This film canonised the fact that James Bond is a code name - On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) Discussion

[–] Cristianos (266) 3 years ago

007 is the code name. From Connery to Brosnan, it's the same character.

Blofeld not recognizing Bond at Piz Gloria is an unfortunate plot hole that would have been avoided had they filmed this movie first before You Only Live Twice. The best explained I can offer is that Bond's disguise was so good it fooled Blofeld at first.

reply

[–] fawltybasil (249) a year ago

The best way to think of it as not a plot hole in this, is that in YOLT, Bond is still in his Japanese disguise when he meets Blofeld in the volcano but the filmmakers knew that the audience wouldn't have wanted to see Connery's face for the rest of the film in that awful make-up. So we see the real Bond but Blofeld doesn't.

It's bollocks but just go with that.

reply

[–] Guitar King (4354) 3 years ago

WRONG! There is already a thread on this subject.

https://moviechat.org/tt0064757/On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service/58c72a5b5ec57f0478f1c836/This-never-happened-to-the-other-fellow

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 3 years ago

No, it was pointed by multiple people on that thread that that's EXACTLY what happened to the "other fella" if you're referring to Prince Charming, i.e. being left holding the slipper.

What didn't happen to the other fella was being beaten up by the goons, i.e. that didn't happen to Connery's Bond. Obviously it was intended as a sly fun fourth wall break but we can also interpret it as Lazenby's Bond knowing the previous holder of the moniker wouldn't have been so easily beaten.

And the reason I put this as a separate thread was to point out that this in combination with the Blofeld issue (which I appreciate the real world filming issue cause) allows one to accept we have a different "James Bond" canonically presented within this film - if you are so inclined to follow just what happens within the films to remove the Blofeld plot hole and allow the future possibility of another person being "James Bond".

reply

[–] seanwhelan2310 (562) 2 years ago

James Bond is NOT a codename, in the first 20 EON movies he is the same character despite being played by five people at the time. Tracey is referenced in few of the Bond movies (TSWLM, FYEO, Licence to Kill, etc) that came after OHMSS. Also Die Another Day showed previous gadgets from Connery and Moore's Bond movies that Brosnan would have been familiar with like the jetpack from "Thunderball" or the crocodile suit from "Octopussy", it is also mentioned that Bond's family motto is The World is not Enough, which was mentioned in OHMSS and of course The World is Not Enough. Also David Hedison's Felix Leiter connects the two Bond as the same character having appeared in Live and Let Die alongside Moore and Licence to Kill alongside Timothy Dalton. Also in Licence to Kill, Bond has his Licence to Kill revoked but he still goes by James Bond which is his real name, not a codename.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

Sorry but the Tracy point is irrelevant here - I think there is some conflation at play whereby people think saying Lazenby is a different Bond means they are ALL different Bonds when the actor changes. That's not the argument.

It's simply that Lazenby's Bond can - as far as what is seen on screen is concerned - be considered the first act of a different Bond. He says "This never happened to the other fella" at the beginning of the film not after Tracey is killed at the end.

Therefore everything up to the end of YOLT = Bond 1. Everything after (and yes including Connery in DAF) = Bond 2.

Bond 2 continues through to the end of the Brosnan run.

reply

[–] tanyalawrence (352) 2 years ago

Yes I've always thought that too.

James Bond is the code name for MI6's top agent.

The number 007 refers to his licence to kill and his place in the agency.

I like that they made mention of the fact the actor changed right at the start of the movie and we were able to carry on.

Love OHMSS, it's in my top five Bond movies.

reply

[–] ivankyazze (179) 2 years ago

Skyfall proved that it isn’t a codename lol

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

Craig "Bond" is a reboot and therefore not even in the same continuity canon full stop.

reply

[–] ivankyazze (179) 2 years ago

The World Is Not Enough proved it isn’t a codename. Tracy Bond is referenced

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

I already addressed this further up:-

Sorry but the Tracy point is irrelevant here - I think there is some conflation at play whereby people think saying Lazenby is a different Bond means they are ALL different Bonds when the actor changes...

reply

[–] OneOfThosePeople (56) 2 years ago

When Is Tracy mentioned in TWINE? I don't remember that.

(I do remember though, that 'The World is Not Enough' is the English translation of 'Orbis Non Sufficit', Bond's family motto. Which is also mentioned in the film by Bond when he's on the torture chair)

reply

[–] ivankyazze (179) 2 years ago

Elektra asks Bond if he’s ever “lost a loved one” in which Bond pauses for a second and changes the subject

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

I forgot about that! Brosnan's Bond has more Tracy in GoldenEye, too.

reply

[–] OneOfThosePeople (56) 2 years ago

That could arguably be Paris Carver from Tomorrow Never Dies. He was really close to her.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

He also breaks the fourth wall. He looks through the camera, at the audience, and delivers the line.

If you're using that shot to say it canonically makes Bond a code name, I'd argue that it also makes James Bond canonically self-aware of the fact that he's a fictional character in a movie.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

He looks through the camera, at the audience, and delivers the line.

No he doesn't.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

It's a fourth-wall break. If that's the code name evidence, he's self-aware.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

He doesn't actually look at the camera when he delivers the line. He's looking in the direction Tracy's driven off in.

He's talking to himself. There is no clear fourth wall break.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

Seems clear to me.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

Ok. But you said:-

He looks through the camera, at the audience, and delivers the line.

Fact is he didn't. I can't really argue any further if you are denying what we can literally see on screen...

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

Does he not look at the camera right at the end?

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

I shouldn't really have to do this - as I'm sure we're all capable of looking things up before making false statements and then doubling down on them - but here's the scene in question:-
https://youtu.be/_mHkgQXbT2Y

He does not look at the camera and deliver the line as you explicitly stated. No fourth wall break.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

I got the order wrong; he delivers the line and then looks into the camera. Here: https://thejamesbondsocialmediaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/ohmss-pre-e1519422634432.png

It's more apparent in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcQQjvQRqCU

That's a fourth-wall break.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

So when you said:-

He looks through the camera, at the audience, and delivers the line.

And then when I refuted that you replied "Seems clear to me", which you must surely now accept was talking absolute garbage.

What actually happens is that he watches Tracy disappear, delivers the line looking in her direction, and then his eyes go through the line of the camera as he starts to change direction and it fades with the music coming on. Not exactly the "clear" fourth wall breaking scene you claimed it to be...

As per previous post, at least go and double check what you are saying before entrenching yourself in false arguments...

And btw your video link shows nothing - it starts with the gun barrel. Here's a better one for your clear "canonically self-aware of the fact that he's a fictional character in a movie" moment 😂:-
https://youtu.be/N8XNBpIkQpU)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

I already conceded that I got the order wrong. Yes.

However, my "seems clear to me," referred to the fourth wall break; sorry if that was miscommunicated.

I agree with the "order of operations: he makes an uncharacteristic joke after striking out - clearly a bit of tongue-in-cheek reference to Bond's ladies' man rep - and then looks directly at the camera. This is, to me, obviously a fourth-wall break.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

That's fine. If you want to interpret it like that, cool.

I was only arguing the point re him not turning to the camera and almost saying it with a wink. Common misconception but doesn't happen.

👍

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

The totality of the scene just seems like a wink, even if he doesn't literally wink.

It's one of several points that make me disregard the Codename: Bond theory. Others have been/are being discussed on this thread.

reply

[–] BillySlater (4096) 2 years ago

I agree, directly looking at the camera after saying the line is quite obviously a wink/nod. FOD is being stubborn, I don´t think it could be a more obvious 4th wall break. Even the producers of the movie acknowledged that is what it was. lol

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

Really obvious, yeah.

reply

[–] kwestmo (4114) 2 years ago

you are correct, but please stop arguing with a moron. It frustrates you and they enjoy it

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9343) 2 years ago

I'm not frustrated, so if he's enjoying it, it's no skin off my nose.

Thank you for the support, though.

reply

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 2 years ago

How do you know he was referring to Connery?

Also he later reflects on his past adventures as Connery(if he were playing a different character there’d be no reason to do this), so no it isn’t a code name you idiot.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9542) 2 years ago

This has to be the most ridiculous post in all of Topix. No, James Bond is not a code name.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

mmm... I think you really have to address the evidence presented in the OP before claiming that. It's a bit of a "plot hole" to simply ignore that these things are indeed in the film.

reply

[–] millsey72 (9542) 2 years ago

Until the Daniel Craig movies, everyone knows the films were all separate stand alone adventure spy movies. They can be watched in any order. And of course James Bond is not a code name

reply

[–] kwestmo (4114) 2 years ago

You're breaking character and being serious. I didn't see that coming.

reply

[–] Ant1238 (841) 2 years ago

I’m watching the series for the first time currently. Just watched The Spy Who Loved Me, and XXX brings up the fact that Blofeld killed his wife. That should end this conversation right now. It is clearly the same character despite the actor.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

I already addressed this further up:-

Sorry but the Tracy point is irrelevant here - I think there is some conflation at play whereby people think saying Lazenby is a different Bond means they are ALL different Bonds when the actor changes...

reply

[–] Ant1238 (841) 2 years ago

Lol, so your argument is Connery is one Bond, but Lazenby and Moore are the same Bond? That just makes this more absurd.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

Yes but why does that make it more absurd?

You just pointed out yourself that Tracey's death is referenced in TSWLM. It's already accepted as canon that Lazenby and Moore's character is the same 🤔.

reply

[–] Ant1238 (841) 2 years ago

So in your world, why is Connery back after Lazenby and before Moore? Are there two Bonds at the same time?!

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (6707) 2 years ago

I did mention that further up as well:-

Therefore everything up to the end of YOLT = Bond 1. Everything after (and yes including Connery in DAF) = Bond 2.

Bond 2 continues through to the end of the Brosnan run.

And it not "my world". I'm simply stating what is seen in the film OHMSS and how that opens up the possibility, should you wish to interpret it that way.

reply