EON was desperate to tout OHMSS as part of the same series - the same continuity: “hey, the face may have changed, but this is still the ‘same old James - only more so!’”
The Living Daylights is - in my eyes - a ‘soft’ reboot. You can tell yourself that it’s a continuation - same M, Q, MoD - but I can’t imagine Timothy Dalton’s Bond in Moonraker or AVTAK (although the latter would have benefited from his presence and the rewrites necessary to accommodate Dalton’s new interpretation).
They could have taken a chance and had M promise a promotion to any of the three candidates who successfully penetrated Gibraltar (a la CR 06), but at the time that must have been seen as unnecessary. BB and MGW wanted to start fresh after DAD with this new/old property that Sony had inherited when they acquired Columbia, so that’s when the time must have seemed ripe.
I see TLD as the first reboot. Connery, Lazenby and Moore were Bond MK I and Dalton & Brosnan were MKII (setting GoldenEye’s PTS before TLD is NOT an effort to ‘erase’ Dalton from the timeline!).
Nods to the old series in Craig’s films are cheeky and really only lip service to the vanishing old fans such as I. They don’t register with new fans until they dig back into Grandad’s collection of classics.
That would explain the training exercise in the introduction of the living daylights. They were just getting their 00 I believe.
It may not have been the intention, but it does feel that way to some degree. Between that and the rather cheeky “you were expecting someone else” line in the trailer, it somewhat feels like a slap at Dalton.
I’ve always looked at it as though the Bond MK1 series was Dr. No through Licence to Kill, with Brosnan’s tenure existing as kind of its own thing. There’s a similar feel to the films from Connery to Dalton, even if there are comedic detours and and different interpretations along the way. Brosnan’s films feel quite different from what came before, adopting more of a generic 90s action movie flair rather than something that felt intrinsically “Bond”. Then following that, the Craig films feel quite a bit different from Brosnan’s as well, even if they still cling desperately to the formula.
Why would one care though, they are as @MrKiddWint states eloquently, all of the above reboot, reimagining and response.
Connery gives 3 distinctively different interpretations of the character, plus one non performance
His Bond in Diamonds are Forever would not shoot Dent in the back, just as Thunderball Connery would not take out his own wallet and exclaim “James Bond is that who it was?”
Similarly, Moonraker MooreBond would not do what he did to Maud Adams in TMWGG, in my opinion of course.
Fair observation, and I agree. There’s definitely an evolution as they progress.
I think TSWLM Bond, a film prior to MR, could be more inclined to be that ruthless, given the way he uses the woman as a human shield when Sandor starts shooting.
Exactly. MR Bond talks of Corine having “a heart of gold,” while TMWTGG Bond seems to me Moore’s most ruthless portrayal (showing Moore’s range as Bond which is often underrated). As Orion said: different directors with different sensibilities creating different tales.
Awww shucks
I do like the visual detail of Lazenby carrying the golf clubs before he’s driven to Draco. Which obviously brings GF to mind, and shows this man has the same tastes even if his face is completely different.
In terms of FYEO referencing Tracy, I actually don’t really consider that to be the Diana Rigg version, per se. But more of a generalised reference to Bond’s history. I like the idea the event did happen to Moore, and Dalton, but in their own timelines, and long ago. It gives them grounding.
I couldn’t stand it anymore! The constant comparison! Do you have any idea what it’s like living in someone’s shadow?!
Says the bad guy King in Batman Beyond.
King is voiced by George Lazenby.
I bring this up purely because it raises OHMSS only real problem - the fact that they wanted to emphasise that this wasn’t a reboot and was very much the same man as the previous 5, on a level that no other Bond movie would do for over 3 decades, with the clips in the starting credits and looking lovingly at props from Connery’s films - and even when it does happen with other actors, they don’t do it in the actors first film. It forces Lazenby into Connery’s shadow.
Edit: I’ll say the only other film to emphasise it’s the same person from all the other films is Die Another Day and that film didnt stick clips in. Even A View To A Kill got rid of it…
Spectre did, but to emphasise that Craig’s films are connected in their own little Bond Bubble.
I’m understanding on that front given it was uncharted territory for the franchise. I think the route they took was very much preferable to the plastic surgery idea. They wink at the audience - “this didn’t happen to the other fellow”, and then carry on like business as usual.
This didnt happen to the other fellas should’ve been it.
The clips and props from previous films end up being a Sean Connery sounding elephant in the room.
In Germany, it actually did sound like Sean Connery, because they gave him the same dub voice, Gert Günther Hoffmann. He was a legend among the German dub voices, among his regular jobs were the voicing for Connery, Paul Newman, Rock Hudson, William Shatner (yes indeed, in Germany, Captain Kirk sounded like James Bond and vice versa) and the narrator for the Pink Panther cartoons. But he also did Patrick McGoohan, Frank Sinatra, Kirk Douglas, Clint Eastwood, Marlon Brando at times. And Patrick MacNee in AVTAK.
That is awesome!
Since OHMSS was their first transition, they tried to a) acknowledge in a low-key way a new Bond actor; and b) reassure the audience that while there was a new story, the character was the same. Lazenby’s lack of experience as an actor meant that he did not have the tools or the presence to compete with the reminders of Connery’s portrayal. Moore, in contrast, had an established presence which could work in dialectic with the Bond template as established by Connery. Part of the pleasure of watching Moore is seeing how he shapes the role to suit him.
Moore also had the advantage of a new decade: he was the 70’s Bond–a new 007 for a new era. Lazenby had to be a continuation of the 60’s Bond, which was not an easy task. Possible moral: change your Bond in tandem with shifts in the zeitgeist.
Also,while Eon tried to sell Laz as Connery 2.0, they didn’t want to make that same mistake twice and intentionally had Moore-Bond do things differently than Connery-Bond: he never drove an Aston, heck, he didn’t have a proper car until TSWLM (OTOH, it also took until Connery’s third movie to get the Aston). Roger smoked cigars instead of Connery’s cigarettes. Moore never ordered a Vodka Martini shaken not stirred. And he didn’t wear a tux before TSWLM…
I do get why - I mean if anything speaks higher for OHMSS, it’s that even their “mistake” (And it is relative) is COMPLETELY understandable in its context - and as @stromberg pointed out whilst I was typing, Eon did learn that wasn’t the way to go! They deserve plaudits for learning through experience.
I agree. I think the reason that the series has survived is that never traveled the Lazenby Path again (among other smart choices).
Personally, I would very much welcome if the model after Craig went the same basic route Moore‘s did: avoid the tropes of the Craig era, no Oh-mee-gah, no Aston, no single malt and no office shenanigans. When things start out getting personal they do because of what just happened on the screen, not something buried in the past.
And wouldn’t it be nice if M would just give Bond a briefing and his trust, and let him just get on with it without the entire core staff of MI6 tagging along?
He wore a tux to his dinner engagement in MWTGG.