George Lazenby and Pierce Brosnan's War of Words

135678

Comments

  • edited January 2014 Posts: 7,653
    oops
  • Posts: 7,653
    NicNac wrote:
    And yet 'Poor George' was a nobody who blagged the biggest gig in the world, played Bond, bedded dozens of beauties, had the time of his life. And ever since has managed to make something of himself and I believe is still a reasonably wealthy man.

    But because he refused a contract to continue as Bond he is seen as a failure?

    Maybe he is from where Brosnan is standing, but from where I am standing George is a success.

    My thoughts exactly. He is successful BECAUSE he played Bond only once, thats what makes him stand out, like Paul McGann stands out for only playing the Doctor once!

    No comparisson as McGann has played the Doctorsince 2001 several times as year with this year a return to the visual role.

    George walked out of a franchise that could have made him a superstar, and has played knock-off parts in the various movies and delved from the popularity of his one Bond movie. He did alright milking the attention due to his one Bondmovie and has more than any other performer milked it what it is worth. Which is his perogative by the way.
    But Lazenby remains the name in the industry of a larg failure to recognise a good part and walk away.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    I'll say this. I've always admired George Lazenby, the man, much more than Pierce Brosnan, the man. One day back in 1968 Lazenby decided that he was going to be James Bond, despite the little obstacle that he wasn't even an actor. And by God he became James Bond by fooling two of the shrewdest men in show business and had them utterly convinced that he was a seasoned pro who'd worked all over the world. Fast-forward many years later and Lazenby's acting career has fizzled. Despite this he still refuses to live like anything less than a multi-millionaire so he marries a rich woman, divorces her, takes half her money, and is now presently worth well over $30 million. Say what you will about his immoral tactics but nobody, not even his haters, can deny the man knows what he wants and he goes for it. Maybe this makes me a bad person to some degree but I admire his resiliency and his flat-out refusal to allow failure to keep him down. If that makes Lazenby a failure than I hope I can be so lucky as be a "failure" too.

    And unlike Brosnan, Lazenby didn't have the luxury of starring in a TV show that for 5 years basically set him up to be the next James Bond.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    NicNac wrote:
    And yet 'Poor George' was a nobody who blagged the biggest gig in the world, played Bond, bedded dozens of beauties, had the time of his life. And ever since has managed to make something of himself and I believe is still a reasonably wealthy man.

    But because he refused a contract to continue as Bond he is seen as a failure?

    Maybe he is from where Brosnan is standing, but from where I am standing George is a success.

    My thoughts exactly. He is successful BECAUSE he played Bond only once, thats what makes him stand out, like Paul McGann stands out for only playing the Doctor once!

    The fact that he played one of the most iconic and endearing cinematic characters in history, even if only once, makes him a bigger success than 99.9% of actors in the world. Many of whom will be lucky just to make a living acting. Lazenby was the star of one of the biggest films of 1969 and will forever be a part of a legendary film franchise that endures half a century onward.
    BAIN123 wrote:
    George's story would make quite a good film in itself.

    I couldn't agree more. From a country boy living in the outback, to a used car salesman, to the highest paid male model in Europe, to James freakin Bond, to blacklisted, to trophy husband, to multimillionaire. I'd pay to see it.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    SaintMark wrote:
    NicNac wrote:
    And yet 'Poor George' was a nobody who blagged the biggest gig in the world, played Bond, bedded dozens of beauties, had the time of his life. And ever since has managed to make something of himself and I believe is still a reasonably wealthy man.

    But because he refused a contract to continue as Bond he is seen as a failure?

    Maybe he is from where Brosnan is standing, but from where I am standing George is a success.

    My thoughts exactly. He is successful BECAUSE he played Bond only once, thats what makes him stand out, like Paul McGann stands out for only playing the Doctor once!

    No comparisson as McGann has played the Doctorsince 2001 several times as year with this year a return to the visual role.

    George walked out of a franchise that could have made him a superstar, and has played knock-off parts in the various movies and delved from the popularity of his one Bond movie. He did alright milking the attention due to his one Bondmovie and has more than any other performer milked it what it is worth. Which is his perogative by the way.
    But Lazenby remains the name in the industry of a larg failure to recognise a good part and walk away.

    Officially, McGann played the Doctor once, in the Movie. Audio dramas and The Night of the Doctor are spinoffs. But hasn't McGann himself compared himself to George Lazenby?

    And I think @DoubleOhhSeven has it spot on.
  • Posts: 1,639
    Brosnans era wasn't great but it's not like he wrote the scripts......he did the best with what he was offered (and so did Walken)

    What if Laz had done all the 80s films then we never would've seen Dalton.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Lazenby is a lucky guy, milking his one turn as Bond for all it's worth. But lets face it, he didn't even make an impression in the naff TV stuff he has appeared in, that's why he has had no acting career to speak of, he just has no presence on screen, but is one performance as Bond is not terrible by any means, so give him credit for that.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Lazenby is a lucky guy, milking his one turn as Bond for all it's worth. But lets face it, he didn't even make an impression in the naff TV stuff he has appeared in, that's why he has had no acting career to speak of, he just has no presence on screen, but is one performance as Bond is not terrible by any means, so give him credit for that.

    You can't really argue with that. He's hardly set the film world on fire since Bond. Even so that doesn't take away the fact that he managed to get the one job a lot of professional actors probably couldn't.

    I don't feel sorry for him in the slightest though regarding his career. He's still gained a big following.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    Funnily enough he seemed to get a break in Peter Bogdanovitch's film Saint Jack around the late 70s. He got good reviews, and they were well deserved. For some reason, despite working with a respected director there was no apparent follow up, no more good parts in big films.
    His first post Bond film Universal Soldier wasn't too shabby apparently (not seen it) and I think I read somewhere his personal reviews were ok in that as well.

    So it's not as if he has had no breaks since OHMSS.
  • Posts: 11,189
    Universal Soldier? Is that the one with Van Damme and Dolph Lungren ;)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Quite amusing. Arguably the two worst Bond actors duelling it out with each other. I know which one I'd put my money on in a fight.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Getafix wrote:
    Quite amusing. Arguably the two worst Bond actors duelling it out with each other. I know which one I'd put my money on in a fight.

    George wouldn't harm Brozzer, his breasts aren't big enough.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    Are we talking about when both men were in their prime or the present?
  • I love both of these men, equally...though I feel Pierce did start it. You don't diss your fellow Bonds. It's just not the done thing :-)
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,568
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Universal Soldier? Is that the one with Van Damme and Dolph Lungren ;)
    George smashed their heads together and took over the film.
    :^o
  • Posts: 11,425
    I love both of these men, equally...though I feel Pierce did start it. You don't diss your fellow Bonds. It's just not the done thing :-)

    Yes, Brosnan really lacked class with his statements about OHMSS. But then he wasn't particularly polished when he became Bond. Brosnan would have been lucky if any of his films came close to being as good as OHMSS.

    He doesn't really have any excuses. I remember the rehabilitaiton of OHMSS started a long time ago - well before GE - so the fact he was trashing it in the way he did only highlights how little he knew about Bond at the time.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Was he trashing the film as a whole or was he trashing Lazenby specifically? I once saw on imdb that OHMSS is one of his least favourite Bond films but I wonder whether that might have been more due to Laz's presence.

    Laz incidentally is still widely debated. I remember going to see Barry Norman in 2008 and he recalled a story about how he jokingly suggested to Cubby that he should be the next Bond...and Cubby laughed at him (this was in 1968). Barry then said " well seeing as they picked George Lazenby they might as well have chosen me".

    (Brozza's favourites btw included FYEO...obviously...FRWL and GF so his taste isn't all bad).
  • Posts: 7,653
    [
    Officially, McGann played the Doctor once, in the Movie. Audio dramas and The Night of the Doctor are spinoffs. But hasn't McGann himself compared himself to George Lazenby?

    And I think @DoubleOhhSeven has it spot on.

    You are wrong McGann did play the Doctor twice on camera, The Night of the Doctor is NO SPIN off it is part of the official BBC range. And through TNOTD Moffat made McGanns audio-adventures part of the official lore as well.

    The difference between McGann playing the Doctor was that he never walked away from the role, it was decided that the series were not going to be produced. McGann was always willing to repeat his role.

    Lazenby did the brilliant OHMSS, were I give far more credit to Hunt who directed a brilliant movie and did so brilliantly with a poor model/actor. Hunt did all the great work in directing and editing, thus making GL look good.

    GL has since he walked away lived on the credit of his role and the money of others. His life is full of living on the credit of somebody else, which does not make him an endearing character to me. We never will know what GL's actual capabilities are as he never really showed them.
    For me he was lucky with OHMSS with the cast around him, they were great and have proven that, and one of the great Directors and innovators of EONs past, mr Hunt. I think it is a shame hen ever got to direct a 2nd 007 movie.

  • Posts: 232
    I think it's very easy to dismiss Lazenby as the guy who made some bad choices concerning the Bond role. But in all seriousness, no-one (and I mean no-one outside Lazenby) knows the amount of pressure a newcomer actor must have faced replacing the ridiculously popular Connery. I'm not sure any of the future Bond actors could have handled that kind of pressure. I'm not suggesting that Lazenby was a saint on set, but I think the producers shoulder some of the responsibility in transitioning a total unknown into the coveted role. Though Lazenby is accused of ego driven behavior, I'm not sure the producers had any less of an ego, I mean they probably could have lured Connery back, had they not been so money hungry with the franchise (something that rankles Connery to this day). Lazenby was absolutely amazing in OHMSS, but it's too easy to dismiss his acting as wooden or lacking charisma comparing him to Connery, who had 5 mega hit films. OHMSS is a winner because of all that was involved, not just because of Hunt's direction. Looking at the contenders that were up for the role, this film would not necessarily have been as wonderful with another actor. Lazenby gives a more human and realistic performance that rivals Dalton and Craig in my opinion. Having worked a salesman and a model, I'm sure Lazenby knew how to work as a professional, but I think in adapting to the Bond character, Lazenby took his method a bit too far and drove some of the crew crazy. In terms of Diana Rigg, I think she was just sour that Lazenby was playing the field on the set. As much as I like Brosnan, he still never had a film as good as OHMSS, though Goldeneye comes closest.
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    SaintMark wrote:
    [
    Officially, McGann played the Doctor once, in the Movie. Audio dramas and The Night of the Doctor are spinoffs. But hasn't McGann himself compared himself to George Lazenby?

    And I think @DoubleOhhSeven has it spot on.

    You are wrong McGann did play the Doctor twice on camera, The Night of the Doctor is NO SPIN off it is part of the official BBC range. And through TNOTD Moffat made McGanns audio-adventures part of the official lore as well.

    The difference between McGann playing the Doctor was that he never walked away from the role, it was decided that the series were not going to be produced. McGann was always willing to repeat his role.

    Lazenby did the brilliant OHMSS, were I give far more credit to Hunt who directed a brilliant movie and did so brilliantly with a poor model/actor. Hunt did all the great work in directing and editing, thus making GL look good.

    GL has since he walked away lived on the credit of his role and the money of others. His life is full of living on the credit of somebody else, which does not make him an endearing character to me. We never will know what GL's actual capabilities are as he never really showed them.
    For me he was lucky with OHMSS with the cast around him, they were great and have proven that, and one of the great Directors and innovators of EONs past, mr Hunt. I think it is a shame hen ever got to direct a 2nd 007 movie.

    According to multiple sources, The Night of the Doctor is a supplemental episode of Series 7. Like most things released officially by the BBC, we have to accept it into Who canon, but in terms of what makes something a full length episode, TNotD is not. In your theory, we would have to count Good as Gold and the Pond Life as part of Series 7, or the comic relief shorts as official episodes. But that's beside the point.

    I think George and Paul in the respect that if you were to ask a member of the public to name an actor who as played James Bond and an actor who has played Doctor Who, I think it is safe to say that their name would very rarely appear .

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote:
    Quite amusing. Arguably the two worst Bond actors duelling it out with each other. I know which one I'd put my money on in a fight.

    That conjures uo some funny mental images.
    Pierce: "He knew exactly where to huuurt Me!"

    Relax, Brosnan fans. Just kidding here.
  • And yes Brosnon is easily the most effeminate Bond. Ironically Craig Ferguson even joked about that when it was first announced that Brosnan wouldn't be reprising his role by saying "Pierce is a nice guy. Really a nice guy. But let's face it even I could kick his ass. He looks like he moisterizes". But it was in good fun though.

    It's funny because for me, Brosnan was the first Bond where I thought, "Oh yeah, this guy has been trained, huh?" Maybe it was all the running, or the opening of his first two flicks where he's like a super-soldier, or that I grew up watching Moore get too old for the part, but Brosnan was the actor that made me think of Bond as a highly trained individual, which they've since taken further with Craig. (Which has nothing to do with Brosnan vs Lazenby, sorry.)

  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    And yes Brosnon is easily the most effeminate Bond. Ironically Craig Ferguson even joked about that when it was first announced that Brosnan wouldn't be reprising his role by saying "Pierce is a nice guy. Really a nice guy. But let's face it even I could kick his ass. He looks like he moisterizes". But it was in good fun though.

    It's funny because for me, Brosnan was the first Bond where I thought, "Oh yeah, this guy has been trained, huh?" Maybe it was all the running, or the opening of his first two flicks where he's like a super-soldier, or that I grew up watching Moore get too old for the part, but Brosnan was the actor that made me think of Bond as a highly trained individual, which they've since taken further with Craig. (Which has nothing to do with Brosnan vs Lazenby, sorry.)

    I get that but, the more I see the opening of TLD, the more I wonder whether Dalton showed that even more. Brosnan was fine though.
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,425
    The PTS of TLD is a classic. Blows the socks off any of the Brozza openers.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Universal Soldier? Is that the one with Van Damme and Dolph Lungren ;)
    Nope ;)
    http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/02/26/universal-soldier-1971-review.aspx
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 11,189
    Getafix wrote:
    The PTS of TLD is a classic. Blows the socks off any of the Brozza openers.

    I really like the opening of TLD even if I still feel a little iffy about the very last bit.

    That said GE's is very good too. Everytime I hear a squeaky cage or trolly wheel at work (in a supermarket) I think of it.
  • Posts: 7,653

    I think George and Paul in the respect that if you were to ask a member of the public to name an actor who as played James Bond and an actor who has played Doctor Who, I think it is safe to say that their name would very rarely appear .

    I think in the case of Doctor WHo I fear more classic Doctors would not easily be recognised by the general audience with the exception of TOM BAKER.

    I think personaly that Hunt did great work to make Lazenby look as good.

  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    edited January 2014 Posts: 5,080
    SaintMark wrote:

    I think George and Paul in the respect that if you were to ask a member of the public to name an actor who as played James Bond and an actor who has played Doctor Who, I think it is safe to say that their name would very rarely appear .

    I think in the case of Doctor WHo I fear more classic Doctors would not easily be recognised by the general audience with the exception of TOM BAKER.

    I think personaly that Hunt did great work to make Lazenby look as good.

    Hunt did a great job, but I'm not all to fussed with the costume department (that kilt! Or the blue ski suit for that matter, though that can be forgiven for 1969!).
  • edited January 2014 Posts: 1,778
    And yes Brosnon is easily the most effeminate Bond. Ironically Craig Ferguson even joked about that when it was first announced that Brosnan wouldn't be reprising his role by saying "Pierce is a nice guy. Really a nice guy. But let's face it even I could kick his ass. He looks like he moisterizes". But it was in good fun though.

    It's funny because for me, Brosnan was the first Bond where I thought, "Oh yeah, this guy has been trained, huh?" Maybe it was all the running, or the opening of his first two flicks where he's like a super-soldier, or that I grew up watching Moore get too old for the part, but Brosnan was the actor that made me think of Bond as a highly trained individual, which they've since taken further with Craig. (Which has nothing to do with Brosnan vs Lazenby, sorry.)

    Really? You got that impression with Brosnan more than Connery, Lazenby, and to a lesser extent Dalton? The only actor that seemed softer in his physical scenes was Moore and that's because he was 1000 years old towards the end (however as a young man Moore both served in the British military and was briefly a police officer so don't count him out). I think in general Brosnan, the actor, is probably the least manly of all 6 men to have played Bond.
    pachazo wrote:
    Are we talking about when both men were in their prime or the present?

    Honestly I believe Lazenby at 70 could kick Brosnan's ass at any period of his life. Lazenby has an extensive martial arts background (supposedly trained by Bruce Lee), grew up fighting in Australia so he knows how to take a punch (an invaluable part of being in a fight) and is physically just bigger and more imposing than Brosnan. The fight would consist of two hits. Laz hitting Brosnan and Brosnan hitting the floor. Lazenby is just more of a man than everyone's favorite Lorreal Moisturizer spokesman.
  • Bradford4Bradford4 Banned
    Posts: 152
    Doubtful... with his recent problems there would probably be two hits. Laz hitting the whiskey bottle, and Laz hitting his wife.
Sign In or Register to comment.