Was anyone bothered if the first three gun barrels were not Sean?
#1
Posted 07 January 2012 - 08:52 AM
I believe even I didn't realize they weren't Connery until pointed out a few yrs ago. I was kind of surprised as I always thought it was Connery being the silhouette was clouded in darkness it probably was difficult to tell who it was anyway. It did bother me and odd but so glad they got the actors to act out the part eventually.
What were your personal thoughts on this?
#2
Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:06 AM
Short answer to question - no.
#3
Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:20 AM
Not especially bothered about the gunbarrel in any of the films or whether it appears or not; seems to have taken on an undue prominence in the last few years; can't remember it ever being discussed before.
Short answer to question - no.
I think it has only started taking undue prominence because of the way its use has been altered, particularly in CR & QoS. I liked what they did with it in CR but was puzzled that it was placed at the end of QoS. As to the main question, it didn't matter to me that Bob Simmons rather than Sean Connery appeared in the early gunbarrel openings. One thing strikes me though - we think of the typical gunbarrel scene as showing a tuxedoed Bond firing, but in those early scenes "Bond" wore a normal suit and, I think, a hat.
#4
Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:59 AM
It has always fascinated me in all of its variants: hat and tie Simmons; hat and "flying hand" Connery; knee on floor Lazenby; two hands and no hat Moore; one hand Dalton; straight Brosnan; and the new and fast Craig. Always great and always synonymous of the beginning of something really big and different...
No, It didnĀ“t bothered me, although I prefer the main actor doing that "stunt".
#5
Posted 07 January 2012 - 04:42 PM
The film makers didn't think it important enough to get Connery to do it, so it wasn't that important to them at the time.
The only reason Connery did Thunderball was due to the fact that the aspect ratio changed for that film and they couldn't easily reuse the old one.
#6
Posted 07 January 2012 - 09:37 PM
There was no 'Net in those days, y'know...
#7
Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:48 AM
The film makers didn't think it important enough to get Connery to do it, so it wasn't that important to them at the time.
Wasn't the reason for Connery not doing because it was a last minute addition suggested by Maurice Binder? I seem to remember it being talked about (either in the Dr. No making of Doco on the DVD or on the Maurice Binder tribute) and it was said to have been suggested by Maurice Binder near the end of post production as a way to give Bond a dramatic entrance. Connery had already finished his work on the film so Bob Simmon's was brought in as a quick replacement
#8
Posted 08 January 2012 - 02:29 PM
#9
Posted 08 January 2012 - 03:26 PM
#10
Posted 08 January 2012 - 04:58 PM
#11
Posted 08 January 2012 - 05:20 PM
The film makers didn't think it important enough to get Connery to do it, so it wasn't that important to them at the time.
Wasn't the reason for Connery not doing because it was a last minute addition suggested by Maurice Binder? I seem to remember it being talked about (either in the Dr. No making of Doco on the DVD or on the Maurice Binder tribute) and it was said to have been suggested by Maurice Binder near the end of post production as a way to give Bond a dramatic entrance. Connery had already finished his work on the film so Bob Simmon's was brought in as a quick replacement
That may have been the reason for not having Connery perform the segment for Dr. No, but it doesn't explain why they didn't get him to do it for From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. If the sequence was as important as it's often made out to be, I would imagine that EON would have gotten Connery to do it for the other two films.
#12
Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:35 PM
I wonder why they used a take where Simmons clearly is struggling to keep his balance?
#13
Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:43 PM
#14
Posted 08 January 2012 - 09:46 PM
Perhaps he'd taken too much sun while golfing that day.
For the record, my favorite has to be Lazenby's cool, collected, self assured strut!
As always, your brother from Langley.
#15
Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:25 AM
#16
Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:34 AM
The film makers didn't think it important enough to get Connery to do it, so it wasn't that important to them at the time.
Wasn't the reason for Connery not doing because it was a last minute addition suggested by Maurice Binder? I seem to remember it being talked about (either in the Dr. No making of Doco on the DVD or on the Maurice Binder tribute) and it was said to have been suggested by Maurice Binder near the end of post production as a way to give Bond a dramatic entrance. Connery had already finished his work on the film so Bob Simmon's was brought in as a quick replacement
That may have been the reason for not having Connery perform the segment for Dr. No, but it doesn't explain why they didn't get him to do it for From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. If the sequence was as important as it's often made out to be, I would imagine that EON would have gotten Connery to do it for the other two films.
Because they reused the Gunbarrel from the previous film starring Bob Simmons? I think the fact that they got Connery to do it for Thunderball rather than simply getting Bob Simmon's in again to shoot another one shows that they saw it as an important part of the films. The fact that the decided to keep the gunbarrel as the opening for the films shows that it a fairly important way to establish the series and they simply didn't see it as necessary to film a new Gunbarrel sequence for FRWL when they already had such an effective gunbarrel! (Just because fan's place a huge importance on whether its a stunt double or not doesn't mean the production team does...as long as it looks like it could be Connery they're happy, shooting another gunbarrel would've meant an unnecessary extra day of filming and however many days of editing for a scene they already had a complete version ready and finished from the previous film...and FRWL was already going through enough filming and editing problems without having to worry about refilming the gunbarrel because it wasn't Connery, which the audience didn't even know at he time. )
Of course its seen as a bigger deal now than it did at the time of Dr No, but thats because its one of the few consistent parts of the series in its 50 year history! But to say that the gunbarrel wasn't a big deal to the producers would be silly, the fact they included Maurice Binder's last minute idea and decided to use it as the opening to the subsequent films shows that saw how effective an opening it would make for the films and how distincitive it would make them.
#17
Posted 09 January 2012 - 05:36 AM
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the gunbarrel scene was shot early on, but that doesn't make much sense, given what I've read more recently about Maurice Binder's infuriating habit of finishing his titles only in time for the premiere.
I'm too
As fer caring that it wasn't Sean: no, just keep 'em coming. I was just annoyed that we didn't even get so much as a line of white dots at the beginning of CR and QoS (and for the record, I'm the one who liked the bullet added to the sequence in DAD - it told me from the outset that I was in for another Bond experience with a few curves thrown in along the way).
#18
Posted 09 January 2012 - 09:20 AM
I agree about the gunbarrell's in CR and QoS (while I do understand the intent behind CR's I found QoS to be unnecessary and one of the many little problems with that film
#19
Posted 09 January 2012 - 02:30 PM
#20
Posted 09 January 2012 - 03:29 PM
I was actually much more bummed to learned the gun used in the iconic "arms-crossed" photos for FRWL was an air pistol! Oh well, at least it wasn't a squirt gun.
#21
Posted 09 January 2012 - 03:42 PM
#22
Posted 09 January 2012 - 11:53 PM
#23
Posted 10 January 2012 - 02:23 AM