Deathmatch 2023 - Sideswipes

Special Interest Games
263

May I ask anyway, aside from introducing the new actor in the role, why they’ve referenced OHMSS in this film?

I’m searching in different sites for a trivia from Behind The Scenes, to explain the visiting of Tracy’s grave, the Blofeld thing had an explanation, because of the McClory thing, when it comes to Tracy’s grave, the explanation was just about the introduction of the new Bond actor, if that is:

  1. It’s said that it’s meant for a new Bond actor, so, Roger Moore decided to return, why they’ve still kept it? Did Roger Moore insisted on keeping that scene? Who insisted to kept that scene? This lead to my question #2:

  2. When the Producers made DAF, they want the people forget OHMSS, thus the film didn’t referenced it, OHMSS was still the black sheep of the Franchise at the time, here, they could still explain that it’s the same character by referencing something from the Connery Era, but why OHMSS?

I thought the Producers didn’t liked OHMSS and want people to forget it, hence they’ve made DAF as if OHMSS didn’t happened, but here they’ve referenced it, why?

I mean, they could’ve picked other things to reference (maybe something from the Connery Era), but why OHMSS? Why not other things?

For me, it felt a bit weird, that after forgetting OHMSS in DAF, they’ve referenced it back in this film, are the Producers felt the regret by this time?

I though understand LTK referencing OHMSS, because as been said from the sources, it’s the 10th anniversary of OHMSS (LTK was released in 1989, OHMSS was released in 1969).

I, now understand @Double-OhAgent Charles Grey’s Blofeld (with hair) appearing in the PTS would have make a bit more sense, considering it’s the 10th anniversary of DAF (DAF was released in 1971, and FYEO was released in 1981), so would’ve makes sense, so that makes it a bit weirder, that why Savalas’ version (with a neckbrace) appeared instead?

I need an answer! Thank you for those who will answer! :blush:

264

Who knows? Beside Cubby, BB and MGW?

1 Like
265

As far as why OHMSS is referenced, I think it’s clear this sequence was meant to introduce a new Bond; he’s not over Tracy, he’s got a grudge against Blofeld, so that’s our guy. If Roger signed back on late enough in the process, there’s no point tossing it all and starting from scratch. Plus it carries a bit more weight later when Bond admonishes Melina not to indulge in vengeance: this is an older, jaded Bond who’s been there, done that and knows revenge doesn’t give the satisfaction you’d think it would.

As far as why we get the wheelchair-bound Blofeld, I think it’s because someone came up with an idea to end the sequence – they may have even thought up the ending first and worked their way to it – and that bit depended on the villain being in a wheelchair (else how do you pick up someone with the helicopter if they don’t want to be picked up?). Then they asked, “What character do we have that can be in a wheelchair” or even “How in Hell do we justify Bond killing a guy in a wheelchair” and then someone remembered Blofeld. Except, of course, we never really saw Blofeld in a wheelchair before…neck brace, yes, but not wheelchair.

Maybe it’s a denial that DAF occurred. In Roger’s universe, we jump straight from Laz to Roger with no return from Sean. In that case the last time we saw Blofeld he was seated in a car so maybe he’s paralyzed. The problem with this is that if Blofeld’s really been on the loose for ten years and Bond has finally stumbled on him, on the very day Tracy’s on his mind, you’d think Bond would be a bit more worked up emotionally and dispatch Blofeld with greater venom.

Is that a stretch, that one entry (FYEO) would negate another (DAF)? Maybe, but I always felt the opening of GE was an effort to expunge the Dalton years, since it starts “9 years ago” ie: one year after AVTAK.

Or maybe DAF did happen and that bouncing around Blofeld got in the bathosub crippled him (we never see him actually killed, but he is roughly handled). And ten years is long enough for your hair to fall out.

But hey, isn’t it a pretty massive coincidence that on the very day Bond decides to visit Tracy’s grave, her murderer reappears to conveniently bring closure? It has a definite feeling of unreality to it. Maybe the whole thing is a dream Bond’s having after a few too many martinis. In a dream, anything can make sense, even the line about the delicatessen. Maybe Bond is still haunted by the fact that he never really did bring Blofeld to book, so he dreams about killing him in all sorts of ways.

Or maybe this guy isn’t Blofeld at all.

In terms of relevance to the rest of the plot, well we just came off MR where the same thing happened in the PTS. No one explains who the crew is that tries to kill him on the plane, or why. I just always accepted that Bond has lots of enemies with contracts out on him and he’s in constant danger everywhere he goes.

I enjoy the FYEO PTS overall. I like that Bond hasn’t forgotten Tracy and that we see Roger’s 007 in a rare moment where he doesn’t have up his “nonchalant and indifferent” facade. The stunt work is great and the bit where the copter seems to fly into the building is a triumph of old-school practical effects using a great Meddings miniature and a trick of perspective. But does it really need Blofeld? Only in the sense that, again, we need a guy in a wheelchair, which is something I think could have been workshopped into a better idea for a climax. So since we’re specifically focused on that part of it – is it good to bring back Blofeld – I’ll have to go with “bad idea.” And thanks to the “deli” line and the “bombs away” slide whistle, I’ll top it with “poorly executed”

3 Likes
266

But based on some trivia that I’ve found the killing of Melina’s parents was also meant to be the PTS of the film (?) (Still, you can correct me if I’m wrong there) so they could’ve stuck with that when they’ve found out that Roger was staying, but why it’s still kept? When they could’ve used the Havelock’s murder for the PTS instead?

And there’s no even point at keeping it either, when Roger Moore was coming back still, if it’s meant to introduce a new Bond actor.

And if that’s the case, then Dalton’s Bond should also visited Tracy’s grave in the PTS of TLD just to prove that he’s still the same guy.

The same for Moore in LALD, to prove that he’s also the same guy (and I think the events of OHMSS should be referenced in this film, quite more fitting).

It’s not until LTK that the OHMSS marriage thing was referenced and it’s because of the anniversary of OHMSS (1969; 1989).

And I doubt this came from Cubby himself, as he already declared that hiring Laz (or maybe the whole OHMSS) was for him, a mistake, he wouldn’t likely to do it, considering how he avoided OHMSS (it’s evident in DAF) and of course, because of his regret towards the casting of Lazenby.

And if Cubby was to lead, the possible reference that they could in introducing a new actor was to use any reference from the Connery Era.

And that’s what I’m trying to say here, if introducing the new actor was the deal, then why not to use any reference from the Connery Era? Considering that it’s a lot more memorable than OHMSS to reference at the time.

And not many people at the time could remembered OHMSS, and given its reputation, why they’ve chose it? It’s still the black sheep of the Franchise at the time, it’s not until maybe now (or since 2012) that OHMSS has been gaining appreciation.

For sure, even back in the day, I guessed, people would’ve shouted for a callback from a Connery Era instead to introduce the new Bond actor.

But no, they’ve chose OHMSS, why, because? “Sorry anyway for us trying to ignore OHMSS, but hey, now we’re giving it the due, is it that emotional, oh Bond visiting Tracy’s grave, do you still remember her?, We’re campaigning OHMSS, don’t you forget that film!” Kind of thing, and for me, I felt it’s a bit awkward. :smile:

That OHMSS callback in FYEO PTS for me felt like a sorry letter to the audience.

I haven’t thought of the GE one before, and regarding again, the DAF one, they’ve also made an effort to forget the existence of OHMSS in that film, only for it to be referenced in FYEO, Four films later.

The thing is why they’re doing that, only for it to be referenced in a much later films? Are they having some sort of regrets? :sweat_smile:

I mean Dalton’s Aston Martin Car in TLD had appeared in NTTD, because Dalton has been gaining appreciation nowadays (maybe?).

Possibly, but it could also be assumed that it could also be the YOLT Blofeld (Savalas’ Blofeld wasn’t the only one who’s bald, then so as Pleasance), so maybe after the events of the Volcano Lair destruction, he’s badly injured and got paralyzed while trying to make his escape at the time? Who knows?

267

I think we only had two pre-title sequences where Bond was absent and they came back to back with LALD and TMWTGG. In general, I don’t think either PTS is highly regarded compared to the ones that actually feature Bond, and FYEO came in the wake of TSWLM and MR, each of which gave us a sort of “mini film before the film” and got a lot of publicity for their stuntwork. So by 1981, I think the odds of us getting another PTS that didn’t center on 007 in some sort of big-scale stunt scene were nil.

Well it does provide a call-back to arguably the last semi-serious film in the series, and tips us off that this entry will bring Bond back down to Earth. Admittedly that’s almost immediately undone by the OTT demise of “wheelchair guy” but opening on a cemetery with a sombre Bond is definitely a clue that we’re switching gears for this one.

The trick is to keep finding new ways of doing it, though. As it is Dalton gets a novel twist in that we know he’s among the double-ohs on the training mission, but which one is he? When I saw it in the cinema, a kid behind me kept asking his Dad as each new face appeared, “Is THAT James Bond?..Is THAT James Bond?” Which in retrospect doesn’t say much for Eon’s marketing department.

OHMSS had particular significance to John Glen, directing here for the first time. He was a second unit director on OHMSS and I believe a friend and admirer of Peter Hunt. Who knows, maybe it was a pitch for viewers to go back and reconsider a generally neglected film (those VHS copies of GF are selling great, but we need to move more units of OHMSS) or maybe it was simply the last entry they could point to when saying, “Hey, we can treat things seriously, too, you know.” But I admit, from a certain point of view saddling a prospective new Bond actor with a callback to the guy who “botched it” was a risky move.

History’s shown that Eon has no particular game plan in terms of continuity, even if they tried to retroactively pretend they did in SP. DAF turned its back on OHMSS because the previous one was considered a failure back in the day, and because a “Bond on a vendetta” plot would’ve worked against the deliberately comedic and far-fetched vibe DAF opted to take. As time wore on and other films tried to be taken more seriously (FYEO, LTK), Tracy’s death became an important touchstone as arguably the only incident in Movie Bond’s life that carried real emotional weight, and tragedy. In between, we had a long run of films that were mostly concerned with just having a fun time.

I’ll buy that. At the end of the day, the films are generally unconnected and occassionally negate each other. Your head canon can be pretty much whatever you want it to be, because official “canon” is largely nonexistent.

1 Like
268

DAF Bond is still on the cruise with Tiffany. MR Bond is still in space with Dr. Goodhead. FYEO Bond is a new Bond played by the actor who played the last one (not the first time they did it).

The films created a multi-verse with many Bonds. They just kept them one-to-a-film. So twentieth century.

2 Likes
269

I guess it depends how one interprets “referenced.” For me, I do count the moment in TWSLM when Anya meets Bond in the Cairo bar. She’s proving how much the KGB know about him and brings up “married” and Sir Rog, very effectively (once again proving his ability to pivot away from his accepted screen persona), switches from charming to a curt “you’ve made your point.”

Is it an obvious reference to OHMSS to the extent of FYEO and LTK? No, but still an acknowledgement of film and character arc.

3 Likes
270
26 June - Live and Let Die - Kananga’s Mr Big disguise
  • A good idea, well executed
  • A good idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be

0 voters

271

I agree.

James Bond’s marriage to Tracy di Vicenzo has been mentioned or alluded to a handful of times since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

As plankattack mentions, The Spy Who Loved Me explicitly mentions Bond being married once before only to have his wife be killed. And before Anya Amasova can go any further, Bond cuts her off and gets the subject changed.

In For Your Eyes Only, we get Bond visiting Tracy’s grave, which I find a very nice touch as it hearkens back to Ian Fleming’s novels with Bond visiting Vesper Lynd’s grave every year. (I’m afraid I can’t remember if he also visits Tracy grave every year as well, but it seems like he would.) By visiting his wife’s grave, it further shows the point that even all these years later Bond really did love her and is still living with the pain of losing her. And, as was mentioned earlier by David_M, it adds more weight to Bond cautioning Melina Havelock about revenge and having to dig two graves as he does so later in FYEO.

In Licence To Kill Bond reluctantly catches Della Churchill’s garter belt while wearing a pained expression on his face. Della questions Felix Leiter about what just happened and he explains that Bond was “married once, but that was a long time ago.” Again alluding to Tracy and her unpleasant demise and setting up the motive for 007 to go rogue for the first time on a personal mission of vengeance.

And in The World Is Not Enough, Elektra King pointedly asks Bond if he’d ever lost anyone, implying anyone close to him that is, to which Bond tellingly pauses for a long painful second before he changes the subject. Again implying Tracy.

So all the Bond actors after George Lazenby (except Daniel Craig who is in a separate timeline) have either referenced or alluded to Tracy in some way. She is an important figure in the history of 007 and her death is an important moment in the Bond series. EON has never really shied away from either of them–or OHMSS–except for maybe when filming Diamonds Are Forever.

The Craig films, meanwhile, seem never to forget–or let you forget–that Craig’s Bond lost the love of his life, Vesper, as she is referenced or seen in every one of his films.

2 Likes
272

Of course, NTTD the film, spends its whole time referencing OHMSS the film!!! In yet another case of EON getting all meta!! :slight_smile:

2 Likes
273

Kanaga - somewhere between a good and bad idea, badly executed.

Being difficult of personality, I have once again dithered on where to land. For the second film in a row Mankiewicz and Hamilton go with the notion of “disguise” as a facet of the villain, and for the second film in a row it’s an idea that never reaches its full potential. Unlike DAF though, the gimmick’s appearance (excuse the pun) is even more superficial (excuse the pun).

Not for a moment do we think that Big and Kananga are different people, and the film doesn’t really make an honest effort to sell us on that. Frankly it’s a cover as important as James Bond calling himself St John Smythe - an irrelevance to the plot that is unfolding.

That said - LALD stops in New Orleans for the “big reveal” including the clever Rolex and Butterhook back-and-forth but when Kananga rips off his prosthetics, Bond seems even less surprised than the audience.

A character attribute that easily could have been bypassed and the villain and film would be none the worse for it.

2 Likes
274

Madeline (blatantly Tracy) was the one who allowed him to let Vesper go, though in this time line he made sure he was the one who died at the hands of a villains petty response, not her.

Oddly partners a bit in Spectre when Bond gets a Dr No reference and turns down the drink he’s offered…the Craig Bond has seen the other 20 Bond films it seems.

5 Likes
275

I thought it’s for Paris Carver, based on IMDb trivia, the screenwriters meant it for Paris Carver.

Yes, this is exactly one of the reasons why I think when in the films, Tracy is more remembered a lot more importantly than in the books, of course, we’ve never got to know, because he suffered an amnesia in You Only Live Twice and got brainwashed and underwent a memory reboot in The Man With The Golden Gun so maybe the memories of Tracy was gone in his mind, something that thankfully never happened in the films, because there’s still the instances that he could, indeed still remember her.

I think this is one of the things where I consider the films an improvement over the books.

Anyway, regarding the next question, I have no problem with the Kananga disguise, in fact, it’s quite a wise move for a villain, so no one could recognized him.

I liked how it became a twist that the man we thought was just a henchman and never doubted at all was actually the main villain.

If anything, the poorest decision in LALD was that Kananga Balloon death, Kananga deserved a better death than just blowing him up (literally).

1 Like
276

It is interesting that the one movie Bond who fell in love with Vesper never got to know Tracy, only her substitute Madeleine who survived him and had his daughter.

1 Like
277

As I was reading this, I realized Ian Fleming probably didn’t have James Bond visit Tracy’s grave every year because On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was very near the end of his run as 007 author.

After OHMSS, you have You Only Live Twice where Bond is in a depressed funk over the loss of Tracy and then he loses his memory at the end of the novel and heads to the Soviet Union. He then returns to London in The Man With The Golden Gun whereupon he gets deprogrammed and sent to the Caribbean to deal with Francisco Scaramanga and the book ends with him in hospital. Fleming then dies and that’s it for his 007 stories. There wasn’t enough time for Bond to visit Tracy’s grave during Fleming’s run. It would have been up to the continuation Bond authors to have him visit Tracy’s grave, and I don’t remember how many, if any, have done that, but it seems like at least one of them has mentioned it, but I can’t say who or when.

2 Likes
278
27 June - Casino Royale - The game is NOT baccarat
  • A good idea, well executed
  • A good idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, poorly executed
  • A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be

0 voters

1 Like
279

image
image720×1008 56.8 KB

“Isn’t that cups? Why is Bond playing for glasses?”

“Shh!”

1 Like
280

I loved the change to Texas Hold’em. I think particularly at the time poker was a big thing and it made sense for the movie to capitalise on that. It helped make it a modern adaption without betraying the spirit of that part of the story.

2 Likes
281

My vote is more due to a pet peeve (I have many pet peeves; it’s more of a peeve zoo, to be honest). I don’t have the patience (no pun intended, albeit it’s a brilliant one) for most card games and “closest to 9” is something even I can follow. Poker absolutely flummoxes me and I have to take it on trust that whatever it is Bond manages to achieve in the film, it’s A Good Thing And He Wins By Doing It.

The pet peeve is more a cover for being thick, I would admit.

4 Likes
282

I’d be the other way round - the use of Baccarat in the book and some of the films being used as a hugely heroic moment for Bond bothers me. It’s a game of pure luck, despite what Fleming seemed to think, Bond can do virtually nothing to gain a desired outcome.

4 Likes