi-pic deal for his first film to avoid all this silliness?
  • I read somewhere that Lazenby is the wealthiest of the Bond actors because of his real estate dealings?

    I thought George was a fantastic Bond.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited March 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Not sure about that. He declared that he was broke in the early 70's, didn't he? He must've been quite successful since then to catch up to the likes of Connery and Moore.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    We can never know for sure, but we do know that all of the actors are wealthy to some degree, and George certainly did make a healthy fortune in real estate.

    I suppose it comes down to overheads. Pierce continues to make movies and probably rakes it in, but what are his living costs, with a large family, expensive homes etc?

    It would be interesting if we could find out the net worth of the 6 actors.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited March 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Well, a quick Googling of net worths yields this result:

    Sean Connery - $300 million

    George Lazenby - $100 million

    Roger Moore - $90 million

    Timothy Dalton - $10 million

    Pierce Brosnan - $80 million

    Daniel Craig - $95 million

    Connery's far and away above the rest, but that's to be expected. Lazenby obviously made much more in real estate than I would've thought reasonable, so he did in fact surpass Moore. But then again, the list of spacious mansions that he owns is, well, very impressive.

    Dalton's mostly a television worker and his films are generally not as successful, so unfortunately he's at the lowest (still, $10 million is a dream figure). I believe Moore's tenure was what afforded him the $90 million - he didn't act much post-Bond and many of the non-Bonds he did during the 70's and 80's weren't commercially successful.

    As predicted, Brosnan is raking in the cash as he continues to act. Craig, of course, is the biggest name of the lot at the moment, and I expect his net worth to be second only to Connery when he retires.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    Interesting. Craig is a lot quieter on the film front than Brosnan, so either Brosnan lives a more extravagant lifestyle, or Craig is being paid a shed load of money for being Bond.

    Dalton looks on the low side considering he has a successful USA show under his belt.

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    @NicNac - Craig was paid hugely to be Bond in Spectre - something like £39 million, which is over $56 million American. Given how "unwilling" he is to return to Bond, he might be receiving another shocking salary for Bond 25. I believe that the salary for SP alone makes him the highest-paid Bond actor. In 2008, his net worth was just $45 million, and in 8 years it's more than doubled to $95 million. That tells us something about Skyfall and Spectre, and maybe some other things like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.

    Dalton definitely isn't as extravagant as the others (I believe some article last year mentioned he was driving a Toyota Rav4). But he has been in some decent films recently, and I'm assuming he'd get quite a bit even for things like Toy Story. And then, of course, there's Penny Dreadful. Still, $10 million is, as I said, a dream figure for any of us on this board.

    I still find Lazenby's net worth the most shocking figure. He has approximately the combined net worth of his two successors in Moore and Dalton. Moore, in turn, has the combined net worth of his two successors in Dalton and Brosnan. But back to Lazenby - he declared himself broke in the 70's and his acting career never truly flourished, so that's some damn good real estate to be making $100 million and having all the mansions he has. Apparently he makes quite a bit from turning up at most of the Bond conventions?
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    Lazenby does milk the conventions for what they are worth. I don't know what they pay him, but charging £20 per autograph it all soon racks up. I might do some research about his real estate activities to see how he did it.

    I agree, he does seem to be the biggest anomaly.
  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited March 2016 Posts: 1,727
    NicNac wrote: »
    Lazenby could have had rigg help him, even could have boinked her, but he found a way to screw that up, too
    Attempting to revive all of these threads....;-)

    I read somewhere (and I'm not making it up), that they actually did have a fling and Rigg joined him on a holiday after shooting of OHMSS ended.

    Anyone else hear or read this?

    I wouldn't be surprised. She said he was 'annoying' and a bit of a 'dick', etc., which when referring to a handsome fella' is often women-speak for 'I find him irritatingly alluring but hate myself for it'.

    Anyhow, glad to see this thread is kept alive - I for one rate Laz for his fresh (if somewhat naive) take on 007 after having been handed the impossible task of filling SC shoes.
    His exuberance and boyish arrogance come across in his performance, and is nicely tempered by the vulnerability that is so well integrated in the script. He balances these two things well.

    It also has to be said that with a lesser leading lady his performance would have been far poorer. He had a great actress to play off off.

    My main gripe with it is actually not that he's not a true actor, but more that he comes accross as too young and fresh for me to accept his world-weary Bond who is ready to give it up after 'all those years' and settle down with Tracy... that was clearly (see Fleming's novel) a part meant for a more mature 007. But I'm nitpicking really.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    NicNac wrote: »
    Lazenby does milk the conventions for what they are worth. I don't know what they pay him, but charging £20 per autograph it all soon racks up. I might do some research about his real estate activities to see how he did it.

    I agree, he does seem to be the biggest anomaly.

    That makes sense. I did expect Dalton to be a little higher, too, but again, $10 million is more than I'll ever have.

    Also, to correct something I said earlier - I have no doubt that Craig will make enough to surpass George's $100 million in a few years. He only has to come back for Bond 25 and he'll be skyrocketing past that number (he's already at $95 million), and given his acting talent, he could be sought after for some pretty big hits after he retires from Bond, so I'm absolutely confident that he'll surpass George. I think the real question is whether Brosnan can make the $20 million or so to surpass George, because he's in his early sixties now and this is probably where his acting career wanes.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,572
    AceHole wrote: »
    NicNac wrote: »
    Lazenby could have had rigg help him, even could have boinked her, but he found a way to screw that up, too
    Attempting to revive all of these threads....;-)

    I read somewhere (and I'm not making it up), that they actually did have a fling and Rigg joined him on a holiday after shooting of OHMSS ended.

    Anyone else hear or read this?

    I wouldn't be surprised. She said he was 'annoying' and a bit of a 'dick', etc., which when referring to a handsome fella' is often women-speak for 'I find him irritatingly alluring but hate myself for it'.

    Anyhow, glad to see this thread is kept alive - I for one rate Laz for his fresh (if somewhat naive) take on 007 after having been handed the impossible task of filling SC shoes.
    His exuberance and boyish arrogance come across in his performance, and is nicely tempered by the vulnerability that is so well integrated in the script. He balances these two things well.

    It also has to be said that with a lesser leading lady his performance would have been far poorer. He had a great actress to play off off.

    My main gripe with it is actually not that he's not a true actor, but more that he comes accross as too young and fresh for me to accept his world-weary Bond who is ready to give it up after 'all those years' and settle down with Tracy... that was clearly (see Fleming's novel) a part meant for a more mature 007. But I'm nitpicking really.

    I do try to keep all 6 Appreciation and News threads alive, but people tend to open new threads instead of keeping these moving. I guess it's difficult to think of new ways to discuss actors whose association with Bond ended nearly 50 years ago.
  • I'm glad things turned out alright for ole' George. He was a great Bond, and in hindsight, a worthy successor to Connery in one of the best Bond films ever made. I will always wish that he and EON had been able to continue through the 1970's with more gritty, realistic 007 stories.
  • Posts: 1,658
    Unless you're Stallone (at 400$ a pop !) then I don't really think doing cons is that profitable , moire like a hobby......
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited April 2016 Posts: 1,984
    Tracy wrote: »
    Unless you're Stallone (at 400$ a pop !) then I don't really think doing cons is that profitable , moire like a hobby......

    Indeed. I can't imagine the conventions would make up any respectable fraction of George's net worth, which is probably comprised of almost entirely real estate investments. He certainly is one of the more successful people in the field, and as a result, he's living incredibly luxuriously. Interestingly, he was apparently the highest-paid model in the world in the 1960's before he became Bond.

    I still find Dalton's $10 million net worth estimate to be a bit... conservative in comparison to the rest. Apparently he was paid close to $20 million for his two Bond films alone, and Penny Dreadful is currently one of the most popular names in its genre. But numerous websites seem to support that net worth, and I don't suppose that worrying about his finances is relevant to this thread.
  • Posts: 108
    Coming back to the appreciation aspect, I think Lazenby did more than OK, considering he had to follow Connery. As for the acting qualities, Diana Rigg herself has been known to say that he was a keen student and she saw him evolving during shooting. I certainly think her death-scene, and his reaction, is one of the most memorable Bond-scenes ever. Also, script-wise, this is a more multi-dimensional story than most Bond-movies - so not so easy for a novice in acting.

    In a recent interview, Dame Rigg also stated that he was a real pain on set and only has himself to thank for not having fulfilled his potential.

    I've always wondered, if Lazenby wasn't also handicapped by the visual style of OHMSS, besides being the one to follow Bond. Purely visually, if you compare YOLT, DAD and OHMSS, I find the visual style of OHMSS very different from the Connery-movies. You can tell that Hunt had been a film editor; the editing in OHMSS is far more dynamic and fast paced, especially in the action scenes. So I've often wondered if the public not only had to adjust to a new actor, but to a radically new visual style as well - which may have hampered the appreciation of Lazenby even more.

    Does anyone have this feeling as well, or am I not seeing things clearly?

    In any case, for me, OHMSS is a classic in the franchise - top 5 material.
  • OHMSS is shot in a cinematic way, really different than the other bond films before and after. To get that consistency of cinema, you'd have to go all the way to GE and CR.

    A superb Bond film.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2016 Posts: 23,883
    OHMSS is certainly a beautiful film. No doubt about that. Stunning in places, and yes, somewhat different from its immediate predecessor. Closer to TB in my view, with the wide angles and bright colours.

    RE: Lazenby and the death scene - I didn't find it particularly moving or exceptional. It's a memorable scene due to its meaning within the Bond oeuvre, but although Laz didn't screw it up, I don't think he necessarily aced it either. A little more expressiveness (in voice intonation particularly) wouldn't have been uncalled for. Not Dalton/Della levels certainly (heavens no!), but just a little more.
  • Posts: 3,336
    I hope that Lazenby once will do a movie commentary for OHMSS, maybe for a 50 year re-release? :D
  • Yes get him and Diana Rigg to do a joint commentary. The garlic incident must be resolved.
  • Posts: 108
    The garlic incident must be resolved.

    :)) Not entirely sure they agree on that one themselves. Some interesting comments by Diana Rigg on .

    Great actress and unforgettable as Emma Peel.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    bondjames wrote: »
    RE: Lazenby and the death scene - I didn't find it particularly moving or exceptional. It's a memorable scene due to its meaning within the Bond oeuvre, but although Laz didn't screw it up, I don't think he necessarily aced it either. A little more expressiveness (in voice intonation particularly) wouldn't have been uncalled for. Not Dalton/Della levels certainly (heavens no!), but just a little more.

    I'm just glad we didn't get another "Della!". It was a much more realistic approach to the death scene of a loved one.
  • The scene in the Lawyer's office, the whole tension of it, kinda based on Shadow of a Doubt, I believe, and/or the Third Man, always impresses me.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    watched OHMSS again last weekend and it struck me that Lazenby really did an excellent job considering he was the ONLY guy who really had to follow Connery.

    Moore was already popular when he took over and had the 'bonus' of someone else already having had to 'follow' Sean.

    George looks like a natural athlete and utterly composed in the fight/action scenes & he aces the swagger and arrogance far better than Brosnan or Moore ever did i.m.o.

    Lazenby took the role in his stride and really pulled off the human side of the OHMSS story, which I honestly believe neither Connery nor Moore could have done as well.
    He makes Bond's romance with Tracy believable and human - the scene where he is 'rescued' at the ice-rink sums up the refreshing vulnerability that Lazenby brought to the character...

    Yes, my feelings exactly.I've been saying this for years, which is why I don't follow trends or groupthink that mandates you only love Connery and see the others as imitators. I love each actor equally for what they brought to the role, especially Laz (who for a first time actor is really exceptional and not all that stiff when you compare him to the almighty Connery).
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I agree on Laz. I watched OHMSS earlier this week and he did a spectacular job no doubt, given the size of the shoes he had to fill (King Sean's are as large as they come).

    Having said that, he lacked the 'menace' or 'threat' that most of the other actors brought through their acting expressions, but made up for that with his incredible physicality and screen charisma.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    He definitely has a vulnerability that works beautifully for the film, but not always as being a world weary, mature agent, which thankfully is not really overly stressed in the film.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 337
    True on the stuff about Lazenby, but Moore wasn't really the beneficiary of that bonus since people were trying to get Lazenby and OHMSS out of their minds at that point. I believe the way DAF was written was to encourage that as well - OHMSS was the worst financial product of the Bond franchise up to that time, and Lazenby, as I recall, was widely regarded as a failure or nowhere near the success of Connery. People were trying to forget about Lazenby, and the fact that Connery came back for DAF kind of meant that Lazenby was viewed more as a temporary replacement than anything else.

    So when Moore donned the tux, he was considered the first of Connery's actual successors, since it was apparent at that point that Connery would no longer be returning for Bond. I mean, I didn't have universal knowledge on people's perspectives about Lazenby then, but as far as what I saw, he wasn't considered a successor to Connery, just a temporary stand-in when Connery got cold feet.

    Also, for arrogance, Moore handled that pretty well with his Bond introduction in LALD.
  • edited May 2016 Posts: 3,333
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree on Laz. I watched OHMSS earlier this week and he did a spectacular job no doubt, given the size of the shoes he had to fill (King Sean's are as large as they come).

    Having said that, he lacked the 'menace' or 'threat' that most of the other actors brought through their acting expressions, but made up for that with his incredible physicality and screen charisma.
    To be a fair judge you'd have to consider only Moore's first Bond movie on whether he carried any "menace" or "threat", as this is how Lazenby is judged, on his first and only movie. Personally, I think Lazenby gives a more rounded, threatening and better 007 performance than Moore did in LALD. That's not to say I dislike Moore in LALD, it's just if I make a like-for-like comparison I feel Lazenby has more swagger, more edge and looks more likely to knock the bejezus out of you than Roger.

    PS. Just so you know, @stun_harvesting, from someone who remembers the Lazenby/Connery/Moore switchovers - Moore went on record at the time saying Lazenby going before him made his job easier. If he'd followed directly in Connery's footsteps (OHMSS) he believes audiences might have reacted badly to him, too. Not that OHMSS was a flop, mind.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondsum wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I agree on Laz. I watched OHMSS earlier this week and he did a spectacular job no doubt, given the size of the shoes he had to fill (King Sean's are as large as they come).

    Having said that, he lacked the 'menace' or 'threat' that most of the other actors brought through their acting expressions, but made up for that with his incredible physicality and screen charisma.
    To be a fair judge you'd have to consider only Moore's first Bond movie on whether he carried any "menace" or "threat", as this is how Lazenby is judged, on his first and only movie. Personally, I think Lazenby gives a more rounded, threatening and better 007 performance than Moore did in LALD. That's not to say I dislike Moore in LALD, it's just if I make a like-for-like comparison I feel Lazenby has more swagger, more edge and looks more likely to knock the bejezus out of you than Roger.
    On that note I completely agree @bondsum. As I said, Laz had incredible physicality. That was his strong suit. I'm more referring to the acting expressions, the ability to convey something with a look, with a glance, with an 'eyebrow' even. That's where acting skills come into play, and I don't think Laz quite had that (how could he, given his inexperience?). It's not a knock against him, it's just that I don't put him on a pedestal.

    As I've said elsewhere, he had the best score, the best and most meaningful Bond script, a superior cast (Rigg is a much better actress than Seymour was in 1973), far better locations in the film etc. etc. He didn't screw up, and he held his own very well, but Moore was able to carry a very idiosyncratic film in LALD, whereas Laz was given 'gold' to work with.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    I've made the same comments regarding Moore in LaLD. I like Moore as well, but Bond in LaLD is as generic and boring as I can they come. Moore has no grasp on the character yet and I imagine just being judged on this one performance, he would not be well remembered among fandom today. Worse than Lazenby, perhaps is generally and unfairly seen.
Sign In or Register to comment.