I have a Stag just like this one, but never realised I could call it a Bond car............. You learn something new very day. Oh and it's still going strong after 3 three owners in 47 years, unfortunately Sean Connery was not one of them!
Great scene. Love how the Bond music picks up and slowly builds after Franks enters passport control and Moneypenny exits. And no, she was not being insensitive in asking for a ring because this was a sequel to YOLT, not OHMSS where Bond was married and his wife killed.
'This was a sequel to YOLT, not OHMSS' Lol what? Maybe in your fanboy universe in your own mind, but in the real world where the rest of us are, that's nonsense
@@alwaysOPEN4business Well it basically is. It almost completely ignore OHMSS and pretends it doesn’t exist. Even the opening scene you could argue, is just a continuation of Bond’s hunt for Blofeld after YOLT, given he escaped Bond’s clutches.
@@horrorfanandy4647 Right. So explain how In OHMSS Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond when they meet, despite them meeting face to face in YOLT. It's almost like the producers back then weren't completely focused on making the plots throughout the different films 100% consistent for people decades later in the "I need all my film franchises to connect all their films to each other like Marvel" era to nitpick over. Oh, and nevermind the fact that your theory is also dumb because it ignores very obvious anachronisms, like fashion, and how 1970s model cars could exist in 1967. In this VERY scene Bond drives a 1970 Stag. Explain how that makes remotely any sense if this is 1967. You nerds who create these alternate theories based on nothing but some loose conveniences in the plot are cute, you do it for every major film series. But it becomes a joke when you try and pass off your nonsense tired old movie theories you heard from someone else as facts. Makes me wonder whether you believe the 007 codename theory nonsense as well.
@@alwaysOPEN4business Christ man have a Kit Kat. My point was in reference to how the producers wished to distance themselves as much as possible from OHMSS, so if it was anything close to being a sequel (which it isn’t, but for arguments sake let’s say it is) it would be one to YOLT. Again, I don’t think this is the case, but if it was, it is strictly limited to the opening scene and then it’s business as usual for Mr Bond. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. _As it happens,_ I actually agree with you on the films being largely unconnected with one another, and I personally believe it should be that way, because the idea that they all fit together is complete nonsense I agree. That was actually my main problem with the Craig era, with its constant need to keep everything connected. I understand that it was trying to create a character arc for Bond over the 5 films, but it A) Makes Bond far too self-serious for my liking (and my favourite Bond is Timothy bloody Dalton, so that’s saying something) and B) makes it very unwelcoming to new fans, whereas the old films were self contained action films that you could follow with little to no prior knowledge. I don’t believe in the codename theory, there’s more holes in that BS than Swiss cheese and whenever somebody uses the line from OHMSS where Bond says “This never happened to the other fellow” to back up their theory, they forget (intentionally I’ll bet in the case of those making click-bait content on it) that the same film has a scene of Bond reminiscing about past missions through the gadgets he used on them.
Notice that Connery and Lois Maxwell were never seen in the same frame in this scene, because they filmed these scenes separately due to Maxwell being in a pay dispute and wasn’t even going to be in this movie until the last minute.
Watch again, you never see both faces together. You might see a part of ‘Moneypenny’s’ arms/side when we see Bond, but that was likely a stand in actor to make it look like there was someone there talking to 007.
Heene the whole scene was filmed last minute (Maxwell was wanting a pay rise and they refused to give it to her, but in early cuts of the movie there was something missing) but it’s correct that Conery and Maxwell filmed this scene separate of each other, just clever film cutting make it seem flawless)
@@Sensabaugh You're wrong. 0:19 - 0:42 is one continuous shot where either the camera is moving or there is movement in the background. It's impossible for this to consist of two separate shots without there being a noticeable continuity error. Connery and Maxwell appear in this shot together.
Correct me if I may be wrong, but swear that he was in another James Bond movie. 1981's "For Your Eyes Only" where he was a crew member of the St. Georges surveillance ship.
Dean Ladue - I don’t believe he was no, there are several of the crew that look similar to him in fairness, but I don’t believe he was. I was in touch with Cornelius Garrett last year about the film so I will drop him a letter and see if he can clarify 👍🏼
Lois Maxwell loved the clothes she wore in OHMSS wedding scene that she asked could she keep them, the producers said she could in the next Bond movie.... this uniform is ALL she got
On Lois Maxwell's wikipedia page it says that 'Maxwell and Sean Connery filmed their lines separately and were not present together for the short scene' but you can see at 0:39 that this is incorrect.
@@Sensabaugh Actually, you can. Just because you've read something that someone involved in the film incorrectly recalled decades afterwards doesn't make it correct.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 You are just too stupid to even have this discussion with. Given the evidence, why on earth do you think you are right and people directly involved in the film are wrong?
@@Sensabaugh Here we go... The insults have started already... I shouldn't be taking the time to respond to you but I'm going to anyway because you clearly don't understand. The *evidence* completely contradicts what you are saying. 0:19 - 0:42 is one continuous shot where either the camera is moving or there is movement in the background. It's impossible for this to consist of two separate shots without there being a noticeable continuity error. Connery and Maxwell appear in this shot together. If you think Maxwell's face onscreen at 0:40 is somehow a different shot from Connery's face appearing at 0:41 despite it being part of one continuous camera move then you don't know what you're talking about. And as far as people being directly involved in the film is concerned... The film was made 49 years ago. People forget details over time. In The Passenger, a camera appears to glide through the bars of a hotel window. This was achieved by putting the bars on hinges which opened and allowed the camera through. Jack Nicholson said that it was achieved by building *an entire hotel on wheels* that separated and then came back together!!! People do get details wrong over time. So don't automatically accept what you might have read when the evidence completely contradicts it.
The Bond theme here is phenomenal!
Diamonds are forever is the best bond film it has everything
I'm glad that you like it but many fan ranking it's not even close to the top 10.
I have a Stag just like this one, but never realised I could call it a Bond car.............
You learn something new very day.
Oh and it's still going strong after 3 three owners in 47 years, unfortunately Sean Connery was not one of them!
Same, mines a Mk2 auto, 76 plate.
It's cost me a fortune over the years.
RIP sir sean🙏🏻
Great scene. Love how the Bond music picks up and slowly builds after Franks enters passport control and Moneypenny exits. And no, she was not being insensitive in asking for a ring because this was a sequel to YOLT, not OHMSS where Bond was married and his wife killed.
'This was a sequel to YOLT, not OHMSS' Lol what? Maybe in your fanboy universe in your own mind, but in the real world where the rest of us are, that's nonsense
@@alwaysOPEN4business
Well it basically is.
It almost completely ignore OHMSS and pretends it doesn’t exist. Even the opening scene you could argue, is just a continuation of Bond’s hunt for Blofeld after YOLT, given he escaped Bond’s clutches.
@@horrorfanandy4647 Right. So explain how In OHMSS Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond when they meet, despite them meeting face to face in YOLT. It's almost like the producers back then weren't completely focused on making the plots throughout the different films 100% consistent for people decades later in the "I need all my film franchises to connect all their films to each other like Marvel" era to nitpick over. Oh, and nevermind the fact that your theory is also dumb because it ignores very obvious anachronisms, like fashion, and how 1970s model cars could exist in 1967. In this VERY scene Bond drives a 1970 Stag. Explain how that makes remotely any sense if this is 1967. You nerds who create these alternate theories based on nothing but some loose conveniences in the plot are cute, you do it for every major film series. But it becomes a joke when you try and pass off your nonsense tired old movie theories you heard from someone else as facts. Makes me wonder whether you believe the 007 codename theory nonsense as well.
@@alwaysOPEN4business
Christ man have a Kit Kat.
My point was in reference to how the producers wished to distance themselves as much as possible from OHMSS, so if it was anything close to being a sequel (which it isn’t, but for arguments sake let’s say it is) it would be one to YOLT. Again, I don’t think this is the case, but if it was, it is strictly limited to the opening scene and then it’s business as usual for Mr Bond. Perhaps I should have made that more clear.
_As it happens,_ I actually agree with you on the films being largely unconnected with one another, and I personally believe it should be that way, because the idea that they all fit together is complete nonsense I agree.
That was actually my main problem with the Craig era, with its constant need to keep everything connected. I understand that it was trying to create a character arc for Bond over the 5 films, but it A) Makes Bond far too self-serious for my liking (and my favourite Bond is Timothy bloody Dalton, so that’s saying something) and B) makes it very unwelcoming to new fans, whereas the old films were self contained action films that you could follow with little to no prior knowledge.
I don’t believe in the codename theory, there’s more holes in that BS than Swiss cheese and whenever somebody uses the line from OHMSS where Bond says “This never happened to the other fellow” to back up their theory, they forget (intentionally I’ll bet in the case of those making click-bait content on it) that the same film has a scene of Bond reminiscing about past missions through the gadgets he used on them.
@@horrorfanandy4647 Does it? Why then does Bond go on a revenge drive at the start of the film?
Notice that Connery and Lois Maxwell were never seen in the same frame in this scene, because they filmed these scenes separately due to Maxwell being in a pay dispute and wasn’t even going to be in this movie until the last minute.
That can't be right, they are in the same scene at 0:38.
Watch again, you never see both faces together. You might see a part of ‘Moneypenny’s’ arms/side when we see Bond, but that was likely a stand in actor to make it look like there was someone there talking to 007.
Heene the whole scene was filmed last minute (Maxwell was wanting a pay rise and they refused to give it to her, but in early cuts of the movie there was something missing) but it’s correct that Conery and Maxwell filmed this scene separate of each other, just clever film cutting make it seem flawless)
@@Sensabaugh You're wrong. 0:19 - 0:42 is one continuous shot where either the camera is moving or there is movement in the background.
It's impossible for this to consist of two separate shots without there being a noticeable continuity error.
Connery and Maxwell appear in this shot together.
@@clark82 They may have filmed some of their dialogue separately but Connery and Maxwell clearly appear in the continuous shot from 0:19 - 0:42.
The only time you would see the British Rail logo in a Bond film.
The customs officer was played by an actor called Clifford Earl, without wishing to name drop, I was at his wedding
Awesome! I just found his autograph in an old book last week, wasn't an easy one to find for my 007 collection!
Correct me if I may be wrong, but swear that he was in another James Bond movie. 1981's "For Your Eyes Only" where he was a crew member of the St. Georges surveillance ship.
Dean Ladue - I don’t believe he was no, there are several of the crew that look similar to him in fairness, but I don’t believe he was.
I was in touch with Cornelius Garrett last year about the film so I will drop him a letter and see if he can clarify 👍🏼
@@pyrobandit8648 to clarify, he would have been one of the British Naval personnel below decks in the electronic surveillance control room.
@@deanladue3151 I think he was one of the gunmen shooting at Bond as he jetpacked away in the Thunderball opening.
Sean Connery has more charm in his eyebrows than Daniel Craig has in his entirety. #NoTimeForWoke
My hovercraft is full of eels!
Hovercraft baby!
+Qasim Mir SR.N4 Princess Margaret
@@tuttt99 Yeah my home town Dover
@@davidfrost2819 do you know Inga Pether she work for Seaspeed on the SRN4 Hovercrafts in Dover.
@@dominicliner1609 I'm afraid not.
@@davidfrost2819 ok because Inga Pether live in Dover about in the 60's and 70's she started working for Seaspeed on the SRN4 Hovercrafts in 1968.
Lois Maxwell loved the clothes she wore in OHMSS wedding scene that she asked could she keep them, the producers said she could in the next Bond movie.... this uniform is ALL she got
On Lois Maxwell's wikipedia page it says that 'Maxwell and Sean Connery filmed their lines separately and were not present together for the short scene' but you can see at 0:39 that this is incorrect.
No you can’t
@@Sensabaugh Actually, you can.
Just because you've read something that someone involved in the film incorrectly recalled decades afterwards doesn't make it correct.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 You are just too stupid to even have this discussion with. Given the evidence, why on earth do you think you are right and people directly involved in the film are wrong?
@@Sensabaugh Here we go...
The insults have started already...
I shouldn't be taking the time to respond to you but I'm going to anyway because you clearly don't understand.
The *evidence* completely contradicts what you are saying.
0:19 - 0:42 is one continuous shot where either the camera is moving or there is movement in the background.
It's impossible for this to consist of two separate shots without there being a noticeable continuity error.
Connery and Maxwell appear in this shot together.
If you think Maxwell's face onscreen at 0:40 is somehow a different shot from Connery's face appearing at 0:41 despite it being part of one continuous camera move then you don't know what you're talking about.
And as far as people being directly involved in the film is concerned... The film was made 49 years ago.
People forget details over time.
In The Passenger, a camera appears to glide through the bars of a hotel window. This was achieved by putting the bars on hinges which opened and allowed the camera through.
Jack Nicholson said that it was achieved by building *an entire hotel on wheels* that separated and then came back together!!!
People do get details wrong over time.
So don't automatically accept what you might have read when the evidence completely contradicts it.
awesome description
Definitely not a stag sound when it pulls away 😂
Everything was in order !
Triumph Staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag!
Seaspeed SRN4 Hovercraft and a Seaspeed hostess Inga Pether may be working onboard the Seaspeed SRN4 Hovercraft.
Terrible 4cylinder sound dubbed on that v8 stag
dommage le bruit de cette Stag ne correspond pas au bruit d'une Stag le son du V8
that never sounded like a v 8 engine
As a stag owner of 25 years, I can assure you that was NOT the burble of a V8 2997cc Stag engine..
As a stag owner of 25 years, I can assure you that was NOT the burble of a V8 2997cc Stag engine..
More like a Triumph Herald!
sounded like a morris minor no burble ffs
For some bizarre reason, they dubbed over the engine sound. I read somewhere that it's a Herald engine sound instead. Go figure.
I thought that too... I was like... I'm pretty bsure I just heard a triumph Herald not the famous V8!?!
And James Bond drove one of the early TRIMPH STAG demonsttator Cars. Unfortunately with less success than he had with the Aston Martin.
Too bad they didn't show the famous fight inside a caged elevator
Moneypenny: A diamond... in a ring.
Bond: Would you settle for a tulip?
HA! Try saying something like that to modern day feministic crowd.