I've never noticed that before...

18586889091170

Comments

  • edited August 2017 Posts: 463
    Consider me in the camp that loves the use of the theme at the end of OHMSS - the instruments Barry chose give the theme an almost eerie and uneasy sound. Extra props to the filmmakers for choosing to stay focused on the cracked windshield instead of fading to black during the credits. I personally don't think there could have been a more fitting way to end the final 60's Bond film.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2017 Posts: 4,584
    I'm with @CrzChris4 on this. I thought Peter Hunt played the ending just right. The Bond theme came in, after thirteen seconds focused on the bullet hole, with the clarinet solo of "We have all the time..." fading softly. To me, that was plenty of time.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    I found it so jarring on first viewing that I thought there had been an edit to fit it into TV running time! Still find it a bit abrupt.
  • Posts: 12,466
    Adding the theme at the end of OHMSS is still something I'm not totally for or against. Can't really decide if I found it right or not? Either way does not stop my enjoyment at all; incredible ending to one of the most amazing Bond films we'll ever have.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Here's an edit I made of the ending where the Bond theme doesn't appear abruptly.
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5vjmfp
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    Nice editing @Murdock, but i find the original better. As has been said before, the 007 theme is here to tell us life goes on, Bond will be back in a new adventure. I find it much stronger then to get stuck in this loss.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I'm perfectly fine with the way OHMSS ended. Rather than make audiences focus on the tragedy as they leave the theatre, the Bond theme was there to lift their spirits. One has to keep in mind that this film had quite a different tone in comparison to its predecessors, in addition to having had the burden of introducing a brand new Bond (the first changeover from a man who defined the cinematic role). I'm sure they were concerned about how this would all go down.

    They did something similar in CR with the whole 'Bond James Bond' thing at the end to uplift us after the Vesper suicide. They just extended the whole thing out in that film, which is what they tend to do these days.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm perfectly fine with the way OHMSS ended. Rather than make audiences focus on the tragedy as they leave the theatre, the Bond theme was there to lift their spirits. One has to keep in mind that this film had quite a different tone in comparison to its predecessors, in addition to having had the burden of introducing a brand new Bond (the first changeover from a man who defined the cinematic role). I'm sure they were concerned about how this would all go down.

    They did something similar in CR with the whole 'Bond James Bond' thing at the end to uplift us after the Vesper suicide. They just extended the whole thing out in that film, which is what they tend to do these days.

    Precisely.

    The tagging on of the Mr White scene sent people out of the cinema pumped that Bond will be back rather than dwelling on the betrayal and death of Vesper.

    OHMSS basically does the same but it a slightly more hamfisted way.

    As others have said it's difficult to come down on either side of this. Silence would've been too much. Continuation of Barry's mournful version of WHATTITW? Possibly would have been better. But I can live with the fairly sombre arrangement of the Bond theme. The full on original version from DN would have been a bit too far mind.
  • Posts: 684
    Birdleson wrote: »
    That ideal of a sculpted man didn't really come about until partway through the '70s. Part of the appeal of bodybuilders used to be the freakishness of it all. Most lead men looked like normal people with their shirts off prior to that (and no coincidence that films were more human, as well). Another sign of the infantilization of American cinema (and culture) that caught fire going into the '80s.

    From here:
    Even the goofball Parks and Recreation star [Chris Pratt] has made the transition to action-hero superstar physique for Guardian of the Galaxy. His advice for getting into superhero shape? "Book a Marvel movie and had a deadline: If you don't [lose weight], you might get fired."

    And...
    On the set of the 300 sequel, Twight recalls that one of the original Spartans confided, "You know one of the reasons I lost so much weight on that job? I was doing enormous quantities of cocaine."

    Twight shakes his head. "You should have told me," Twight says he told the actor, "because I might have killed you. But I'd much rather have you doing a lot of blow than smoking a bunch of dope."

    Aside from its being unhealthy for people (for both the actors and the viewers who are consuming their bodies as part of the films), it's unhealthy for film. Symptomatic of infantilization as you say, certainly. And also now a crutch for acting. That they're willing to put themselves through extreme measures to achieve a certain end look is typically considered a measure of their devotion to craft. Yet actors get jobs based on their bodies — or at least contingent on their bodies appearing a certain way.

    James Franco sums it up nicely:
    "Can't we just go back to when you didn't have to do all this stuff?" James Franco gripes. "I look to Benicio del Toro. He's not in the best shape but he still looks cool, man. He's awesome."

    Where are all the movies stars in the traditional sense of the word? Actors are always going to get actory roles. But for the rest of the roles, the lighter stuff? Cary Grant was not a great actor in the Daniel Day-Lewis sense of the term, but his charm, sophistication, and intangible something-ness made him a star. Brute physicality has largely replaced those deeper qualities.
    Ludovico wrote: »
    I rewatched the elevator fight in DAF recently and I found it far more comedic than I remembered.
    I had a similar experience recently watching the buggy chase. Laughed like a drain for hours thinking of it afterwards.
    It is amazing how badly it struggles with tone. A real identity crisis, despite being one I can enjoy.
    The Dalton films are a weird couple. They're often praised for being gritty and a return to Fleming, but all I see is much the same tonal inconsistencies of the Moore/Glen films. Makes it really hard for me to get on board with either of them.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    I'm perfectly fine with the way OHMSS ended. Rather than make audiences focus on the tragedy as they leave the theatre, the Bond theme was there to lift their spirits. One has to keep in mind that this film had quite a different tone in comparison to its predecessors, in addition to having had the burden of introducing a brand new Bond (the first changeover from a man who defined the cinematic role). I'm sure they were concerned about how this would all go down.

    They did something similar in CR with the whole 'Bond James Bond' thing at the end to uplift us after the Vesper suicide. They just extended the whole thing out in that film, which is what they tend to do these days.

    Precisely.

    The tagging on of the Mr White scene sent people out of the cinema pumped that Bond will be back rather than dwelling on the betrayal and death of Vesper.

    OHMSS basically does the same but it a slightly more hamfisted way.

    As others have said it's difficult to come down on either side of this. Silence would've been too much. Continuation of Barry's mournful version of WHATTITW? Possibly would have been better. But I can live with the fairly sombre arrangement of the Bond theme. The full on original version from DN would have been a bit too far mind.

    I'm fine with the James Bond theme sending the film out (though it can hardly be called a "somber" rendition), but editing-wise, the film needed just another second or two of breathing silence after WHATTITW finishes. As it is, the James Bond theme cuts in way too fast and does feel jarring. I actually sometimes just pause the film there for that second or two and it plays perfectly. Just the smallest change. But we're talking about a pretty minor blemish on a pretty stellar film.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'm perfectly fine with the way OHMSS ended. Rather than make audiences focus on the tragedy as they leave the theatre, the Bond theme was there to lift their spirits. One has to keep in mind that this film had quite a different tone in comparison to its predecessors, in addition to having had the burden of introducing a brand new Bond (the first changeover from a man who defined the cinematic role). I'm sure they were concerned about how this would all go down.

    They did something similar in CR with the whole 'Bond James Bond' thing at the end to uplift us after the Vesper suicide. They just extended the whole thing out in that film, which is what they tend to do these days.

    Precisely.

    The tagging on of the Mr White scene sent people out of the cinema pumped that Bond will be back rather than dwelling on the betrayal and death of Vesper.

    OHMSS basically does the same but it a slightly more hamfisted way.

    As others have said it's difficult to come down on either side of this. Silence would've been too much. Continuation of Barry's mournful version of WHATTITW? Possibly would have been better. But I can live with the fairly sombre arrangement of the Bond theme. The full on original version from DN would have been a bit too far mind.

    I'm fine with the James Bond theme sending the film out (though it can hardly be called a "somber" rendition), but editing-wise, the film needed just another second or two of breathing silence after WHATTITW finishes. As it is, the James Bond theme cuts in way too fast and does feel jarring. I actually sometimes just pause the film there for that second or two and it plays perfectly. Just the smallest change. But we're talking about a pretty minor blemish on a pretty stellar film.

    Fair enough. Can't argue with that.

  • Posts: 1,917
    Some things I noticed from my 30th anniversary viewing of The Living Daylights, which I first saw on Aug. 1, 1987.

    -As the 00s made their skydive for Gibraltar as M tries to grab his documents from the wind I never saw that he is tethered in. It reminded me of when I worked at an AF base and shot photos of a skydiving team and I was hooked on to a similar tether as they departed. It was a cool experience.

    -Water is a dominant element in the credits sequence for some reason. It seems strange as TLD features some of the fewest water-related scenes in the series, save for Bond's landing on the boat in the PTS, the brief chase across the frozen lake, Necros swimming at Whitaker's estate and Leiter's CIA boat among those that come to mind.

    -After her distraction tactic, Rosika Miklos says "What kind of girl do you think I am!" I found it interesting they used an exclamation point rather than a question mark. What can I say, I have an English degree.

    -On the chest containing the heart surrounded by ice and diamonds, it reads "Handle like eggs," which was also appeared on the bombs in TB.

    -Whitaker's body lands on a display of the Battle of Waterloo. I knew Bond made the comment, but I never saw the little sign mentioning it. A little too cute.

    That first viewing was one of my favorite Bond film experiences. Afterwards, my friends and I hit a nearby pub where in the spirit of the film I tried my first vodka martini. The film still holds up well after all these years and still a firm top 5 for me.

  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,176
    BT3366 wrote: »
    On the chest containing the heart surrounded by ice and diamonds, it reads "Handle like eggs," which was also appeared on the bombs in TB.

    That's a lovely expression which the RAF used to put on sensitive equipment (e.g. a gyroscope) or boxes used to transport it. It was around in WW2 but I imagine it's now been replaced by something boring like 'handle with care'.

    And your first viewing sounds really fun!
  • Posts: 1,917
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    BT3366 wrote: »
    On the chest containing the heart surrounded by ice and diamonds, it reads "Handle like eggs," which was also appeared on the bombs in TB.

    That's a lovely expression which the RAF used to put on sensitive equipment (e.g. a gyroscope) or boxes used to transport it. It was around in WW2 but I imagine it's now been replaced by something boring like 'handle with care'.

    And your first viewing sounds really fun!

    Thanks for sharing that. I enjoy bits of trivia like that and I had no idea about that.

    Yeah, that was a fun time. A new Bond film's premiere has been kind of a holiday for me.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Agreed, a fascinating bit of trivia.
  • MinionMinion Don't Hassle the Bond
    Posts: 1,165
    Ditto! I noticed it for the first time when I was rewatching Thunderball a few weeks ago and was curious if it was an in-joke or a real phrase. Thanks @Agent_99!
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Strog, I see the attempt at Fleming in some of Dalton, but agree that it's hard to fall on the wagon full-on in support of that claim when so much detracts from that feeling. Those films never quite get there, nor could they have at the time.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    Strog wrote: »
    James Franco sums it up nicely:
    "Can't we just go back to when you didn't have to do all this stuff?" James Franco gripes. "I look to Benicio del Toro. He's not in the best shape but he still looks cool, man. He's awesome."
    I love this quote!

    Strog wrote: »
    Where are all the movies stars in the traditional sense of the word? Actors are always going to get actory roles. But for the rest of the roles, the lighter stuff? Cary Grant was not a great actor in the Daniel Day-Lewis sense of the term, but his charm, sophistication, and intangible something-ness made him a star. Brute physicality has largely replaced those deeper qualities.
    Hugh Grant is probably the most recent actor I can think of that successfully put to use his charm and light touch in a string of commercial, mainstream movies. Of the more recent crop of movie stars, I think Ryan Gosling could give it a shot. He is charismatic and has a flair for comedy, but can play it cool, as well.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Strog wrote: »
    James Franco sums it up nicely:
    "Can't we just go back to when you didn't have to do all this stuff?" James Franco gripes. "I look to Benicio del Toro. He's not in the best shape but he still looks cool, man. He's awesome."

    Where are all the movies stars in the traditional sense of the word? Actors are always going to get actory roles. But for the rest of the roles, the lighter stuff? Cary Grant was not a great actor in the Daniel Day-Lewis sense of the term, but his charm, sophistication, and intangible something-ness made him a star. Brute physicality has largely replaced those deeper qualities.
    Franco expresses a nice sentiment, but I think he misses the point. Del Toro is coolness personified. He doesn't need to 'act cool'. He is cool. He reeks of effortless style. Many of today's so called 'stars' (a joke imho) feel manufactured and lacking in gravitas and charisma, Franco included sadly. The same goes for Reynolds, Farrell etc.

    As you rightly said, Grant had that "charm, sophistication and intangible something-ness" which made him a star. I look forward to seeing more like him in starring roles.
  • Posts: 19,339
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    James Franco sums it up nicely:
    "Can't we just go back to when you didn't have to do all this stuff?" James Franco gripes. "I look to Benicio del Toro. He's not in the best shape but he still looks cool, man. He's awesome."

    Where are all the movies stars in the traditional sense of the word? Actors are always going to get actory roles. But for the rest of the roles, the lighter stuff? Cary Grant was not a great actor in the Daniel Day-Lewis sense of the term, but his charm, sophistication, and intangible something-ness made him a star. Brute physicality has largely replaced those deeper qualities.
    Franco expresses a nice sentiment, but I think he misses the point. Del Toro is coolness personified. He doesn't need to 'act cool'. He is cool. He reeks of effortless style. Many of today's so called 'stars' (a joke imho) feel manufactured and lacking in gravitas and charisma, Franco included sadly. The same goes for Reynolds, Farrell etc.

    As you rightly said, Grant had that "charm, sophistication and intangible something-ness" which made him a star. I look forward to seeing more like him in starring roles.

    Hugh Grant would have made an awesome Simon Templar..he was always linked with the role but nothing materialised .

  • Posts: 17,753
    I have never even thought about the music at the ending of OHMSS at all, and it's one of the films I've seen the most. Can't see the problem, really.
  • Posts: 19,339
    I have never even thought about the music at the ending of OHMSS at all, and it's one of the films I've seen the most. Can't see the problem, really.

    Same here.

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    edited August 2017 Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    James Franco sums it up nicely:
    "Can't we just go back to when you didn't have to do all this stuff?" James Franco gripes. "I look to Benicio del Toro. He's not in the best shape but he still looks cool, man. He's awesome."

    Where are all the movies stars in the traditional sense of the word? Actors are always going to get actory roles. But for the rest of the roles, the lighter stuff? Cary Grant was not a great actor in the Daniel Day-Lewis sense of the term, but his charm, sophistication, and intangible something-ness made him a star. Brute physicality has largely replaced those deeper qualities.
    Franco expresses a nice sentiment, but I think he misses the point. Del Toro is coolness personified. He doesn't need to 'act cool'. He is cool. He reeks of effortless style. Many of today's so called 'stars' (a joke imho) feel manufactured and lacking in gravitas and charisma, Franco included sadly. The same goes for Reynolds, Farrell etc.

    As you rightly said, Grant had that "charm, sophistication and intangible something-ness" which made him a star. I look forward to seeing more like him in starring roles.

    Hugh Grant would have made an awesome Simon Templar..he was always linked with the role but nothing materialised .

    I would rather see Brosnan in the role. Or Ewan McGregor.
  • Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Strog wrote: »
    James Franco sums it up nicely:
    "Can't we just go back to when you didn't have to do all this stuff?" James Franco gripes. "I look to Benicio del Toro. He's not in the best shape but he still looks cool, man. He's awesome."

    Where are all the movies stars in the traditional sense of the word? Actors are always going to get actory roles. But for the rest of the roles, the lighter stuff? Cary Grant was not a great actor in the Daniel Day-Lewis sense of the term, but his charm, sophistication, and intangible something-ness made him a star. Brute physicality has largely replaced those deeper qualities.
    Franco expresses a nice sentiment, but I think he misses the point. Del Toro is coolness personified. He doesn't need to 'act cool'. He is cool. He reeks of effortless style. Many of today's so called 'stars' (a joke imho) feel manufactured and lacking in gravitas and charisma, Franco included sadly. The same goes for Reynolds, Farrell etc.

    As you rightly said, Grant had that "charm, sophistication and intangible something-ness" which made him a star. I look forward to seeing more like him in starring roles.

    Hugh Grant would have made an awesome Simon Templar..he was always linked with the role but nothing materialised .

    I would rather see Brosnan in the role. Or Ewan McGregor.

    I agree re Brosnan,not sure about McGregor though.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    Well Brosnan is a bit old for Templar now, n'est pas? McGregor I'm not sure of, allthough he is a good actor nd has perfect comedic timing.
  • Posts: 19,339
    Well Brosnan is a bit old for Templar now, n'est pas? McGregor I'm not sure of, allthough he is a good actor nd has perfect comedic timing.

    Oh I wasn't referring to him now,but in the past,Rossy.

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,250
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Well Brosnan is a bit old for Templar now, n'est pas? McGregor I'm not sure of, allthough he is a good actor nd has perfect comedic timing.

    Oh I wasn't referring to him now,but in the past,Rossy.

    Fair 'nuff. For me Hugh Grant would indeed 've been the perfect pick. Has the style, class, timing. He's a sort of modern-day Roger Moore. Except for the hookers, of course. ;-)
  • edited August 2017 Posts: 19,339
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Well Brosnan is a bit old for Templar now, n'est pas? McGregor I'm not sure of, allthough he is a good actor nd has perfect comedic timing.

    Oh I wasn't referring to him now,but in the past,Rossy.

    Fair 'nuff. For me Hugh Grant would indeed 've been the perfect pick. Has the style, class, timing. He's a sort of modern-day Roger Moore. Except for the hookers, of course. ;-)

    Well,he was a little restless,but he got off eventually ...he he .

  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Well Brosnan is a bit old for Templar now, n'est pas? McGregor I'm not sure of, allthough he is a good actor nd has perfect comedic timing.

    Oh I wasn't referring to him now,but in the past,Rossy.

    Fair 'nuff. For me Hugh Grant would indeed 've been the perfect pick. Has the style, class, timing. He's a sort of modern-day Roger Moore. Except for the hookers, of course. ;-)

    He is indeed. Follows in the steps of Cary Grant, David Niven and Sir Rog, among others.
  • Posts: 684
    @mattjoes Interesting. I've always enjoyed Hugh Grant for reasons I never tried putting my finger on. That he evokes some part of the Old Hollywood star might be a big part of it.

    @bondjames I read Franco's quote as him essentially saying just what you are, so I agree.

    I'm just now making the connection between this sad state of the star and the seeming lack of Bond candidates. I've been thinking the timing to find Craig's replacement has been just bad, a lull in prospects. But there's more to it than that, isn't there? There's a lack of suitable replacements for a reason.

Sign In or Register to comment.