Even Lazenby said. . .
zebond
DolletPosts: 103MI6 Agent
I was arguing with my friend the other day (nothing new between us) about OHMSS. I was arguing for it, him against it. One of his last defenses was, "Even Lazenby said that movie sucked." This struck me for a moment, for I had never heard him say that. i have only seen one interview with Lazenby so I'm not one hundred percent sure he didn't say it, but I just didn't know.
Did he ever say this? Was he just giving in to some reporter who was coming across as if OHMSS was terrible? I suppose it would be rather ironic if OHMSS had so many followers (myself included) while the actor himself didn't feel the film was good.
Did he ever say this? Was he just giving in to some reporter who was coming across as if OHMSS was terrible? I suppose it would be rather ironic if OHMSS had so many followers (myself included) while the actor himself didn't feel the film was good.
"Guns make me nervous!"
Comments
I minored in film studies in college, and the jackasses in those classes usually hated all bond movies except for OHMSS.
If he did say anything like that I'm sure it wasn't those words - he might have said something along the lines of how it could have been better, like I said I'm just not sure.
Loved him as Bond, dumb as a post in real life apparently.
Lazenby was young,immature and unprofessional when he announced that he was leaving the Bond role less than halfway through the production of OHMSS--this is something he's come to acknowledge.He's pretty hard on himself in the "Making of" documentary on the OHMSS DVD.He doesn't treat himself with kid gloves.
Another thing to think about--at the time Lazenby became 007, only one other man had played the part before him and Sean Connery was so strongly associated with 007 that he was still seen as the ONLY James Bond.Finding a second 007 was very difficult for Eon.I submit that anyone--regardless of his acting experience(and let's remember that at that time Lazenby had had no formal acting training)-- would've found himself very uncomfortable taking over from the most popular actor in the world.
As far as I know,Lazenby's never said that that he thought OHMSS "sucked".In fact,he's said quite the opposite--he's proud to have been involved in this motion picture.Granted, some people don't like this movie because Lazenby isn't Connery and also because the film has a tragic ending.This was especially true in 1969.Even today,people sometimes tend to dismiss OHMSS altogether--which is unfortunate.There've been people who've never even seen this film who've announced that it's somehow "bad".That's their choice to make,of course but it does seem unusually unfair--surely they should at least see it before judging it's qualities.
Only a few minor alterations were made to the OHMSS storyline from the source novel by Eon screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven making it as close an adaptation of Ian Fleming on the screen as From Russia With Love is, and considerably truer to Ian Fleming than the current Casino Royale.
Lazenby's suggested in recent years that perhaps it would've been a better idea for Eon to have introduced a new 007 actor--particularly the one following Sean Connery-- in a movie with a more traditional storyline(including the happy ending) and then once the new actor was established in the part, do OHMSS: which suddenly goes into a radically different direction from what audiences had come to expect.This,I think, makes a lot of sense,but then again,hindsight is always 20/20 for everyone.:)
I'm not particularly an admirer of the diva tendencies that he displayed during filming, but at least he had the strength to stand by his convictions. Hell, Connery was Bond. How was he supposed to know fanatical fans would be dissecting every aspect of the franchise 40 odd years later on the "internet."
All this perfect hindsight on our behalf is amusing. My favorite is the despondent cry that, "Dr. No's use of the Bond theme is ill timed!" As if it was made with 19 more in mind.
Not me.I always thought Connery brought plenty of humanity to the role.Merely because "Big Tam" Connery didn't play Bond in OHMSS doesn't mean that he couldn't have done it and done it very well, indeed.
Let's remember that Sean Connery was originally announced for this film and was actually looking forward to doing OHMSS--only bizarre weather conditions in Switzerland in 1966 cancelled that plan, forcing Eon to make the far inferior You Only Live Twice(an adaptation in name and locale only)of the final book in Fleming's "Blofeld Trilogy" (and the sequel to OHMSS).
I think seeing Connery, the man who always won the day,tragically lose the one woman he loved on the screen, would've had considerably more dramatic and emotional power than seeing a similar event happen with another man brand new to the series-- with no background in the role up until that film.
In my perfect world,Connery would've starred in the complete "Blofeld Trilogy"(Thunderball,OHMSS and You Only Live Twice)--as Eon had originally intended--and remained as 007 until after finishing You Only Live Twice :but this time around YOLT being a considerably more faithful to the Fleming novel film, with Bond finding Blofeld and taking his revenge on the man who murdered his wife.No volcano hideout,no space capsule swallowing rocketship,no gadgets for 007,and no diminutive and disappointing actor as Blofeld.Virtually none of the silly stuff that made up that movie.
Then Lazenby(or someone else with more acting experience)would debut in the following movie as Bond#2 in a more traditional storyline-as once Lazenby suggested many years later,and mentions in the OHMSS documentary.Asking audiences to accept a new actor as 007 and also asking them to see him fall in love and lose his wife--all in the same movie, proved to be too much to accept from the average filmgoer in 1969.Apparently it's still a lot to take in for some folks today.They'd rather just call OHMSS a "bad" film because it departs from the general formula.
And before anyone says that Connery can't play any emotional moments on the screen--especially in regards to the woman he loves-- check him out in The Molly Maguires and in Robin and Marion.He does that just fine.:)
That said,what's done is done and Lazenby's very good as 007,and he can be proud of his performance.And there was no guarantee that the series was going to survive into the 1970s,so although Lazenby was clearly ill-advised at the time, it may've really seemed like the most salient advice around.In order to suit the times the 007 series had to undergo several important alterations in it's contents and style to make it to the 21st century.Who knew it would last so long?I doubt even Eon could be sure of their series' future.
This has always been my view, I respect Lazenby of today for standing up and admitting his youthful ego. I have gained a greater appreciation with that dvd interview about 6 years ago.
Maybe Lazenby once mentioned his displeasure with OHMSS, maybe later he learned how good it actually is. Maybe he had time to contemplate. That just makes good old George human, like the rest of us. {[]
Absolutely true.
Well, I wouldn't go that far.
EON (or UA?) was asking for a seven picture committment, that's like 14 years minimum? Kinda a ridiculous expectation. Seems the only person in their right mind back then was Hunt--thank God! So many things about OHMSS make it a singular and exceptional Bond film, including Lazenby. Too bad all parties concerned couldn't have come to a different arrangement...would've been great to see George as Bond in a couple more.
Nice to hear George call himself stupid, words to that effect, for walking away from Bond like he did...;)
That makes two of us,Dan.I wouldn't necessarily call George's performance "dreadful",but OHMSS really wasn't--in my opinion--the right motion picture for him to make his debut as 007 in.I respect George's courage in following Connery but because there was so much history connected to the OHMSSstoryline, this was the wrong film for Lazenby.He was a last minute choice after Connery--who had originally been announced as the 007 of OHMSS-- made it clear to EON that he was leaving the series.
People sometimes say that Connery is too self assured on screen,but as you point out,and I wholeheartedly agree,he displays plenty of range in his first four 007 movies.Connery has very expressive features and is anything but "robotic".Had circumstances been different and all the stars aligned,I have no doubt that Big Tam would have acquited himself well in OHMSS.This film's unique storyline presented a great opportunity for the actor who played 007, and I'll always think Connery would have happily risen to the challenge and given us one of his finest performances as James Bond.And again,had circumstances been different,I think he'd have also given us an equally memorable performance in a closer to Ian Fleming adaptation of You Only Live Twice,especially opposite a Blofeld played by a serious Savalas--or since we're playing make believe--Christopher Lee or Jack Palance.Just imagine Connery mercilessly hunting down his wife's killers and discovering that the trail to Blofeld leads to a mysterious island off the coast of Japan and to a sinister castle inhabited by a certain "Dr.Shatterhand"...:)
That said,I'm sure George did his very best with everything being equal,and IMO it's a good performance overall; but the pressure for a rookie actor to at least match Connery, had to have been enormous.And once Lazenby announced--less than halfway through the production(a mark of unprofessional behavior that turned the director against him) that he was quitting 007--Cubby cut Lazenby off completely.
For all intents and purposes Lazenby barely existed.The posters and the ads talked about James Bond starring in OHMSS with little if any mention of George Lazenby's name.No effort was made to promote Lazenby at all.
Cubby never again attempted to create a Bond star from a unknown actor, and I think that's too bad.
Had circumstances been different and had he been sufficiently motivated, Sean Connery would have acquitted himself very well in OHMSS. In fact, he may well have given his best performance as James Bond. I think he would have handled the emotional aspects well and be convincing at the same time.
I do agree with Gavin. Lazenby wasn't promoted enough. But at the same time, I think Cubby was right to never cast an unknown again. Lazenby was overwhelmed by the fame, the fawning girls and the lavish lifestyle, whereas the other actors had more experience and were more stable.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Here is the supreme proof for your idiocy. Can't even count to 8
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Hehehe. I've read so many of his resurrected Lazenby threads in the last half hour, they've all blurred into one. It's a tad annoying and pointless. Seems a desperate attempt to boost a post count easily and quickly. I noticed it when he joined and it has gotten worse, knocking recent and more relevant posts down the page and reducing their chances of being read 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Boo hooo
<Still from actual Bond movie removed. You know the rules! Barbel>
the moronic-looking guy on the right - is that you?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I want today to be the day of Lazenby. Today is the special day where we acknowledge the most obscure of the 6 actors. It's kind of odd because the Bond actor is a rare prestigious role. He got it on luck and he didn't last long, but he's still 1/6 of the Bond experience.
I agree doing it all at once was a bad idea. I should've spread it out more. Sorry.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Be careful what you wish for.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)