Robert Vaughn interview - Later with Bob Costas

On tonight's episode, Bob Costas is played by Matt Lauer (unfortunately).

[@thefurrybastard1964]

What a loss it was when he passed.

[@jennifersman7990]

Good interview, one story about Vaughan’s friendship with RFK was that while Bobby was planning his presidential campaign he tried to get Vaughan to run for Congress from California in 1969 and if he did, Bobby promised he’d get the full support of the Kennedy’s

[@akca00]

Really enjoy Robert's memoir!! He was an unusually gifted person.

[@indieshack4476]

This. Just been reading it too, he was a good writer and had a great number of notable memories to share.

[@AndrewHeller-jn7dx]

Yes!; fully agreed!

[@cathleanjohnson675]

RiP Robert. forever our Napoleón Solo.

[@lisashapiro4714]

Big loss. Watched him always on our TV sets at home. Older guy crush 😅

[@lazyhazeldaisy9596]

That was a very interesting interview, the interviewer actually asking some good questions and kept it moving, Robert was a very wonderful actor he certainly took a massive risk at the height of his fame to speak out about the Vietnam War and he got away with it, that took a lot of guts!

[@TrumbullComic]

What a cool, articulate guy. You can tell he thinks deeply about a lot of subjects. I didn't realize that Vaughn rocked the Hunt Stockwell tinted sunglasses in real life, too.

[@darrelmorgan6266]

Robert Vaughn wasn't your 'typical' actor/celebrity. This was a very intelligent, obviously well read man. Anyone who hasn't watched it, I highly recommend his debate with William F. Buckley from 1967. Whatever side of his arguments one might agree or disagree with in that debate, I don't think any honest person could say he didn't know his stuff so to speak. Very sharp guy. As an aside, Robert wasn't going to ever in a million years be able to take down Jack Palance in real life lol. Jack was a genuinely strong tough guy who had been a boxer and had hands a big as your head. The only other actor who I've read kind of manhandled Jack was Robert Mitchum during a fight scene in Second Chance from 1953. Supposedly Mitchum had been warned by stuntmen that Jack would take real swings at you so be careful. Jack swung hard at Mitchum, Mitchum ducked and crashed a hard shot to Jack's gut and Jack proceeded to puke all over.

[@revrotunda3206]

Damn, Lauer was young here. The description doesn’t say what year this interview w/Robert Vaughn is. Interesting that The Beatles liked The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Used to be both in the Man from U.N.C.L.E. & Beatle fan clubs when I was young. Do they even have fan clubs anymore?! Luved this show!

[@leticiamambrin1227]

Thank you for sharing this! I will always love that beautiful person ❤️

[@lisashapiro4714]

Get me Robert Vaughn 😊

[@bellavia5]

I don't think that "opposition to the Vietnam war" was an opposition to the war in and of itself. It was an opposition to continue to fight a war that had been deemed futile in terms of the chances of winning it. After the Tet Offensive it became clear that North Vietnamese military leadership was not a bunch of backward swamp dwellers. In concert with this Walter Cronkite announced that "the odds of winning the war were remote". Further -Americans GI's were returning from Vietnam and disclosing the horror(s) of fighting the war. It was a jungle . Infested with insects. Tigers and pythons everywhere. The enemy could not be found . Bombing the place was futile because the North Vietnamese were hiding out in underground tunnels that shielded them from the bombs. (which is why Agent Orange was introduced). In short -the only way the North Vietnamese would be defeated was to do what was done in Japan.

[@chrischeshire6528]

His first girlfriend was Natalie Wood, who let him drive her pink 1957 Thunderbird around Hollywood.

[@AndrewHeller-jn7dx]

I like much the info Mr. Vaughn relayed here; but, I so very much strongly feel that: substitute host: Matt Lauer, who was here filling in for the then, usual host Bob Costas, had such an offensive lack of being fully prepared; -->>without: thickly-researched; newly inspired; and, fresh questions; to cover areas, that would be much more rich in their dimensions; &, go far further in-depth; adding numerous additional comprehensions of his own; borne out by, his having done, more extensive pre-interview research. Instead what we got was his grossly: Un-Imaginative; Un-Creative; presentation, of ho-hum, lame materials, which are, at the base core-level, fairly obvious; is greatly disappointing. Very sadly, much of what was, already previously well-known info, being the only ground the interviewer chose to go over; made for: a, greatly far worse, fairly standard, broadcast-interview endeavor; and, the outcome, ended up becoming, in my opinions, a, very pseudo-journalistic piece!

[@bellavia5]

The guy is a TV interviewer. What do you expect ?

[@AndrewHeller-jn7dx]

@@bellavia5 In reply: vastly more than Lauer gave!!

[@bellavia5]

@@AndrewHeller-jn7dx You must be unfamiliar with the reality of network television and the people who work in it. They are known for being " thickly , freshly, dimensional, in depth (not sure a hyphen is required) , creative ". etc. TV is a medium designed to operate at around the competence level of a 9th grader. GET REAL.

[@AndrewHeller-jn7dx]

@bellavia5 I am in fact, quite familiar with the historical content material offered on broadcasted television; yet, I do have to highly agree with you, that: ->tragically, nearly all the television content designers aim for, is that which appeals to a, low-i.q. demographic consumer. However, it does not need to; &, does not have to, do that! Early in the history of tv, it did not exclusively do that. I always hold out hope that it will return to having ambitions set far much higher, than the very sad realities, you truthfully refer to. I can think of many times, where tv as a whole has strode higher. They don't seem to need to (all), be listed here; but, they have existed before this show was aired; &, they sometimes still do, get air-time. I hope such aspirations; &, ambitions, will resurface; &, we will see more ascension to higher, greater quality content; &, less pandering to the waste heaps of general cultural situationals. Lastly, I just want to note, that you need not be so aggressive, combative, hotly angered, hostile, anti-social; &, personally negative in your attacks against me, if you truly object to objective principles here; &, not me, subjectively; in the tone of your own messages to me. I ->can hear you as an equal; &, there is ->no need to be competitive adversaries; nor, enemies; &, neither is there any cause to speak w/: such anger-imbued: verbally: "red empassioned"; &, darkly-barbed, "murderously-violent", linguistic harangues; which have -Nothing >at >all; to do w/: me!!. Thus, it's a very fair conclusion you have some issues, serious enough for you to take a serious look at them; and, to: [PLEASE]: get them, both: positively addressed; and, resolved!

[@bellavia5]

@@AndrewHeller-jn7dx I would venture that you are an idealist -a young one at that. You're perspective reminds me of the recent story of an artist (in San Francisco I think) who left a statuette combined with some shredded material in a public square and then was dismayed that is was set afire. This is a person who is out of touch with what is going on "on the ground "in this country Your articulation and intelligence gives sway to a lack of an understanding and naivete' concerning the mindset of TV producers.