Where does Bond go after Craig?

1401402404406407538

Comments

  • Posts: 3,024
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,613
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,083
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think, indeed, that Lazenby could and should have been directed better, or at least have allowed himself to be. (I don't know who takes the biggest blame.) I certainly think he had the potential to grow into the part if he had been willing.

    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Lazenby looked like a dopey horse; nothing was going on behind his eyes.

    OHMSS is still my top two film.

    When Bond is listening to the count as he's listing all the documents he has assembled, Lazenby looks positively sleepy. I don't think he had "the stare" down, you know, when an actor has to convey something with just his eyes.

    Or perhaps he really was bored. 😉

    I know what you mean; and the scene where Blofeld unmasks him as Sir Hilary I'm not getting anything either- he just feels like he's pulling a grumpy face to me. And the way his eyes are darting around uncertainly just makes me feel like he didn't know how to do 'reacting' to another actor.

    Agreed. He doesn't seem to know what to do with his eyes. Reminds me also of when he is choking one of Blofeld's goons with his ski. As long as he is applying enough force, he seems into it. But when he is just trying not to draw any attention to himself, he's almost distracted from his acting, seemingly forgetting that the cameras are still rolling. His eyes are purposelessly scanning the area in front of him.

    Yes I know what you mean; he seems distracted somehow. Professional actors just know how to handle these things.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,393
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

    That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

    Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

    Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

    OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.

    Again, it's more evident in Gold and Shout At The Devil.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

    Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

    Lazenby, as I've said, I've felt that he could brought out some better performance, I think he could do better, it's just suppressed and kept because of a director who had never guided him, but I think if Lazenby was directed with a different director, he could possibly brought out his A Game, his best effort.

    Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it, felt faked or staged, not real.

    Okay, I've explained these things above
    regarding Connery and Young, just read it.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I think, indeed, that Lazenby could and should have been directed better, or at least have allowed himself to be. (I don't know who takes the biggest blame.) I certainly think he had the potential to grow into the part if he had been willing.

    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Lazenby looked like a dopey horse; nothing was going on behind his eyes.

    OHMSS is still my top two film.

    When Bond is listening to the count as he's listing all the documents he has assembled, Lazenby looks positively sleepy. I don't think he had "the stare" down, you know, when an actor has to convey something with just his eyes.

    Or perhaps he really was bored. 😉

    I know what you mean; and the scene where Blofeld unmasks him as Sir Hilary I'm not getting anything either- he just feels like he's pulling a grumpy face to me. And the way his eyes are darting around uncertainly just makes me feel like he didn't know how to do 'reacting' to another actor.

    Agreed. He doesn't seem to know what to do with his eyes. Reminds me also of when he is choking one of Blofeld's goons with his ski. As long as he is applying enough force, he seems into it. But when he is just trying not to draw any attention to himself, he's almost distracted from his acting, seemingly forgetting that the cameras are still rolling. His eyes are purposelessly scanning the area in front of him.

    I don't want to be too hard on Lazenby. He was a very physical Bond with a lot of stamina and rough charm. But some of his blank stares pull me out of the film.

    This is what I'm saying, there's a great performance hiding inside of Lazenby, there's a potential, really, if he's been given enough focus.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 3,024
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

    That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

    Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

    Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

    OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

    Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

    Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it.

    Okay, I've explained these things above regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

    I think Moore actually does it really well in TSWLM and OP. I always joke that none of the other Bonds look as genuinely worried around explosives as he does. There’s definitely a sense that he’s on edge, that he’s scared for his life and those around him, but he has to do what he needs to do to prevent catastrophe. I actually think it’s some of the best acting in the series. Moore’s a very underrated actor.

    Bond being startled by the Bear is cool, and in theory shows him vulnerable, but it’s just way too much. There’s only terror in Lazenby’s performance, none of the nuance that you get when, say, Connery has to think quickly when strapped to the table with a laser coming towards him, or Dalton getting startled by a bird and composing himself. I think both those other examples show Bond in a more vulnerable, human light because there’s more going on in the actor’s performance. Just showing terror isn’t in itself realistic or humanising (it’s actually relatively easy for an actor to convey this). What’s humanising is getting the sense that Bond’s mind is working at trying to find a way out of his situation, or knowing that he’s a bit on edge because of the situation and gets momentarily startled by something that wouldn’t normally startle him. Lazenby’s terrified expression just comes off as a scared child by comparison.

    I don’t think it matters whether Young met and liked Lazenby. Working with someone is a different thing. I don’t think Lazenby was mature enough to do his best even by his own accounts at this point.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,393
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.

    It's not smarter, he listened to his agent who had told him that Bond was already over by the 70's, and tricked him into giving him a fame like Clint Eastwood.
    It's the Producers who should've talked to his agent.

    Yes, I know Moore made big success as Bond, but in Lazenby quiting the role, it's the agent's fault, really.

    A lot of the celebrities who had no prior acting experience tend to be great with a great guide, think of some Musicians who became actors, they have no prior acting, but with some great directing, they turned out to be much better in performances.

    There are many of that, some of them were models, public figures, etc., But they tend to worked out good thanks to a good director who built good relationship with them, guided them better that made these celebrities put out their great performances.
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

    That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

    Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

    Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

    OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

    Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

    Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it.

    Okay, I've explained these things above regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

    I think Moore actually does it really well in TSWLM and OP. I always joke that none of the other Bonds look as genuinely worried around explosives as he does. There’s definitely a sense that he’s on edge, that he’s scared for his life and those around him, but he has to do what he needs to do to prevent catastrophe. I actually think it’s some of the best acting in the series. Moore’s a very underrated actor.

    Bond being startled by the Bear is cool, and in theory shows him vulnerable, but it’s just way too much. There’s only terror in Lazenby’s performance, none of the nuance that you get when, say, Connery has to think quickly when strapped to the table with a laser coming towards him, or Dalton getting startled by a bird and composing himself. I think both those other examples show Bond in a more vulnerable, human light because there’s more going on in the actor’s performance. Just showing terror isn’t in itself realistic or humanising (it’s actually relatively easy for an actor to convey this). What’s humanising is getting the sense that Bond’s mind is working at trying to find a way out of his situation, or knowing that he’s a bit on edge because of the situation and gets momentarily startled by something that wouldn’t normally startle him. Lazenby’s terrified expression just comes off as a scared child by comparison.

    I don’t think it matters whether Young met and liked Lazenby. Working with someone is a different thing. I don’t think Lazenby was mature enough to do his best even by his own accounts at this point.

    I think he did that in the Skating Rink scene, he's scared, but at the same thinking of a better way to escape and hide.

    There's that, but his performance could've been polished better.

    I actually think that Moore was a bit stiff in TSWLM the way he delivered such lines felt phoned in or forced, some lines there are meant to be funny but the way he delivered those killed off the feeling, I think his performance in TSWLM was almost on par with the way Connery played it in YOLT, he'd rather be someone else look and all.
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,895
    @SIS_HQ you have a knowledge and have seen movies that some of our older members probably haven’t seen.
    For a Filipino girl in her early twenties, is this common?

  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    Benny wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ you have a knowledge and have seen movies that some of our older members probably haven’t seen.
    For a Filipino girl in her early twenties, is this common?

    They've interested me, that's why 😊
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,602
    Yes, I don’t think Lazenby is the sharpest knife in the drawer. If Marty Scorsese, Kubrick, and Coppola were brought in to work with Lazenby, I don’t think they’d have brought out a better performance. Out of frustration, I see these men going to the script and exorcising as many lines as they could for this actor, pairing his dialogue to the bare minimum. Then salvaging his work from here.

    One “has it”, or one doesn’t.

    Lazenby didn’t have it.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,393
    peter wrote: »
    Yes, I don’t think Lazenby is the sharpest knife in the drawer. If Marty Scorsese, Kubrick, and Coppola were brought in to work with Lazenby, I don’t think they’d have brought out a better performance. Out of frustration, I see these men going to the script and exorcising as many lines as they could for this actor, pairing his dialogue to the bare minimum. Then salvaging his work from here.

    One “has it”, or one doesn’t.

    Lazenby didn’t have it.

    They're directing the cast, telling them what to do, so, I think with a right director (I'm not saying the best), it would've worked.

    The situation in OHMSS was different, it doesn't need the best director in town to make it work, it needs the right one, and Hunt was just not the right one for the job, yes, there's Lazenby with no acting experience, that's why it needed a director that would've guided him right, I know Lazenby had some potential to bring it all out, but he's mostly constrained, Laz had the potential.

    Compared to Bach and Bouquet where both had really no potential and acting was not in their line, they gave outright bad performances, Laz was not that, more like a wasted opportunity.

    Think of Hayden Christensen's performance in the Star Wars Prequels, for example.

    Hunt clearly is not a good director, it depends upon the situation, Young knew how to make good relationships with the casts, even Hamilton, but Hunt was very much a distant one, why would he told the staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby and thinking that him being alone would've made him a good Bond?
    Especially that Lazenby had no prior acting experience?

    Why?
  • BennyBenny In the shadowsAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 14,895
    peter wrote: »
    Yes, I don’t think Lazenby is the sharpest knife in the drawer. If Marty Scorsese, Kubrick, and Coppola were brought in to work with Lazenby, I don’t think they’d have brought out a better performance. Out of frustration, I see these men going to the script and exorcising as many lines as they could for this actor, pairing his dialogue to the bare minimum. Then salvaging his work from here.

    One “has it”, or one doesn’t.

    Lazenby didn’t have it.

    I think that’s why for many years half of the audience liked Connery and the other half liked Moore.
    Both were competent and professional actors.
    Moving forward both Brosnan and Craig have left their mark. Even the two time Dalton has his fans and justifiably so. He’s an excellent actor who knows his craft.
    The truth is Lazenby isn’t an actor and it shows.
    He was surrounded by good actors, an excellent story and lots of action.
    There can’t be to many fans who would rank George as the best Bond of all.
  • SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.

    It's not smarter, he listened to his agent who had told him that Bond was already over by the 70's, and tricked him into giving him a fame like Clint Eastwood.
    It's the Producers who should've talked to his agent.

    His agent was right. The series would not have survived with Lazenby. ;)
  • I used to be one of Lazenby’s biggest defenders on this website, and to an extent I still am. I think he has a great physicality, great looks, and he really sells that end scene incredibly well. Heck I’ll even make the argument that he’s the only Bond of the first 5 who could probably go toe to toe with Craig’s Bond in a fistfight and possibly win. But at the end of the day, the lack of training does creep up on his performance in some bits. It’s also very hard to defend his attitude on set, and his arrogance in general.

    What makes Majesty’s so brilliant isn’t Lazenby, it’s all the nice elements that they subvert in the movie. I’ll say the dubbing of George at Piz Gloria doesn’t bother me as much as some of you may have mentioned above because I actually quite like that after 5 films of having Connery star opposite actors/actresses who were all dubbed, it’s nice to have Bond himself be dubbed for a portion of the film (strange as that may sound.) The ending is also the biggest subversion of all. The death of Tracy isn’t somehow turned into some slam dunk ending moment for the film like in CR and SF. It’s simple, quiet, and somber. The only mistake made there was having ‘The James Bond theme’ play over the credits after that moment when Armstrong’s song would’ve fit better.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,393
    Benny wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Yes, I don’t think Lazenby is the sharpest knife in the drawer. If Marty Scorsese, Kubrick, and Coppola were brought in to work with Lazenby, I don’t think they’d have brought out a better performance. Out of frustration, I see these men going to the script and exorcising as many lines as they could for this actor, pairing his dialogue to the bare minimum. Then salvaging his work from here.

    One “has it”, or one doesn’t.

    Lazenby didn’t have it.

    I think that’s why for many years half of the audience liked Connery and the other half liked Moore.
    Both were competent and professional actors.
    Moving forward both Brosnan and Craig have left their mark. Even the two time Dalton has his fans and justifiably so. He’s an excellent actor who knows his craft.
    The truth is Lazenby isn’t an actor and it shows.
    He was surrounded by good actors, an excellent story and lots of action.
    There can’t be to many fans who would rank George as the best Bond of all.

    It's a sad truth, when there were also fans and critics alike who put Barbara Bach's Anya Amasova in high regard despite of her performance that's almost borderline robotic.

    Or Carole Bouquet, sometimes they're just often blind, no?
    I used to be one of Lazenby’s biggest defenders on this website, and to an extent I still am. I think he has a great physicality, great looks, and he really sells that end scene incredibly well. Heck I’ll even make the argument that he’s the only Bond of the first 5 who could probably go toe to toe with Craig’s Bond in a fistfight and possibly win. But at the end of the day, the lack of training does creep up on his performance in some bits. It’s also very hard to defend his attitude on set, and his arrogance in general.

    What makes Majesty’s so brilliant isn’t Lazenby, it’s all the nice elements that they subvert in the movie. I’ll say the dubbing of George at Piz Gloria doesn’t bother me as much as some of you may have mentioned above because I actually quite like that after 5 films of having Connery star opposite actors/actresses who were all dubbed, it’s nice to have Bond himself be dubbed for a portion of the film (strange as that may sound.) The ending is also the biggest subversion of all. The death of Tracy isn’t somehow turned into some slam dunk ending moment for the film like in CR and SF. It’s simple, quiet, and somber. The only mistake made there was having ‘The James Bond theme’ play over the credits after that moment when Armstrong’s song would’ve fit better.

    I agree.

    OHMSS if one may read the Behind the scenes is probably one of the most complicated situations in the Bond histories, yes, there's Lazenby's arrogance, but there's his feud with Peter Hunt of not much appearing on set that much.

    For me, I liked the film, I liked the rawness and natural performance from Lazenby.

    And this is coming from someone who disliked Barbara Bach's monotone, one note performance, the same for Carole Bouquet.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.

    It's not smarter, he listened to his agent who had told him that Bond was already over by the 70's, and tricked him into giving him a fame like Clint Eastwood.
    It's the Producers who should've talked to his agent.

    His agent was right. The series would not have survived with Lazenby. ;)

    His agent, might've been really right, because after OHMSS, the Producers started to chase trends starting with Blaxploitation, 70's Kung Fu, Star Wars, and etc.

    They knew to themselves that Bond was really over by the 70's, or the spy genre in general, so they need to cash in to those trends at the time to survive.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 3,024
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.

    It's not smarter, he listened to his agent who had told him that Bond was already over by the 70's, and tricked him into giving him a fame like Clint Eastwood.
    It's the Producers who should've talked to his agent.

    Yes, I know Moore made big success as Bond, but in Lazenby quiting the role, it's the agent's fault, really.

    A lot of the celebrities who had no prior acting experience tend to be great with a great guide, think of some Musicians who became actors, they have no prior acting, but with some great directing, they turned out to be much better in performances.

    There are many of that, some of them were models, public figures, etc., But they tend to worked out good thanks to a good director who built good relationship with them, guided them better that made these celebrities put out their great performances.

    Well, it was Lazenby who listened to his agent. And even by his own admission he was difficult to work with, struggling with uncertainty, and was convinced Bond was dead as a series. Unfortunately his downfall is in large part to do with himself.

    I think @peter is right. When it comes to acting there’s a level of natural talent needed. Some people just have ‘it’. We’ve talked about this before, but in my experience of working on film sets no director would ever say they can control an actor’s performance or get them to do anything beyond their capabilities. If anything it’s about casting the right person, and as I said leaning more into their strengths. You do get first time actors who do great jobs, are cast well, and bring their natural talents to the role. But you also get plenty of bad performances from this crowd too. Heck, even great directors unfortunately have films with bad performances in them, or roles that are miscast.

    I don’t think Young or an alternative director was ever to magically improve Lazenby’s performance. Young himself, while a solid director, made his share of mistakes (the reason the fight scene at the end of TB is sped up/edited jarringly is actually because Young famously didn’t get enough footage) and I don’t think would have given us quite the polished filmmaking effort that Hunt gave us.
  • Agent0099Agent0099 Milford, Michigan
    Posts: 29
    As weak as Lazenby was I just can’t imagine OHMSS without him, I really don't know if Connery could've brought out that emotional side of bond cause Connery was not that kind of actor despite how powerful of an actor he was.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,393
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.

    It's not smarter, he listened to his agent who had told him that Bond was already over by the 70's, and tricked him into giving him a fame like Clint Eastwood.
    It's the Producers who should've talked to his agent.

    Yes, I know Moore made big success as Bond, but in Lazenby quiting the role, it's the agent's fault, really.

    A lot of the celebrities who had no prior acting experience tend to be great with a great guide, think of some Musicians who became actors, they have no prior acting, but with some great directing, they turned out to be much better in performances.

    There are many of that, some of them were models, public figures, etc., But they tend to worked out good thanks to a good director who built good relationship with them, guided them better that made these celebrities put out their great performances.

    Well, it was Lazenby who listened to his agent. And even by his own admission he was difficult to work with, struggling with uncertainty, and was convinced Bond was dead as a series. Unfortunately his downfall is in large part to do with himself.

    I think @peter is right. When it comes to acting there’s a level of natural talent needed. Some people just have ‘it’. We’ve talked about this before, but in my experience of working on film sets no director would ever say they can control an actor’s performance or get them to do anything beyond their capabilities. If anything it’s about casting the right person, and as I said leaning more into their strengths. You do get first time actors who do great jobs, are cast well, and bring their natural talents to the role. But you also get plenty of bad performances from this crowd too. Heck, even great directors unfortunately have films with bad performances in them, or roles that are miscast.

    I don’t think Young or an alternative director was ever to magically improve Lazenby’s performance. Young himself, while a solid director, made his share of mistakes (the reason the fight scene at the end of TB is sped up/edited jarringly is actually because Young famously didn’t get enough footage) and I don’t think would have given us quite the polished filmmaking effort that Hunt gave us.

    What I'm saying regarding Young, was at least because of good relationship with Lazenby, there could've been a holistic approach, it's not magically transforming into becoming great, but would've been better, at least.

    Remember, Lazenby's agent was Ronan O Rahilly, the Founder of the Radio Caroline who brought some artists to fame at that time (not familiar with them, though), so, there's a weight in his promise to Lazenby, but I'd admit, Lazenby had his own attitude, but it made even worse with Hunt not making a good communication with him.

    I think Lazenby had the looks, he had the Bondian quality of physicality and could be polished well, because I've watched the film and thought to myself that he could done better, sure, he's not great as an actor, but he had the potential.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,083
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

    That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

    Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

    Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

    OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

    Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

    Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it.

    Okay, I've explained these things above regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

    I think Moore actually does it really well in TSWLM and OP. I always joke that none of the other Bonds look as genuinely worried around explosives as he does. There’s definitely a sense that he’s on edge, that he’s scared for his life and those around him, but he has to do what he needs to do to prevent catastrophe. I actually think it’s some of the best acting in the series. Moore’s a very underrated actor.

    Yep, agreed. I don't think he's Oscar-worthy or anything, but I think his reputation of being a bad actor is unfair and he does a fantastic job with these films.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

    That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

    Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

    Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

    OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

    Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

    Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it.

    Okay, I've explained these things above regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

    I think Moore actually does it really well in TSWLM and OP. I always joke that none of the other Bonds look as genuinely worried around explosives as he does. There’s definitely a sense that he’s on edge, that he’s scared for his life and those around him, but he has to do what he needs to do to prevent catastrophe. I actually think it’s some of the best acting in the series. Moore’s a very underrated actor.

    Yep, agreed. I don't think he's Oscar-worthy or anything, but I think his reputation of being a bad actor is unfair and he does a fantastic job with these films.

    Idk, I've felt that his performance in TSWLM was a bit stiff or forced, especially the delivery of some lines, like he's not just in the mood to say those lines.

    My favorite performance from him was in Moonraker, I liked his performance there.

    OP was just fine, but I wished it's played up more to his age.
  • To play the devil’s advocate here, I’ll say that a lot of issues brought up on here with regards to the casting of Lazenby and his performance could’ve been avoided entirely had they gone with someone like Oliver Reed, who was a fan favorite to take over from Connery at that time. In fact I’d go so far as to say Reed could’ve easily elevated OHMSS (not that the film isn’t already great as it is) to a higher status than the film hasn’t been afforded frankly due to Lazenby’s participation.

    The only problem with that hypothetical was Reed’s drinking/hellraiser image.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    To play the devil’s advocate here, I’ll say that a lot of issues brought up on here with regards to the casting of Lazenby and his performance could’ve been avoided entirely had they gone with someone like Oliver Reed, who was a fan favorite to take over from Connery at that time. In fact I’d go so far as to say Reed could’ve easily elevated OHMSS (not that the film isn’t already great as it is) to a higher status than the film hasn’t been afforded frankly due to Lazenby’s participation.

    The only problem with that hypothetical was Reed’s drinking/hellraiser image.

    He didn't have the Bond image, he looked more like a villain or a henchman to me tbh.
    Even Craig had at least some Bondian look to him compared to Reed.
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 2,095
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    To play the devil’s advocate here, I’ll say that a lot of issues brought up on here with regards to the casting of Lazenby and his performance could’ve been avoided entirely had they gone with someone like Oliver Reed, who was a fan favorite to take over from Connery at that time. In fact I’d go so far as to say Reed could’ve easily elevated OHMSS (not that the film isn’t already great as it is) to a higher status than the film hasn’t been afforded frankly due to Lazenby’s participation.

    The only problem with that hypothetical was Reed’s drinking/hellraiser image.

    He didn't have the Bond image, he looked more like a villain or a henchman to me tbh.
    Even Craig had at least some Bondian look to him compared to Reed.

    I’m not sure if I agree. Have you seen “The Assassination Bureau” it stars Reed, Diana Rigg, and Telly Savalas. It’s essentially a Bond film if it took place in the 1800’s. Reed plays a very charming, and sophisticated Assassin in that film, and it gives a nice glimpse into what his version of Bond could’ve looked like.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 15,083
    To play the devil’s advocate here, I’ll say that a lot of issues brought up on here with regards to the casting of Lazenby and his performance could’ve been avoided entirely had they gone with someone like Oliver Reed, who was a fan favorite to take over from Connery at that time. In fact I’d go so far as to say Reed could’ve easily elevated OHMSS (not that the film isn’t already great as it is) to a higher status than the film hasn’t been afforded frankly due to Lazenby’s participation.

    The only problem with that hypothetical was Reed’s drinking/hellraiser image.

    Yes, he'd have been pretty terrific in that, agreed.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    edited November 2023 Posts: 567
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    To play the devil’s advocate here, I’ll say that a lot of issues brought up on here with regards to the casting of Lazenby and his performance could’ve been avoided entirely had they gone with someone like Oliver Reed, who was a fan favorite to take over from Connery at that time. In fact I’d go so far as to say Reed could’ve easily elevated OHMSS (not that the film isn’t already great as it is) to a higher status than the film hasn’t been afforded frankly due to Lazenby’s participation.

    The only problem with that hypothetical was Reed’s drinking/hellraiser image.

    He didn't have the Bond image, he looked more like a villain or a henchman to me tbh.
    Even Craig had at least some Bondian look to him compared to Reed.

    I’m not sure if I agree. Have you seen “The Assassination Bureau” it stars Reed, Diana Rigg, and Telly Savalas. It’s essentially a Bond film if it took place in the 1800’s. Reed plays a very charming, and sophisticated Assassin in that film, and it gives a nice glimpse into what his version of Bond could’ve looked like.

    Trouble is Reed aged very fast (for fairly obvious reasons). Had they cast him in '68 they'd have probably only got about two films out of him. Three maximum.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,602
    @SIS_HQ --you know Oliver Reed?

    How old are you again??
  • edited November 2023 Posts: 3,024
    mtm wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    How he could've? Hunt always leaving him out to be alone, even telling the crews and staffs to stay away from him?

    That's it too, Young also knows how to create good relationships between leads and cast, unlike Hunt.

    Young had a closer relationship with Lazenby than Hunt, I just don't liked Hunt, actually the slow pacing in Thunderball underwater scenes is still not enough, although I recognized his participations in the Franchise, but his work outputs were simply not that great.

    Then comes to this that he's a very difficult man to be with.

    OHMSS would've been better had Young simply directed it, I don't know why some of you defending Hunt in here, I recognized his importance as Editor, but as a director? He's clearly not an expert at good executions.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    It's not unrealistic, in real life, that's what every people would've done, that's what I'm saying.

    Every people in Bond's place at that time would've been terrified, it's natural, it's not a Bondian style, but it showed that he's capable of being a bit realistic when it comes to emotions.

    Craig and Dalton? Possibly, but Moore's portrayal of scared was flat to me, just no feeling or atmosphere while watching it.

    Okay, I've explained these things above regarding Connery and Young, just read it.

    I think Moore actually does it really well in TSWLM and OP. I always joke that none of the other Bonds look as genuinely worried around explosives as he does. There’s definitely a sense that he’s on edge, that he’s scared for his life and those around him, but he has to do what he needs to do to prevent catastrophe. I actually think it’s some of the best acting in the series. Moore’s a very underrated actor.

    Yep, agreed. I don't think he's Oscar-worthy or anything, but I think his reputation of being a bad actor is unfair and he does a fantastic job with these films.

    I don’t think he got the best roles after Bond (that’s one of the things that separates him from Connery). I also think because of the type of acting you got on television in his earlier career some of his deliveries/affectations as Bond could be seen as a bit more theatrical I suppose. But honestly, there’s some really great acting from him in his movies. The scene in TSWLM where he tells Anya he killed her boyfriend is an example. Just with where he looks/how he speaks you can tell exactly what he’s thinking, how he’s debating at first whether or not to tell her. Same with the Tracy reference. It’s surprisingly subtle.

    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    talos7 wrote: »
    A fully engaged Connery would have been outstanding. Did he ever voice any opinions about the film? I wonder if he any regrets about not doing it.

    He would have been, but I always struggle to see his Bond in it because he played Bond with even less depth than the others, really. He played it wonderfully, but most of his acting talent went into sheer charisma and sort of being able to wink at the camera without entirely feeling like he was, which is a very skilful thing to pull off so I'm not knocking it at all. But I almost wonder if he'd have had trouble changing gear like that as Bond and adding Bond getting romantic- I find it hard to imagine.
    It's interesting that if you look at the two Bonds of 1983, Connery's is pretty surface level, dishing out quips and punches and that's about it; whereas Moore's (although obviously still dishing out the dad jokes) had arguably tenser moments with Orlov (where I think you're seeing a level of disgust and horror in Bond's reaction), the manhunt, the bomb defusal; plus a warmer and more romantic relationship with Octopussy. The EON Bond had grown slightly over time and filled out a little more towards being human. It's all relative, but I'd say Connery's was the more cartoonish.

    Which is exactly why the effect Tracy had on him would have had even more impact. Seeing the cavalier Connery fall in love could have been very impactful. Again, this would have required a fully engaged Connery bringing his A game.

    And more truer to the source, Guy Hamilton presented himself to direct himself with Bardot in the female lead as Tracy, and Blofeld being Goldfinger's twin brother, so, all of these shouldn't happened.
    007HallY wrote: »
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think Lazenby’s performance for me is best described as ‘mixed’. That’s not to say he always misses the mark - obviously you have the ending which he handles well, alongside a handful of other scenes - but it’s obvious he’s not an actor. He can only really play straightforward emotions without much nuance. If he can’t handle something his performance defaults to wooden, and I think this is what makes scenes such as him ‘resigning’ from MI6 come off as random and strange.

    Even when he’s able to play some of those bigger emotions it doesn’t always work - an example is the infamous Polar Bear moment during the chase. Bond looks terrified. He really shouldn’t, it feels slightly out of character. Dalton played similar scenes better where, say, a bird or whatever would fly out momentarily rattle him but he’d compose himself. Moore too had was far more adept at giving off a sense that Bond was genuinely worried about something, but never defaulted to the bizzare look of terror that Lazenby gives.

    Even the ending has the infamous story behind it that Hunt decided to retake the scene without Lazenby crying (which he had supposedly done so). I think that was the correct decision. Bond’s reaction is one of shock and denial. It’s more impactful that he’s not crying, cradling his dead wife while in effect pretending she’s alive. Lazenby just didn’t have that natural instinct as an actor to recognise this.

    Other than that he doesn’t have the charisma nor the swagger that the other Bonds had (even Dalton has a level of charisma and raw screen presence). I know some people rate his performance highly, but it’s always been hit or miss for most people.

    It's more impactful that he's crying, showing how he loved Tracy, it's great in that sense.

    Those things weren't out of character, it's showing his humanity, his vulnerability, he's a human being, and he's realistic in that sense.

    Lazenby's Bond for me is the most realistic Bond in that sense, he could portray the vulnerability well, naturally and very raw.

    I liked to see Bond being realistic like that, not as an action hero similar to Ethan Hunt (whom, in my opinion, could convey confidence 20x better than Bond), and that's enough for me.

    Hunt wanted Lazenby to be distant from anyone and thought he could be Bond better for it, and it didn't helped from it, I think a better director with guidance could've brought out more the best in him.

    Hunt just wasn't a good director, I liked Terrence Young to direct this film instead, it's also evident in the Non Bond films that he directed: both Gold and Shout At The Devil had both interesting ideas, it just needs a better director to execute those well.

    Yes, it's a hit and miss for some people, well, like every Bond actors' performances, some people didn't liked Brosnan's performance in TWINE (I liked it), or Craig's performance in NTTD (not a fan of it).

    It’s telling that even in the book he doesn’t cry. It comes off more as him being in shock, that he’s trying to tell himself what happened isn’t true. I think it’s one of those moments where tears would have taken something away from that scene.

    Bond’s certainly human, but he’s a man who often has to look death in the face. Lazenby’s reaction doesn’t strike me as that of a man who does that for a living, but more akin to a terrified child. The reaction just needs to be dialed back for it to work.

    I’m not sure if any director would have gotten much more out of Lazenby. Young certainly had his flaws. I think we’ve discussed this before but no director can make an actor give a great performance. They can only work with them to emphasise their strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. Hunt actually does this at times.

    But that's it, that ending hits more hard in the film, well I don't actually buy their relationship in the book, because they're distant from each other.

    It's rare seeing Bond cry like that, and it happened in such a monumental scene like the OHMSS ending, or maybe M's death in Skyfall, and it brings out the inner emotions of Bond, there's the feeling that he really cared for those people, unlike the cold heart he usually shows.

    That's it, it works in that regard, because it's realistic, sure, he's an agent, but he felt fear in such scenes, and yes, that terrified child is the way to show out the realistic emotions.

    It could've worked, Young worked a newbie Connery from scratch, he trained him to became Bond, and I think he had a better relationship with Lazenby, there's some reports that Young visited the filming of OHMSS and he built a good relationship with Lazenby, so it could've worked, Hunt and Lazenby had a strained relationship.

    Like I said, I think the heartbreaking thing about that scene is that Bond is trying to pretend Tracy isn’t dead - ‘it’s all right, she’s just having a rest’ etc. In itself it’s a very human thing to do and is quite accurate to how some people deal with trauma. I’m sure Lazenby’s crying in the moment was impressive, but I can see why maybe it would have taken the impact from that idea away (even in the scene we got I know some people who think Lazenby breaks down at the end, when all he does is rest his head on Tracy. I think the fact that his performance is more understated adds to the emotion in this sense). Even in SF Bond’s crying is more ‘single tear’ territory and I think what makes it impactful are the words they share beforehand. Sometimes vulnerability doesn’t require big emotions.

    I don’t think Bond would be terrified as he is in that scene. Scared, yes. My issue is Lazenby’s lack of talent means he goes big with that emotion. Too big in fact. It actually has the effect of coming across as unrealistic. The likes of Moore, Craig and Dalton were particularity good at showing Bond being scared while maintaining the fundamental demeanour of the character.

    Connery was an actor prior to Bond. Young didn’t turn him into James Bond. He simply worked with someone who had prior experience and the natural talent/charisma to bring the character to life. Without Connery’s talent the lessons on dining out, the visits to Saville Row etc. are meaningless. Lazenby didn’t have that experience, talent or charisma. Lazenby’s attitude/temperament likely would have resulted in conflict no matter the director.

    If you ask me, that is ultimately the biggest problem. Lazenby was arrogant and stupid. If he had allowed himself to be directed, trained and taught, he could have quickly grown in the part. Like so many young men, he thought he knew everything better.

    I think he certainly could have been put in a better performance had he been smarter. That said it’s always going to be an issue when the lead actor has no real prior acting experience. Even if he did I don’t think Lazenby had the natural charisma or screen presence for the role. My instinct is he was always going to be an oddity in terms of Bond, confined to doing one or at a push two films. I don’t think the series would have been as bankable under him even if he had been more level headed. They needed someone like Moore.

    It's not smarter, he listened to his agent who had told him that Bond was already over by the 70's, and tricked him into giving him a fame like Clint Eastwood.
    It's the Producers who should've talked to his agent.

    Yes, I know Moore made big success as Bond, but in Lazenby quiting the role, it's the agent's fault, really.

    A lot of the celebrities who had no prior acting experience tend to be great with a great guide, think of some Musicians who became actors, they have no prior acting, but with some great directing, they turned out to be much better in performances.

    There are many of that, some of them were models, public figures, etc., But they tend to worked out good thanks to a good director who built good relationship with them, guided them better that made these celebrities put out their great performances.

    Well, it was Lazenby who listened to his agent. And even by his own admission he was difficult to work with, struggling with uncertainty, and was convinced Bond was dead as a series. Unfortunately his downfall is in large part to do with himself.

    I think @peter is right. When it comes to acting there’s a level of natural talent needed. Some people just have ‘it’. We’ve talked about this before, but in my experience of working on film sets no director would ever say they can control an actor’s performance or get them to do anything beyond their capabilities. If anything it’s about casting the right person, and as I said leaning more into their strengths. You do get first time actors who do great jobs, are cast well, and bring their natural talents to the role. But you also get plenty of bad performances from this crowd too. Heck, even great directors unfortunately have films with bad performances in them, or roles that are miscast.

    I don’t think Young or an alternative director was ever to magically improve Lazenby’s performance. Young himself, while a solid director, made his share of mistakes (the reason the fight scene at the end of TB is sped up/edited jarringly is actually because Young famously didn’t get enough footage) and I don’t think would have given us quite the polished filmmaking effort that Hunt gave us.

    What I'm saying regarding Young, was at least because of good relationship with Lazenby, there could've been a holistic approach, it's not magically transforming into becoming great, but would've been better, at least.

    Remember, Lazenby's agent was Ronan O Rahilly, the Founder of the Radio Caroline who brought some artists to fame at that time (not familiar with them, though), so, there's a weight in his promise to Lazenby, but I'd admit, Lazenby had his own attitude, but it made even worse with Hunt not making a good communication with him.

    I think Lazenby had the looks, he had the Bondian quality of physicality and could be polished well, because I've watched the film and thought to myself that he could done better, sure, he's not great as an actor, but he had the potential.

    We just don’t know how Young and Lazenby would have worked together. It’s often the case where the worst relationships between actors/directors starts out cordial and devolves once filming becomes difficult. I don’t think Lazenby himself helped the situation.

    To play the devil’s advocate here, I’ll say that a lot of issues brought up on here with regards to the casting of Lazenby and his performance could’ve been avoided entirely had they gone with someone like Oliver Reed, who was a fan favorite to take over from Connery at that time. In fact I’d go so far as to say Reed could’ve easily elevated OHMSS (not that the film isn’t already great as it is) to a higher status than the film hasn’t been afforded frankly due to Lazenby’s participation.

    The only problem with that hypothetical was Reed’s drinking/hellraiser image.

    Reed of course starred with Rigg in The Assassination Bureau the same year OHMSS came out. So we can actually sort of imagine this hypothetical OHMSS. Reed is actually someone I imagine as Bond when I read the novels. He definitely had a similar magnetism to Connery.

    Unfortunately as you said he couldn’t deal with his drink. When drunk he became a terrible bore and a sexist who did increasingly annoying things to show off (shame as he actually came off as quite charming and funny when sober). From my understanding the producers knew they didn’t want to deal with him and he was never approached. Perhaps it’s for the best. For all of the difficulties with Connery and Lazenby Reed would have made them look like angels in comparison.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited November 2023 Posts: 3,393
    peter wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ --you know Oliver Reed?

    How old are you again??

    I know Reed because he got connected with Bond, I'm a Bond fan, of course, I know him 😁.

    Although I haven't watched The Assassination Bureau, just seen some trailers of it, because I'm a Diana Rigg fan, but Oliver Reed just wasn't that good looking.

    And yes, it's the only film that I've known from him, heck, I'm even a fan of The Persuaders.

    Don't ask about my age 😅, I'm shy about it.
    007HallY wrote: »
    We just don’t know how Young and Lazenby would have worked together. It’s often the case where the worst relationships between actors/directors starts out cordial and devolves once filming becomes difficult. I don’t think Lazenby himself helped the situation.
    [

    Young arrived at the middle of OHMSS filming, he and Lazenby became close there.
  • mtm wrote: »

    Yes, he'd have been pretty terrific in that, agreed.

    I think it was huge missed opportunity not having Reed as Bond. For all we know he probably could’ve been the best Bond, but then again I don’t think we would have gotten Roger, whom I’d never trade for the world.


    Trouble is Reed aged very fast (for fairly obvious reasons). Had they cast him in '68 they'd have probably only got about two films out of him. Three maximum.

    Yeah that would’ve been the issue. I think if he had been cast than Cubby and Harry probably would’ve done their damn best to reshape his image and persona into that of Bond, and I don’t think Reed would’ve played along because that would’ve entailed setting aside his “hellraiser” image.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,393
    I liked Reed as a Bond villain, I personally don't find him attractive at all, I've seen him in Assassination Bureau trailers, and he's not handsome, he just didn't have the looks.

    I think he would've been an accurate version of Fleming's Largo or Scaramanga, although Christopher Lee was great in the role, but probably Largo.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,602
    SIS_HQ wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @SIS_HQ --you know Oliver Reed?

    How old are you again??

    I know Reed because he got connected with Bond, I'm a Bond fan, of course, I know him 😁.

    Although I haven't watched The Assassination Bureau, just seen some trailers of it, because I'm a Diana Rigg fan, but Oliver Reed just wasn't that good looking.

    And yes, it's the only film that I've known from him, heck, I'm even a fan of The Persuaders.

    Don't ask about my age 😅, I'm shy about it.

    My kids are Bond fans (my son's fandom ended with a crash because of Spectre, and picked up again in NTTD), and they wouldn't know Oliver Reed, although they've watched films with me that he's been in.

    Many names have been attached to Bond, I'm just surprised that you seem so well versed in these actors and their films , while still only being around the age of my kids.

    Huh, interesting.
Sign In or Register to comment.