22 replies to this topic

[5 BONDS]

Just thinking now if the first three gun barrels were a bother to anyone once found out that it was not Sean Connery and was really Bob Simmons?
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?

[Jim]

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.

[Guy Haines]

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.

[ggl]

I think it is one of the most iconic images of the history of the cinema and the pop culture.

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 didn´t bothered me, although I prefer the main actor doing that "stunt".

[doublenoughtspy]

Considering that Bob Simmons was the first, I'm not sure why anyone would be bothered by it.

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.

[David Schofield]

Wonder WHEN folk first realised it wasn't Connery DN-GF?????

There was no 'Net in those days, y'know...

[graric]

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

[Vauxhall]

I was never aware of the fact that it was Bob Simmons in the initial gunbarrel until I'd read up on the Bond franchise towards the start of my fandom. I also had no problem with it when I found this out. It would perhaps have been different if they'd suddenly got a stunt man in half way through the series to do the gunbarrel, but the legacy was yet to be developed at that point, so I don't see any problem with it.

[Professor Dent]

Never had a problem with it. One interesting thing I've noticed with the Blu-ray releases is that Simmons face is more visible than it was in the previous releases. Still not totally visible but you can definitely see it isn't Connery.

[Aston V8]

It doesn't bother me as much as the underwater closeup of Bob Simmons in Thunderball...

[tdalton]

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.

[genuinefelixleiter]

Simmons without a doubt was not only an admirable stuntman but also a creative stunt innovator. However, this said, what irks me is that he appears to almost fall over after the rather ungraceful turn and fire.
I wonder why they used a take where Simmons clearly is struggling to keep his balance?

[Dustin]

Can't say I ever bothered about gun barrels.

[genuinefelixleiter]

Whoops!! My mistake, it's apparently Connery that looks like he's about to fall over, not Simmons!
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.

[elizabeth]

Who cares? Cool opening sequence is cool.

[graric]

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.

[AMC Hornet]

Was it a case of not bringing Connery back for an additional one-day shoot, or a case of the sequence being shot before Sean had been cast?

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 lazy busy to hunt up the references right now, so I'm willing to go along with others remember/find out.

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).

[graric]

From what I have read it was a very last minute decision by Maurice Binder that he filmed quickly with Bob Simmon's before showing to the producers. I think its very likely that Connery was busy with other commitments at this point that would have made it difficult to bring him into film such a short sequence, especially as it is a sequence where he is meant to be a silhouette and getting a stand in to film it would be both easier and cheaper.

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

[mrevans]

I first found out it wasn't connery while listening to DVD commentary on one of the early movies. I kind of chuckled at it and filed it away as just an interesting piece of Bond trivia. But no it didn't bother me.

[David_M]

It never bothered me; I always thought of the gunbarrel as a glorified "logo," meant to represent Bond in a generic fashion, so it didn't matter who was behind the silhouette. On the other hand, once they put the actual guy in, it did get cooler.

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.

[The Shark]

It was re-shot for 2.35:1 aspect ratio of the Panavision format. Simple as that.

[DominicGreene]

To be honest, it sort of bothers me a bit. I'm not sure why, but when I think about it, I feel like Bond is less cool having a stunt actor doing a gunbarrel sequence. I'm not sure if that's just me.

[DR76]

Didn't bother me one bit. Neither Sean Connery or Bob Simmons' gun barrels were impressive to me.