Nice way to start your Bond career
Snuggled up with ludicrously gorgeous Maddie Smith. Pity she didn't have a bigger part in the film.
shareWhat’s odd is this is the only Bond introduction where they don’t build up his first appearance, after the credits roll Bond is just there and it just seems to be business as usual.
sharePerhaps a deliberate low key start? "Sorry about screwing up the hand over but the old guy has finally moved on and here's the new guy so lets get on with it" kind of approach.
shareYeah, Lazenby's opening was all about establishing him as the new Bond, complete with the line "this never happened to the other fellow." Then Lazenby dropped out, followed by Connery returning only to do the same. So a "business as usual" approach made sense with Moore.
shareFellas,
Just FYI for those thinking about approaching the Bond chronology again (or for the first time), allow me to offer the following advice:
Just sample all six Eon/Connery collaborations in order and consider that one interpretation of the super spy. Diamonds are Forever kicks off with Bond looking for Blofeld in Japan so it work perfectly with no fuss.
Then, go back a couple years, and start a new series that is kicked off with Lazenby in OHMSS followed into the 70s/80s with the Roger Moore Bonds. I find these all have a similar interpretation of the character and his backstory, and the combined efforts of Lazenby and Moore work in harmony and enrich this “James Bond” whereas they had actually been detrimental and conflicting when compared to Connery’s version.
Lazenby has the athleticism, emotionalism, and seriousness that Moore lacked, while Moore had the suave and sophistication that Lazenby lacked. Connery had a cold & blunt mystery to him that shines as a one-dimensional (though certainly entertaining) version of Bond. This is best in isolation.
We all know that Craig started his five as a reboot set, but I see four interpretations total within Eon Productions, even if not explicit.
…
CONT’D
1. Connery (1962-1971)
a. Dr. No
b. Frm Russia w/ Love
c. Goldfinger
d. Thundeball
e. You Only Live Twice
f. Diamonds… Forever
2. Lazenby/Moore/Dalton (1969-1989 minus 3)
a. Majesty’s Secret Service
b. Live And Let Die
c. The Man w/ Golden Gun
d. The Spy Who Loved Me
e. Moonraker
f. For Your Eyes Only
g. Licence to Kill
3. Moore/Dalton/Brosnan (1983-2002)
a. Octopussy
b. A View To A Kill
c. The Living Daylights
d.Goldeneye
e. Tomorrow Never Dies
f. The World is Not Enough
g. Die Another Day
4. Craig (2005-2021)
a. Casino Royale
b. Quantum of Solace
c. Skyfall
d. Spectre
e. No Time to Die
Give the series a look this way for the maximum of satisfaction in your action extravaganza.
Here’s hoping going forward they’ll continue with multiple stories which are self-contained and built around a consistent set of actors.
Cheers!
Signed,
Bond enthusiast for 35 years
That's because Lazenby's Bond was literally another character.
Subsequently that same character, i.e. Bond 2.0 if you will, was played by Connery, Moore, etc...
Explained in further detail here:-
https://moviechat.org/tt0064757/On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service/61582f4e132daf72efa14e96/This-film-canonised-the-fact-that-James-Bond-is-a-code-name
No, the code name theory is bogus and refutes itself. This fact is evident to anyone who seriously sits down to watch the series with the intent of paying attention to details such as interactions with characters Teresa di Vincenzo (Tracy Bond) or General Gogol.
shareAs I think I said on that other thread, it was obviously never the intention when these films were made to have any concerns with continuity - something audiences would get excited about decades later.
However, the theory - as far as I am aware - definitely stands up within the context of the films themselves (from a certain point of view) and is definitely not refuted.
This doesn’t work because one of the most popular villains was a 00 agent for MI6. So, every 006 must be associated with code name: alec trevelyan?
Ridiculous. The whole point is that Bond is so badass that he flaunts his identity as a spy with no hesitation. He’s beyond agent and into comic book superhero territory. MI6 administrators have letter codes and agents have number codes, and they all observe the rule of anonymity aside from Bond. If they didn’t, we would be presented their cover names as well which is redundant with the letter-codes already established.
This theory or whatever can easily be refuted a dozen times over by examining the stories as presented to us.
We can keep this thread going if you like, I bet I can refute it once a day for a week.
We can keep this thread going if you like, I bet I can refute it once a day for a week.
Up to you. But you haven't refuted it once full stop thus far.
(Just read through that other thread though please to avoid repeating the same non refutations) share
Yeah, sure thing. I’ll get right on that task of studying some old thread while I’ve already effectively hijacked this one.
Refutation has been provided, but cases are built on mounting evidence and if you need to see more I can respect that.
I gave for Monday, this is for Tuesday:
In FYEO, James Bond (Roger Moore) is introduced while visiting his wife’s grave. Are all 007 agents issued dead spouses named Tracy? This was a clear move at highlighting continuity with a 12-year time frame and two separate lead actors.
If we may expand the conversation some, I’m interested in why someone would have loyalty to this theory. Explain your point of view. Do you value it because you’d prefer to see Bond as an everyman capable of succeeding?
Have I even interpreted it correctly?
Story crew of Eon productions meant to imply that all MI6 agents are given a name, number, and full cover background, and for #007, this is that background:
Number: 007
Name: James Bond (I believe middle name of Herbert was given in OHMSS?)
Background: Commander, HNRV
Order: CMG
Origin: Scotland
Family Crest/Motto: “The World is Not Enough”
Marital Status: Widowed (w. Tracy Bond formerly Countess Teresa di Vicenzo)
Employ of the British Government: Licenced to Kill
So, when an actor changes, is that a different man, or does every film have a different man with the prior maybe killed on his next mission?
In FYEO, James Bond (Roger Moore) is introduced while visiting his wife’s grave. Are all 007 agents issued dead spouses named Tracy? This was a clear move at highlighting continuity with a 12-year time frame and two separate lead actors.
Why would you even say that when I already said further up:-
"Subsequently that same character, i.e. Bond 2.0 if you will, was played by Connery, Moore, etc..."
i.e. I've already stated that Lazenby and Moore Bond are playing the same character. So why wouldn't we expect to see Moore at Tracy's grave?
What you're supposed to be arguing is that Lazenby is the same character who appeared in pre-OHMSS films... share
I don’t think Lazenby is, but I believe he had a similar history foiling SPECTRE agents who operate worldwide, and recently learned the leader was Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
In truth, the series just has a floating timeline and an ageless character.
I tend to separate a series of 6 or 8, or in Craig’s case, 5, and see them as starting a new interpretation.
We seem to be after the same, but you want to go about it an irrational way based a the “this never happened to the other fellow” line from Majesty’s Secret Service.
That was what is known as a breaking the fourth wall, funny haha, a different actor… I get it! moment for the audience, but you’re reading it like “this Lazenby dude is saying the guy who looks like Connery was a different man who went on vacation. And he’s substituting for 007.”
Worsens the movies big time.
Do you like them yourself?
I also discussed on that other thread that there was no actual fourth wall break either if you watch closely...
But the arguement - as far as I'm making it anyway - isn't irrational, it's just for fun.
As I was saying further up, there obviously wasn't really any thoughts as to continuity when they were making these films years ago - it's just funny to note that there isn't anything existing, within the film canon, which disproves the James Bond code name / Lazenby's a different character theory.
In fact, the fact that Blofeld doesn't even recognise Bond in OHMSS from the previous film, only enhances it...
(Of course, we all know the real reason for that but in terms of film canon it's utterly unexplainable for the same character)