It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Absolutely this. My dream PTS for Bond 26.
Just you wait . . .
Jesus, I bet you're fun at parties.
I was having a little joke mate. I'll try and use a smiley next time.
It’s not possible to know tone or humour unless it’s specified in a post on the internet.
I’m sure no harm was meant.
I can't believe that someone would read what I wrote below, and not see it was meant light-heartedly.
I was sitting with my dog, having a cup of coffee, skimming through comments…
Yours stood out to me, I commented, I moved on, not giving it another thought until I saw you took offence.
This really isn’t anything beyond that.
Thanks, @Venutius
It's one of my dream PTS too.
I think you're stretching it a bit. Yes technically Bond was "hidden", but when he does show up it's rather mundane. I really don't see a "fake" Bond in either LALD or TSWLM (did you mean FRWL?)
Although Michael Billington was a hair away from actually playing Bond, which I find interesting.
As for the question, I could go for another dramatic reveal.
Whether one likes Moore's introduction or not, it very much sets the tone for his interpretation of the character - that's to say a bit lighter, more tongue in cheek, but ultimately still a version of James Bond. I'd argue Craig's introduction isn't a million miles away from Moore's in the sense that we're introduced to him relatively quickly in a 'hit the ground running' manner. Again though, the whole PTS perfectly establishes his Bond as a much more brutal, down to earth operative. Something like Brosnan's introduction has a much more elaborate build up but subverts expectations slightly by having the face reveal in a bathroom stall with a cheeky one liner (it very much hammers home the idea that Brosnan's Bond is a mixture of both those lighter and more brutal interpretations of the character). Dalton's introduction too subverts expectations by showing the deaths of other vaguely Bondian looking agents before his reveal and subsequent stunt (which showcases his physicality, which of course probably instantly separated him from Moore's Bond).
In this sense it really depends on how the reveal is done, not necessarily whether it's a quick or slow one. I think we'll get a slow reveal which subverts expectations though.
Okay on to another would you rather:
Would you rather share a disappointing Brandy with Col Smithers OR a Sherry with Sir Donald?
I miss the days of briefings and exposition delivered in a social setting. DAF and GF have two that always delight. Yes it's a bit stodgy and I doubt it would play to today's audiences but it's a great way to highlight some character and character interactions.
We have the briefing in GF with Brandy and cigars. Men being men around a rather eloquent dining room table. One can assume that the dinner was top notch and we have three men wearing tuxedos around the table with gold bars being thrown around.
We have the briefing in DAF with suits and sherry. Sir Donald seems a bit extra and delights in telling us about the security of the diamond mines in South Africa. M looks exasperated at times. Briefing is in the daytime!
So who would you rather share a drink with and get briefed on the mission?
Yes, indeed he does. (And I didn't even need to watch your video clip for that.)
Interesting perspective @007HallY . Personally, I think they channeled a lot of Sean Connery's intro into Moore's: a first scene where Bond is noticeably absent, then an introduction in a mundane, non violent environment, where we know him as a character rather than a function. Although I prefer Connery's, I do like Moore's introduction and I find it fitting.
Interesting observation too @Ludovico
I suppose there's a sense they reverted to the broad formula of the introduction from DN (not showing Bond initially and instead setting up the inciting incidents for Bond's mission). But compared to Lazenby's introduction they definitely tried to downplay that reveal, and I think it was to have Moore hit the ground running while playing to his strengths. I'd also say that while DN introduces Bond in that non-violent environment, it's an inherently stylised and, when you think about it, somewhat daft situation that's played straight. It's seemingly about four o clock in the morning when Bond is called in and he's presumably been gambling and drinking all night. The whole thing is meant to hammer home Bond's debonaire side (when in reality it'd probably be a bit of a red flag if such an agent had been found not in his flat or the office, but in the casino, and would presumably still be tipsy when he had his briefing with M). Moore's introduction sees him with a one night stand, and while there's still that debonaire thing going on, I've always thought the reveal subverted things by having the more comedic, tongue in cheek situation of Bond and Moneypenny trying to hide the girl from M (I really can't see Connery's Bond being put in quite that same situation in the earliest films).
But you're right, I think there's a sense they looked at Connery's introduction and weighed up what worked and how to most effectively introduce Moore.
Now, my expertise doesn't quite extend to the field of diamonds, but I get the sense from Sir Donald's lecture that it's an industry that operates on an airtight security system and prides itself on the loyalty and devotion of its workers....
I think the comedic, lighthearted play was played in Dr. No with the Bond and Moneypenny banter that I could almost see Moore's Bond doing.
Especially the one where Bond danced Moneypenny (by hand) while she's sitting.
Sure, both are different scenes, different situations, but still the same atmosphere.
Anyway, the OHMSS PTS also tried to inject a different personality by having that beach fight, in that scene, it's obvious this would be a different Bond, more grounded and brutal.
I couldn't imagine Connery doing that beach fight, only Craig.
I really liked that at the beginning, we're all going to think it's still Connery's version of Bond with lighting the cigarettes and all, but it's subverted when that beach fight happened, like it's obvious this is not Connery's Bond.
I mean, that beach fight was brutal and gritty.
Kind of. It's still essentially played straight though, albeit it's a lighter moment. Moore's introduction drifts further into the realm of comedy. I wouldn't say it's quite the same atmosphere.
I think the major problem with OHMSS's opening is precisely what you said - the audience at the time expected Connery just with the nature of the reveal and instead got Lazenby. It's a huge no-no when introducing a new Bond to audiences. They can't be thinking about the previous one. I think they realised this and it impacted how they chose to introduce Moore, and indeed subsequent Bonds.
Connery's Bond had his share of fights which were pretty grounded and brutal. I can certainly imagine him doing a similar scene, and indeed with something like the Grant/Bond fight in FRWL he arguably did. The fight definitely played to Lazenby's strengths and the cinematography was pretty unique for Bond films at the time. Still, I don't it fundamentally separates Lazenby's Bond from Connery's, and I don't think the intention with Lazenby was necessarily to create a new version of Bond. It was more about replacing the actor. It's a good thing they learnt later on.
I was going to make a reference to Sir Donald's poor memory, but I guess you found my video, so there's no need for it. A bit of trivia on the making of the video: the whole process from start to finish operated under an airtight security system. It was an essential precaution, even though I pride myself on the loyalty and devotion of my workers.
Next!
He'd played Judge Fulton in The Persuaders, one of my favorite shows ever!
---
Not to make the thread go off-the-rails too much, I'd say that, while I rather like Smithers, I'd still choose the company of Sir Donald. He seems like a really fun guy. And no disappointing brandy.
He also played Bulldog Drummond's M-like boss in the excellent 1960s Eurospy classic "Deadlier Than The Male":