Lazenby contract/Moore tenure

Andy007

I have read into Lazenby's route to Bond in detail & seen OHMSS documentary as to how he was cast.
It's a unique story really. But i can't remember how he was allowed to do 1 film only ithot being tied down to more. We know that the producers had a long contract ready (some sources state a 7-film contract). I can't understand how Cubby let this happen. Lazenby being unknown might have reduced the urgency as he wasn't a star then, but it was naive or disorganised to let him play the film without him signed up.

My other point is that does anyone feel that Lazenby's supposed failure as Bond perhaps helped Moore to be accepted more by the public. Connery was so big, that anyone would have struggled to fill his shoes. Moore had the charm & charisma, but i can't help but think he was accepted quite easily despite being so different to Connery. The truth is I find it hard to believe that audiences would rate LALD and TMWGG anywhere if released now. At this point people hadn't seen the excellent TSWLM and FYEO or MR & OP for that matter. The truth is that DAF effectively introduced the style to Moore's tenure. I think in this sense Moore was accepted too easily, compared to Dalton for example who got stuck in & made Bond serious from the start, but TLD & LTK followed on from AVTAK & OP. General fans seemed reluctant to accept this change. Yet DAF effectively opens the door for Moore because of it's camp/humour style. Now i know that DAF & LALD were both big hits in their day. Maybe this was what 70's audiences wanted. (i wasn't around) but in hindsight DAF to TMWGG are the low point of the Bond series & i think it's a shame they went down that route. But with OHMSS and 1 outing for Lazenby the continuity of the series had already been broken and this worked in Moore's favour.
I would like to point out that i do not dislike Moore by any means. I enjoy the majority of his films & rate most of them highly. For me he improves as his tenure goes on. His performances in TSWLM, FYEO & OP are excellent. i think he does well in MR but appears too old in AVTAK. I just think his first 2 films are poor by Bond standards & LALD i think is his weakest performance as Bond. LALD was a tough gritty story and Moore did not portray this - although he did in later films FYEO for example. Dalton however made a great impact in just 2 films -he truly was an impressive Bond but didn't get the praise from general audiences.

Napoleon Plural

I agree that Lazenby's failure made it easier for Moore, as he was well known to audiences. That said, he seems very arch in the role compared to The Saint, almost quite painful on recent viewing. But I think that might have been lost on the younger public, who would have lapped up the set pieces and stunts, something OHMSS lacks for most of the first half.

I suppose you can argue Lazenby got sacked, and both sides have been covering this up for their respective reasons (Lazenby: I quit, didn't get fired, EON: We're not bad guys, he chose to walk...) but yes, if they did make a mistake then it was rectified with Moore who got locked into three films, though they could get rid of him.

chrisno1

Interesting points made by both. I don't have much to disagree with and concur that DAF is a "pre-Moore" movie. This is on the basis that DAF and the first two Moore movies are mainly scripted by Tom Mankiewicz, whose style leant towards parody and a little slapstick rather than irony. I also think the relative seriousness of OHMSS (ie: no huge sets and fantastic stunts a la YOLT, TB and GF) meant the producers highlighted this angle, which helped paper ove rthe cracks in Roger's portrayal. Had Lazenby been starred in DAF I genuinely think he's have handled the proceedings almost as well as Connery, who fairly breezes his way throught he movie anyway. Suggesting an audience gets "unhooked" from an actor in a role is entirely true. It's happened throughout movie and TV history (think Tarzan, Marlowe, The Saint, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, Poirot) and audiences, having adjusted to one change, will quite easily accept another. Its importnat to realise however that LALD and TMWTGG were both very successful films and compared to other thrillers of the time retained 007s penchant for outlandish entertainment which was suitable pretty much for the whole family. Compared to many movies of the time (eg Death Wish, Prime Cut, French Connection, Black Windmill, Get Carter, The Parralax View, etc ect) they are rather enjoyable, and unthreatening. Their very palatability is what made them so successful, there simply wasn't much product around like it in the early seventies. In the '80s when Moore was on the wane, this family entertainment malarky wasn't nearly so important and a harder edge would have benefitted Bond. FYEO shows this, as do both Dalton films. Sadly I think Dalton's tenure and portrayal came 4 years too late.
In terms of a contract, I always understood that Lazenby was in a 7 picture deal, but I don't know the details of the contract. Connery was offered such a deal at the start of DN, but was released from his obligations after TB, Eon gambled on retaining their prize asset film by film, if the price was right. Too many different versions of the tale are told of why Lazenby walked out, which suggests it was a host of things. I personally think his ego got the better of him; some bad advice probably fostered his belief he was bigger than Bond. It didn't hep that OHMSS suffered mixed box office compared to the previous 3 movies. Getting Connery, and then investing in a bankable popular TV star like Moore, proves the cash cow is ultimately king.

aja007

Let's not forget it was rumoured that OHMSS was scripted for Moore but, due to his contract with Lew Grade/ATV, was unable to take the 007 role at that time.

The Domino Effect

Many years ago, Lois Maxwell told me that Lazenby turned down the longer contract and pushed for a one-film deal because he believed that OHMSS would be so successful that he would be able to negotiate more money for subsequent films afterwards.