George Lazenby vs Pierce Brosnan

1246

Comments

  • edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    BAIN123 wrote:
    []I've always felt the George Baker dubbing sort of undermines his presence a bit. .

    I think dubbing him was a bad move.
  • Brosnan.

    I really don't understand how anyone could prefer Lazenby. Brosnan has his flaws of course but I think he's a very competent actor. Lazenby is so wooden. It's a shame that, until the Craig era OHMSS was the only Bond film which required real, emotional acting from the star and it was given to a guy who looked good but as soon as he starts to move and talk it's painful.
  • Brosnan.

    I really don't understand how anyone could prefer Lazenby. Brosnan has his flaws of course but I think he's a very competent actor. Lazenby is so wooden. It's a shame that, until the Craig era OHMSS was the only Bond film which required real, emotional acting from the star and it was given to a guy who looked good but as soon as he starts to move and talk it's painful.

    I would not qualify by any means the whole barn sequence with Tracy as "wooden" or "painful". From "an agent must not be concern with anything but himself" to "I love you...I know I'll never find another girl like you" Lazenby brilliantly delivers.

    I wonder how many viewings of Brosnan's Bond films would it take to find a strong acting performance as that one. Sure, Brosnan's one-liners may be better delivered, but you've got to have more than good one-lines and a clean haircut to be convincing.
  • Dalton12 wrote:
    George Lazenby is highly underrated as Bond, especially considering he had no experience as a film actor much less the lead! He was very capable in the action sequences, I love the odd echoey sound effects in the hand to hand scenes. He could've kept on as 007.OHMSS is easily one of the five best in the series. I think if Fleming had lived to see it he would've had bottomless gratitude for damn near perfectly adapting his most complex novel. OHMSS is a true classic film not just a 007 classic but an all around classic.

    For me Lazenby wins.

    Dalton12, you have it nailed.
    Brosnan is a great actor - Seraphim Falls, The Matador, Tailor Of Panama - are all proof positive. He is also a hell of a nice guy but unfortunately, with the POSSIBLE exception of Goldeneye, the material he was given was appalling.
    Lazenby, on the other hand, had a great adaptation of one of the best two novels (FRWL being the other), a great director and with zero acting experience he knocked one out of the park!
    Shame they didn't do the Blofeld trilogy (TB,OHMSS,YOLT) in chronological order, have Lazenby as Bond and have Hunt direct the lot. Now that would have been something!
  • Posts: 11,425
    Lazenby! A great first effort. He could easily have done one more - I think DAF might have suited him.

    OHMSS is obviously far superior to any of the Brosnan films.

    I have recently come around to the idea that had he had better directors Brosnan MIGHT have been able to give a decent performance. But the fact is that he didn't.
  • I think we, hard-core Bond fans in general, agree that Pierce Brosnan was being given poor material to work with in his last 3 outings as Bond. No one will discuss that. To what heights Brosnan could have bring Bond as a character, given good plots and good writing, we'll never know.

    One thing I do realize, now after having read Bond fans opinion about it, is that Brosnan, being stuck with a bad team of writers, was still able to kept the franchise alive. Just for that he must be praised.

    I just can't shake the feeling a cosummate or proficient actor like Timothy Dalton would have flatly refused to play in such poor films, DAD being the top of it all.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think we, hard-core Bond fans in general, agree that Pierce Brosnan was being given poor material to work with in his last 3 outings as Bond. No one will discuss that. To what heights Brosnan could have bring Bond as a character, given good plots and good writing, we'll never know.

    One thing I do realize, now after having read Bond fans opinion about it, is that Brosnan, being stuck with a bad team of writers, was still able to kept the franchise alive. Just for that he must be praised.

    I just can't shake the feeling a cosummate or proficient actor like Timothy Dalton would have flatly refused to play in such poor films, DAD being the top of it all.

    There's some truth in this. But bear in mind that the films are often tailored to the actor's strengths, therefore Brozza was given material that that EON thought would suit him. TWINE provided him with plenty of opportunities to show a more complex Bond and he blew it. The result was DAD - surely EON's response to his below par performance in the previous film.

    Also, was the base material in QoS particularly good? Not especially and yet Craig still manages to put in a decent performance.

    No other actor was as consistently poor as Brozza and for that he must take a lot of the blame.

    Contrast him with Laz who hadn't even acted before and Brozza has no excuses whatsoever.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited December 2012 Posts: 13,882
    Irrespective of what he's like in real life and in spite of his lack of experience with does show throughout the film, i'm going with Lazenby. Where his inexperience lets him down, he makes up for it with his physicality.

    And Lazenby may have been supported by those around him, but it's not as if Brosnan was pro-active in his era and carried his films.
  • Posts: 3,273
    BAIN123 wrote:
    []I've always felt the George Baker dubbing sort of undermines his presence a bit. .

    I think dubbing him was a bad move.
    That was the worst part of OHMSS for me.

  • Posts: 11,189
    BAIN123 wrote:
    []I've always felt the George Baker dubbing sort of undermines his presence a bit. .

    I think dubbing him was a bad move.
    That was the worst part of OHMSS for me.

    Its the most "talky" part of the film
  • Getafix wrote:
    I think we, hard-core Bond fans in general, agree that Pierce Brosnan was being given poor material to work with in his last 3 outings as Bond. No one will discuss that. To what heights Brosnan could have bring Bond as a character, given good plots and good writing, we'll never know.

    One thing I do realize, now after having read Bond fans opinion about it, is that Brosnan, being stuck with a bad team of writers, was still able to kept the franchise alive. Just for that he must be praised.

    I just can't shake the feeling a cosummate or proficient actor like Timothy Dalton would have flatly refused to play in such poor films, DAD being the top of it all.

    There's some truth in this. But bear in mind that the films are often tailored to the actor's strengths, therefore Brozza was given material that that EON thought would suit him. TWINE provided him with plenty of opportunities to show a more complex Bond and he blew it. The result was DAD - surely EON's response to his below par performance in the previous film.

    Also, was the base material in QoS particularly good? Not especially and yet Craig still manages to put in a decent performance.

    No other actor was as consistently poor as Brozza and for that he must take a lot of the blame.

    Contrast him with Laz who hadn't even acted before and Brozza has no excuses whatsoever.

    The problem with QoS never was Daniel Craig. The problem was a serious one, name Marc Foster.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I think this scene was probably Brozza's best "acting" moment. He really "gets it" with the stern expressions and the quiet, slightly mocking delivery of "you have a doctorate in that (torture)" too.

    I love his face just before he "offs" Kaulfman :D



    Brozza's not the greatest of actors but sometimes he got it right.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I just buy Lazenby as Bond, I've never been convinced Brosnan is, his best moment is the very beginning of TWINE with the banker but that is undermined by that ludicrous boat chase.

    I find Lazenby is a little awkward in some scenes but for the most he does a great job, never really notice he's wooden and in the quieter moments with Rigg he delivers as well as looking credible in the sequence where he confronts her when she aims his gun at him, I think he handles the fisticuffs far more credibly and I like his look more than Brosnan's coiffured cut.

    I also prefer his voice, yes the dubbing is unfortunate but it's never bothered me that much it takes me out of the film, love his moments in Gumbolds office.

    Yes he did get the by far better material but if he was as bad as some say would the film really be as acclaimed as it now is, he James Bond for fecks sake, if he doesn't work in the role then the film doesn't.

    I understand quite a few people love Brosnan in the role, I acknowledge he was the right man at the right time to keep the franchise alive and should be commended for that but I honestly don't think EON trusted him with anything outside of what he got, cookie cutter films that made money but are hardly to go down in the series as anything special.

    So Lazenby all the way, it was his fault he never made more and by all accounts he's not a nice man but it must really irk Brosnan he'll never be in a Bond film as respected as OHMSS.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 11,189
    I enjoy Broz more in the role but I can understand why some prefer Laz, especially those who favour the books.

    Plus:

    Laz got Diana Rigg and Joanna Lumley

    Broz got lumped with Denise Richards, Halle Berry and Teri Hatcher.

    However he also got Isabella Scorupco (who I thought was great), Judi Dench and Rosmund Pike so things weren't all bad.
  • Posts: 562
    I definitely prefer George Lazenby over Pierce Brosnan as Bond, but I really don't think Brosnan was quite as bad as many make him out to be. Sure, he's my least favourite, but he was still entertaining to watch and there were a few instances where it really looked like he understood the character and was able to step up his acting to really be Bond.
  • Getafix wrote:
    I think we, hard-core Bond fans in general, agree that Pierce Brosnan was being given poor material to work with in his last 3 outings as Bond. No one will discuss that. To what heights Brosnan could have bring Bond as a character, given good plots and good writing, we'll never know.

    One thing I do realize, now after having read Bond fans opinion about it, is that Brosnan, being stuck with a bad team of writers, was still able to kept the franchise alive. Just for that he must be praised.

    I just can't shake the feeling a cosummate or proficient actor like Timothy Dalton would have flatly refused to play in such poor films, DAD being the top of it all.

    There's some truth in this. But bear in mind that the films are often tailored to the actor's strengths, therefore Brozza was given material that that EON thought would suit him. TWINE provided him with plenty of opportunities to show a more complex Bond and he blew it. The result was DAD - surely EON's response to his below par performance in the previous film.

    Also, was the base material in QoS particularly good? Not especially and yet Craig still manages to put in a decent performance.

    No other actor was as consistently poor as Brozza and for that he must take a lot of the blame.

    Contrast him with Laz who hadn't even acted before and Brozza has no excuses whatsoever.

    I agree with Getafix here and disagree with JohnBarryFan. I'm always surprised when people use the "Oh, if only he had better scripts!" defence of Brosnan.

    Short of OHMSS and LTK no Bond actor was given as much meaty, emotional moments to work with as Brosnan. Death of Paris, all of TWINE, first part of DAD...over and over again Brosnan was given his chance to shine and he couldn't put the puck in the net. Imagine what Dalton or Craig could have done with those scripts...a good actor can inject a lot of life into a poor script by making interesting choices in line delivery or reactions, a poor actor can suck the life out of what should be a knockout scene if can't bring conviction or an interesting take on it.

    Brosnan had his chances, he just couldn't deliver. And I say this as someone who liked him. Liked him, but understood his limitations.

  • moore45 wrote:
    who would be your pick
    I think just one Bond movie with Lazenby is better than all four Brosnans movies.
    I agree. This is no contest whatsoever. Lazenby appeared in one of the best Bond movies ever - Brozza appeared in the worst Bond films ever, and is also the worst actor to play Bond.

    Any competition where you are pitting Brosnan against any of the other Bond's is not fair game, because we all know who the loser will end up being.

    ;)
    Can you compare a skateboard to a car? I guess not. On one hand you have a non-actor that they tried to shape up and then you have an accomplished actor that was well liked, looked the part and had the support of the BOSS, Cubby. Does it bother you that Brosnan was popular with the ladies? As far as OHMSS goes it is the only film I would like to see remade with a proper script because the line "This never happened to the other fella" was a bomb. What did Lazenby do after? Nothing.They never recast him. Pierce has good films to his credit and two good Bonds
  • moore45 wrote:
    who would be your pick
    I think just one Bond movie with Lazenby is better than all four Brosnans movies.
    I agree. This is no contest whatsoever. Lazenby appeared in one of the best Bond movies ever - Brozza appeared in the worst Bond films ever, and is also the worst actor to play Bond.

    Any competition where you are pitting Brosnan against any of the other Bond's is not fair game, because we all know who the loser will end up being.

    ;)
    Can you compare a skateboard to a car? I guess not. On one hand you have a non-actor that they tried to shape up and then you have an accomplished actor that was well liked, looked the part and had the support of the BOSS, Cubby. Does it bother you that Brosnan was popular with the ladies? As far as OHMSS goes it is the only film I would like to see remade with a proper script because the line "This never happened to the other fella" was a bomb. What did Lazenby do after? Nothing.They never recast him. Pierce has good films to his credit and two good Bonds
  • Lazenby announced that he no longer wished to play the role of James Bond
    D. Rigg : The role made Sean Connery a millionaire. It made Sean Connery ... I truly don't know what's happening in George's mind so I can only speak of my reaction. I think its a pretty foolish move. I think if he can bear to do an apprenticeship, which everybody in this business has to do - has to do - then he should do it quietly and with humility. Everybody has to do it. There are few instant successes in the film business. And the instant successes one usually associates with somebody who is willing to learn anyway. According to an interview, Lazenby experienced difficulties on the set stemming from director Hunt's refusal to speak directly with him, and Hunt's brusqueness in asking Lazenby's friends to clear the set before filming. Sounds like it went to his head. Shame all the hard work of becoming Bond just melted
  • Posts: 2,341
    Lazenby had the good fortune of having the best script, that veteran EON team and a great leading lady who he had good chemistry with. His film is a classic.

    Brosnan was some guy they put in a tux and had him strut around acting like "James Bond" and shooting up the set with a lot of machine guns. His films progressively got worst finally culminating in that trainwreck of a film, DAD. He was as overrated as Tony Romo and he qualifies as one of the weakest Bonds. Sean Bean would have made a better Bond.
  • Plus Lazenby was pretty much the natural embodiment of Bond-- athletic, confident, masculine, a fight instructor with the special forces, good with the ladies etc. Plus he had the confidence and straight up balls to march into the office of the (at the time) biggest movie producers in the world and say "I'm your man"...and get the part! He was rough around the edges as an actor but would have improved in time. Imho it's the greatest tragedy of the franchise that we never got to see him develop as Bond.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Plus he had the confidence and straight up balls to march into the office of the (at the time) biggest movie producers in the world and say "I'm your man"...and get the part!

    And that is why he's a legend!

    Imagine the sheer bravado and self confidence bordering on arrogance to do that and get away with it? The only person I can imagine doing it other than Bond himself is Mourinho. The difference is Jose has the trophies to back up his attitude whereas George had nothing. Basically the guy just blagged his way into the biggest job in the world and that takes cojones.

  • Posts: 11,189
    Plus he had the confidence and straight up balls to march into the office of the (at the time) biggest movie producers in the world and say "I'm your man"...and get the part!

    And that is why he's a legend!

    Imagine the sheer bravado and self confidence bordering on arrogance to do that and get away with it? The only person I can imagine doing it other than Bond himself is Mourinho. The difference is Jose has the trophies to back up his attitude whereas George had nothing. Basically the guy just blagged his way into the biggest job in the world and that takes cojones.

    I must admit the guy is a dude for doing that.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Plus he had the confidence and straight up balls to march into the office of the (at the time) biggest movie producers in the world and say "I'm your man"...and get the part!

    And that is why he's a legend!

    Imagine the sheer bravado and self confidence bordering on arrogance to do that and get away with it? The only person I can imagine doing it other than Bond himself is Mourinho. The difference is Jose has the trophies to back up his attitude whereas George had nothing. Basically the guy just blagged his way into the biggest job in the world and that takes cojones.

    I must admit the guy is a dude for doing that.

    I have to admit, this alone makes me consider switching my vote from Brosnan to Lazenby. While Brosnan pretended to be Bond on screen, Laz WAS Bond in real life!

  • RC7RC7
    edited December 2012 Posts: 10,512
    Plus he had the confidence and straight up balls to march into the office of the (at the time) biggest movie producers in the world and say "I'm your man"...and get the part!

    And that is why he's a legend!

    Imagine the sheer bravado and self confidence bordering on arrogance to do that and get away with it? The only person I can imagine doing it other than Bond himself is Mourinho. The difference is Jose has the trophies to back up his attitude whereas George had nothing. Basically the guy just blagged his way into the biggest job in the world and that takes cojones.

    Or he was just a bit deluded. As much as I admire him for doing it I can't shake the feeling that George was actually a bit of a simple chap. I find this happens a lot in popular culture, individuals become revered for being people who push the boundaries when in reality they're too lacking in intelligence to determine right from wrong, normal from abnormal. After all wasn't there the classic story about George claiming he was a 'Star' and being reprimanded by Cubby? Like I say, it strikes me that he was a few strawberries short of a punnett.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I believe the story comes from Dana Broccoli, wife of Cubby, who remembers the production team throwing a party for the cast and crew and Lazenby throwing a temper tantrum about not getting a personal invite to the party even though he was the star. That's when Cubby came out with the line: "It's the audience that decides on whether you're a star" or something to that effect. Maybe it would have been a nice touch for the producers to have given their leading actors personal invites, so maybe he does have a point here. I can't imagine the current producers throwing a party and relying on word of mouth to pass down to Daniel Craig.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    RC7 wrote:
    Or he was just a bit deluded. As much as I admire him for doing it I can't shake the feeling that George was actually a bit of a simple chap. I find this happens a lot in popular culture, individuals become revered for being people who push the boundaries when in reality they're too lacking in intelligence to determine right from wrong, normal from abnormal.
    Some folk get to be presidents in the same way...
    ;)
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    chrisisall wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    Or he was just a bit deluded. As much as I admire him for doing it I can't shake the feeling that George was actually a bit of a simple chap. I find this happens a lot in popular culture, individuals become revered for being people who push the boundaries when in reality they're too lacking in intelligence to determine right from wrong, normal from abnormal.
    Some folk get to be presidents in the same way...
    ;)

    I think a lot of people are very good at inadvertantly riding the crest of a wave.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Lax clearly wasn't the brightest spark back in the 60s. There's no excuse for some of his alleged behaviour - but one does have to admire him for having the balls to virtually demand the Bond job.
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 12,837
    I voted for Brosnan but I do like Lazenby and I think he deserved a few more films. And in real life he's a legend.
Sign In or Register to comment.