MovieChat Forums > Live and Let Die (1973) Discussion > Who Would Have Preferred Lazenby To Come...

Who Would Have Preferred Lazenby To Come Back For This One?


I was just wanting other peoples opinions on this. I am not sure why he only did one movie, as many people say he would have been apprecaited a lot more if he did a couple more.

But after watching OHMSS again. I have to say he was excellent in this. And when people always wonder how OHMSS would be with Connery. I always wonder how some of Moore's poorer films would have been if Lazenby had came back.

Moonraker being the worst. It is extremelly camp and should have been called Carry On Bond IMO.

And i doubt the series would have went down that rediculous childish humour if Moore wasnt bond.

Whats anyone elses take on this thought.

Thanks

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

afcsal

I completely agree with your opinion about Dalton. IMHO, he IS the best Bond ever, the Bond from Fleming's novels. Most people probably hates License to Kill, but I think it's one of the 5 best Bond movies (with Thunderball, OHMSS, For Your Eyes Only and Living Daylights). Here, we have a HUMAN Bond. He gets hurt and bleed, he's not perfect, he don't do weird things like we see in all of Brosnan movies. To bad Dalton only make two films. I expect Craig make a serious job in Casino Royale.

"We only give her two seconds of pain, while girls like her give us eighteen years of pain."

reply

Dalton is the best bond ever? You mean the Dalton who did that prissy little dive from the b'low decks platform when he and Carey Lowell (Pam Bouvier) are hiding the money? That prissy little dive made him look like a pansy. It's a good thing he resigned from the series.

reply

Moore all the way!

reply

Roore Moore was a perfect fit for the movies in which he appeared.
The crappiest movies of the series required the crappiest actor to portray James Bond.
It was a match made in heaven.

reply

Would have been interesting to see Lazenby get another chance, but let's face it he is no actor, though it wouldn't have hurt this film, which I consider the third worst Bond after The Man With the Golden Gun and that scandal of a film, Die Another Day.

reply

The Bond-franchise hadn't have any chance if Lazenby had continued for the role as Bond!
Don't misunderstand. I'm one of these people who don't hate Lazenby and like "OHMSS", but Sir Roger gave the franchise new life with a different performance of James Bond.

reply

I think that he would have matured as Bond after a few films and on recently re watchiong ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, I think he was better than most give him credit for.

However, Roger Moore made an excellent Bond as is still my second favorite, after Connery of course.

filmmakeracf

reply

I didn't care for George Lazenby, it wasn't horrible but I just think Sean Connery and Roger Moore make for much more fun Bonds. Lazenby felt like I was watching some sort of weird soap opera.

reply

Lazenby was the worst bond ever without question.
Even timothy dalton makes him look like garbage.

reply

No. Woody Allen in the first Casino Royale was EASILY the worst fucking Bond of all time. Moore, in all his effeminacy, was the second worst.

reply

If Lazenby had been in it, it would have been a totally different film, could be good or band. I find that Moore as bonds its all a joke, and that could be good or bad.

Happyness isn't happyness without a violin playing goat

reply

I've always said thank goodness he did not return for this movie. I did see OHMSS twice in the mid 1980s and liked it allright, and thought he was allright in the role. But I have always been aware that this was Roger Moore's debut as James Bond, and it enabled him to play the role for seven movies over 12 years. Those 7 movies are my #1, #2, #3, and #11, #12, #13, and #14, favorites of all time, and the character of James Bond, as potrayed by Roger Moore is my definite favorite ficticious character of all time, and my true cinematic hero. I was aware that he did play the role very comedic, and with an overt sense of humor, but I don't think it became ridiculous childish humor, just very comedic at times. And this movie is #11 on the list I mentioned. I saw it some on ABC TV in the early-mid 1980s, then got it on tape in December, 1985 when our relatives gave us some movies as Christmas presents that year (I also ironically got View to a Kill, his last Bond movie, then). But I watched it alot on this tape from then until 1996 when we moved. And I also watched it on the night of Wednesday, January 20, 1988 at the front desk of my dormitory in college (middle of my sophmore year), when I was there for the work study job I had for two years. It was the only non sporting event I ever watched there, but it was on ABC that night from 8:30 to 11 p.m., and I took this opportunity to watch it while sitting there. I've often thought since that this was a very religious, conservative college, and they would not have approved of James bond's womanizing, which is cemented in his first scene in it, as he's in bed with the Italian agent (but it was my mistake to be there anyway). But I thought the movie was very exciting, with great use of the multiple locations, especially in Louisiana. The three murders of the British agents set it up well, and it continues on until its climax on the train, with the very exciting fight between Bond and the steel armed Tee Hee. And I really liked the opening scene after the teaser I mentioned in his apartment-though I don't understand why he felt he had to hide her from M when he arrived (M, as everyone, knew he was an incessant womanizer). And for Roger Moore's debut, I did think that was the perfect way to establish this. And I also thought his main relationship with Solataire was good as well (though it did seem secondary to the action and battles in the movie).

"I happen to be a vegetarian". Lex, from Jurrasic Park

reply

This is Roger Moore's movie, its fine the way it is.

reply

Actually Octopussy is by far the worst Moore one - not Moonraker.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

OHMSS is my third favourite Bond movie in the franchise, probably the most underrated (for what it's worth LALD comes in second after The Man with the golden Gun). Lazenby wasn't a brilliant Bond but he wasn't that bad (but he was still the worst). If he had been given more of a chance to succeed he would have been fine though. I liked Lazenby because unlike Connery and Moore his action sequences actually looked half real, like it was a real fight. He was also quite tough and didn't rely too heavily upon gadgets (my problem with Brosnan). My problem with Lazenby however was that he wasn't British. If you concentrate carefully you can notice little accent slip ups but thats not my problem (they're pretty minor). It was his walk that gave him away. He walked like and Aussie and not like a British James Bond. If he had been given more time though, I believe that he could have been a fine James Bond.

Who Has Two Thumbs And Doesn't Give a Crap

reply