"I own several nice watches so why should I rent for 15% (from retail) several watches with my own money when I can hand over my personal watch to the fella for free when we need it for a closeup shot"...
This makes perfect sense.
But it was used in plenty of entire scenes and not only in close-up shots. If it was used in a few entire scenes in Goldfinger, couldn't they have used it in other entire scenes and not the dress watch if they didn't want to use a dress watch?
But Connery's Bond often did change his watch with his mode of dress. It's evident in Goldfinger (amongst other examples) when he wears the Rolex with the black outfit on the laser table and switches to the dress watch when he changes into his grey glen check suit. He wears the dress watch with that suit and the two suits that follow it in the film. That is what this is informed by.
Yes, but you don't notice it unless, like you, you are specifically looking for it to prove your belief about how a man should dress. You are attributing the gold watch to modes of dress. When the more accurate reason probably had to do with the fact that the Rolex was not specifically needed for the scene and Cubby got his watch back. See the difference?
DG
Why don't subtle things in the films count? I don't buy that excuse. There are a lot of things the average viewer doesn't notice in Bond films that have meaning. Is there any proof that this watch is simply an oversight and isn't meant to be there? The watch is there and I don't understand why it must be ignored. You're basically saying I should think of it as a stand-in?
Let's say for the sake of argument you are correct Matt. That Connery's Bond wore the gold watch to show that he had a sartorial awareness regarding watches and modes of dress. An awareness that is more attributable to modes of dress today than in the 50's/60's. Why don't they (producers/directors) ever show what that watch is? I mean if it is key to how Bond is portrayed on screen, how come they don't ever gives us a full frontal of the gold watch? The money shot, as it were.
See what I mean? It does not pass the sniff test. It sounds like you are trying to prove something you believe rather than really trying to find the truth. The same thing Wendell is famous for.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Yes, but you don't notice it unless, like you, you are specifically looking for it to prove your belief about how a man should dress. You are attributing the gold watch to modes of dress. When the more accurate reason probably had to do with the fact that the Rolex was not specifically needed for the scene and Cubby got his watch back. See the difference?
DG
Why don't subtle things in the films count? I don't buy that excuse. There are a lot of things the average viewer doesn't notice in Bond films that have meaning. Is there any proof that this watch is simply an oversight and isn't meant to be there? The watch is there and I don't understand why it must be ignored. You're basically saying I should think of it as a stand-in?
Let's say for the sake of argument you are correct Matt. That Connery's Bond wore the gold watch to show that he had a sartorial awareness regarding watches and modes of dress. An awareness that is more attributable to modes of dress today than in the 50's/60's. Why don't they (producers/directors) ever show what that watch is? I mean if it is key to how Bond is portrayed on screen, how come they don't ever gives us a full frontal of the gold watch? The money shot, as it were.
See what I mean? It does not pass the sniff test. It sounds like you are trying to prove something you believe rather than really trying to find the truth. The same thing Wendell is famous for.
DG
I do see what you mean. Obviously the dress watch isn't important enough to be shown up front. The Rolex is certainly the most significant watch to Connery's Bond, and I completely agree with that. It is certainly not important what the dress watch actually is, and that's why only the Rolex is shown up close. The association with the Rolex is what is most important. But I don't see how Bond is also unable to wear another, less important watch that still has a place in his wardrobe. The truth is that Sean Connery often wore a dress watch in the Bond films, which I would be happy to post visual evidence of. I think the dress watch (or perhaps multiple dress watches) appears too much to not consider it at all, and thus I think it is valid to consider the reasons why Connery would wear it rather than the Rolex.
Why don't subtle things in the films count? I don't buy that excuse. There are a lot of things the average viewer doesn't notice in Bond films that have meaning. Is there any proof that this watch is simply an oversight and isn't meant to be there? The watch is there and I don't understand why it must be ignored. You're basically saying I should think of it as a stand-in?
Let's say for the sake of argument you are correct Matt. That Connery's Bond wore the gold watch to show that he had a sartorial awareness regarding watches and modes of dress. An awareness that is more attributable to modes of dress today than in the 50's/60's. Why don't they (producers/directors) ever show what that watch is? I mean if it is key to how Bond is portrayed on screen, how come they don't ever gives us a full frontal of the gold watch? The money shot, as it were.
See what I mean? It does not pass the sniff test. It sounds like you are trying to prove something you believe rather than really trying to find the truth. The same thing Wendell is famous for.
DG
I do see what you mean. Obviously the dress watch isn't important enough to be shown up front. The Rolex is certainly the most significant watch to Connery's Bond, and I completely agree with that. It is certainly not important what the dress watch actually is, and that's why only the Rolex is shown up close. The association with the Rolex is what is most important. But I don't see how Bond is also unable to wear another, less important watch that still has a place in his wardrobe. The truth is that Sean Connery often wore a dress watch in the Bond films, which I would be happy to post visual evidence of. I think the dress watch (or perhaps multiple dress watches) appears too much to not consider it at all, and thus I think it is valid to consider the reasons why Connery would wear it rather than the Rolex.
Hope springs eternal, I guess.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I'm sorry if I seem absentminded, but I cannot find any photos of the said gold watch in this thread. Was it a copyrighted image that was removed? Thanks to Higgie-baby for posting the quote from Cubby, such a wise businessman he was. I’ve read that EON was actually very thrifty in their productions, and that example makes a lot of sense. Occam’s Razor seems appropriate here, because we know about the producers’ intent with showcasing a Rolex in money shots (this would be called the hero watch) and that Cubby hands over his personal Rolex for such instances (and there’s no need to further parse Cubby’s statement to make extraneous “but, what about… ” arguments), then whatever Bond wears in scenes without the watch money shots, are just throw-away watches if I may say, just to show that Bond is wearing a watch. So I suppose a plain Timex won’t do, but if it were a gold-toned Timex with a leather strap, that’s a different story, lol.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I'm sorry if I seem absentminded, but I cannot find any photos of the said gold watch in this thread. Was it a copyrighted image that was removed? Thanks to Higgie-baby for posting the quote from Cubby, such a wise businessman he was. I’ve read that EON was actually very thrifty in their productions, and that example makes a lot of sense. Occam’s Razor seems appropriate here, because we know about the producers’ intent with showcasing a Rolex in money shots (this would be called the hero watch) and that Cubby hands over his personal Rolex for such instances (and there’s no need to further parse Cubby’s statement to make extraneous “but, what about… ” arguments), then whatever Bond wears in scenes without the watch money shots, are just throw-away watches if I may say, just to show that Bond is wearing a watch. So I suppose a plain Timex won’t do, but if it were a gold-toned Timex with a leather strap, that’s a different story, lol.
I can post photos later if you'd like to see some. The Rolex isn't only used for money shots. It's used in many complete scenes as well, so I don't see why the watch that Connery wears with his suits is throw-away when they didn't use a throw-away watch for sportswear. Maybe because the watch is more visible with sportswear even without close-ups. But even if they wanted "just to show that Bond is wearing a watch" they could have found a similar-looking, cheaper diving watch to use to at least mimic the look of the Rolex if they wanted to. Instead they used a watch that looks completely different.
I'm sorry if I seem absentminded, but I cannot find any photos of the said gold watch in this thread. Was it a copyrighted image that was removed? Thanks to Higgie-baby for posting the quote from Cubby, such a wise businessman he was. I’ve read that EON was actually very thrifty in their productions, and that example makes a lot of sense. Occam’s Razor seems appropriate here, because we know about the producers’ intent with showcasing a Rolex in money shots (this would be called the hero watch) and that Cubby hands over his personal Rolex for such instances (and there’s no need to further parse Cubby’s statement to make extraneous “but, what about… ” arguments), then whatever Bond wears in scenes without the watch money shots, are just throw-away watches if I may say, just to show that Bond is wearing a watch. So I suppose a plain Timex won’t do, but if it were a gold-toned Timex with a leather strap, that’s a different story, lol.
Thanks, Matt, the photos will help. I can post photos later if you'd like to see some. The Rolex isn't only used for money shots. It's used in many complete scenes as well, so I don't see why the watch that Connery wears with his suits is throw-away when they didn't use a throw-away watch for sportswear. Maybe because the watch is more visible with sportswear even without close-ups. But even if they wanted "just to show that Bond is wearing a watch" they could have found a similar-looking, cheaper diving watch to use to at least mimic the look of the Rolex if they wanted to. Instead they used a watch that looks completely different.
Again, taking what Cubby said about loaning his personal watch for key scenes, maybe there were scenes without the close-ups in which they still had Cubby's watch on hand. We can't really tell, except about what was explicitly said that they went out of their way to use a Rolex for the close-ups and they tapped Cubby for that need. It's just like borrowing someone's pick-up truck to move a few things, then deciding on the fly to buy a dresser from Ikea while you still have the truck. In those scene in which Bond is suited up in business or evening wear and he is wearing the Rolex, who knows if there weren't any close-ups that ended up on the cutting room floor? I'm avoiding making it any more extraneous and proceeding with what we know vs. what we don't know; that Cubby loaned out his watch for certain scenes for a purpose and based on his statement, not for the duration of the whole shoot.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I'm sorry if I seem absentminded, but I cannot find any photos of the said gold watch in this thread. Was it a copyrighted image that was removed? Thanks to Higgie-baby for posting the quote from Cubby, such a wise businessman he was. I’ve read that EON was actually very thrifty in their productions, and that example makes a lot of sense. Occam’s Razor seems appropriate here, because we know about the producers’ intent with showcasing a Rolex in money shots (this would be called the hero watch) and that Cubby hands over his personal Rolex for such instances (and there’s no need to further parse Cubby’s statement to make extraneous “but, what about… ” arguments), then whatever Bond wears in scenes without the watch money shots, are just throw-away watches if I may say, just to show that Bond is wearing a watch. So I suppose a plain Timex won’t do, but if it were a gold-toned Timex with a leather strap, that’s a different story, lol.
Thanks, Matt, the photos will help. I can post photos later if you'd like to see some. The Rolex isn't only used for money shots. It's used in many complete scenes as well, so I don't see why the watch that Connery wears with his suits is throw-away when they didn't use a throw-away watch for sportswear. Maybe because the watch is more visible with sportswear even without close-ups. But even if they wanted "just to show that Bond is wearing a watch" they could have found a similar-looking, cheaper diving watch to use to at least mimic the look of the Rolex if they wanted to. Instead they used a watch that looks completely different.
Again, taking what Cubby said about loaning his personal watch for key scenes, maybe there were scenes without the close-ups in which they still had Cubby's watch on hand. We can't really tell, except about what was explicitly said that they went out of their way to use a Rolex for the close-ups and they tapped Cubby for that need. It's just like borrowing someone's pick-up truck to move a few things, then deciding on the fly to buy a dresser from Ikea while you still have the truck. In those scene in which Bond is suited up in business or evening wear and he is wearing the Rolex, who knows if there weren't any close-ups that ended up on the cutting room floor? I'm avoiding making it any more extraneous and proceeding with what we know vs. what we don't know; that Cubby loaned out his watch for certain scenes for a purpose and based on his statement, not for the duration of the whole shoot.
I'm aware of this. I still don't see how this makes the other watch not count at all. Sure, it counts less than the Rolex does, and it doesn't matter what make of watch it is. But if they didn't want to associate Bond with any watch other than a Rolex, why put him in another, very different watch in the other scenes when the watch doesn't even play a role? They could at least have found a steel watch with a black dial to pretend it's the Rolex rather than a gold watch with a white dial. Only once in From Russia with Love is the Rolex shown close-up and the dress watch in other shots with the same suit. For that your points make sense.
Thanks, Matt, the photos will help. I can post photos later if you'd like to see some. The Rolex isn't only used for money shots. It's used in many complete scenes as well, so I don't see why the watch that Connery wears with his suits is throw-away when they didn't use a throw-away watch for sportswear. Maybe because the watch is more visible with sportswear even without close-ups. But even if they wanted "just to show that Bond is wearing a watch" they could have found a similar-looking, cheaper diving watch to use to at least mimic the look of the Rolex if they wanted to. Instead they used a watch that looks completely different.
Again, taking what Cubby said about loaning his personal watch for key scenes, maybe there were scenes without the close-ups in which they still had Cubby's watch on hand. We can't really tell, except about what was explicitly said that they went out of their way to use a Rolex for the close-ups and they tapped Cubby for that need. It's just like borrowing someone's pick-up truck to move a few things, then deciding on the fly to buy a dresser from Ikea while you still have the truck. In those scene in which Bond is suited up in business or evening wear and he is wearing the Rolex, who knows if there weren't any close-ups that ended up on the cutting room floor? I'm avoiding making it any more extraneous and proceeding with what we know vs. what we don't know; that Cubby loaned out his watch for certain scenes for a purpose and based on his statement, not for the duration of the whole shoot.
I'm aware of this. I still don't see how this makes the other watch not count at all. Sure, it counts less than the Rolex does, and it doesn't matter what make of watch it is. But if they didn't want to associate Bond with any watch other than a Rolex, why put him in another, very different watch in the other scenes when the watch doesn't even play a role? They could at least have found a steel watch with a black dial to pretend it's the Rolex rather than a gold watch with a white dial. Only once in From Russia with Love is the Rolex shown close-up and the dress watch in other shots with the same suit. For that your points make sense.
I think the simplest explanation is pretty much what’s been said; they didn’t want to needlessly deprive Cubby of his watch when there wasn’t a scheduled close-up. However, on the option of using a dummied-up faux Rolex, I’d think they would have erred on the side of caution with the non-money shot scenes lest an unintentional close-up show the watch for what it was, a dummied-up faux Rolex, which would not just be embarrassing, but it would have possibly tainted audience perception about the real Rolex seen in another shot.
Going by your theory of Bond’s watch selection having a conscious, sartorial consideration, why did Lazenby and Moore wear sport-model Rolexes with their suits and evening wear? Shouldn’t they be more discriminating? I think the simple answer is that they were no longer relying on Cubby in those later productions and naturally had great flexibility with having a Rolex at their disposal for the whole shoot.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Tom Selleck received his eye emoting training from Timothy Dalton )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I cannot tell for sure, but I don't think that Bond wearing a dress watch was an accident, since he had it in three or four films. By that time they could afford every watch they wanted. It's just that Rolex Submariner was more emphasized, and was the main Bond watch at the time. And my favourite watch, btw.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
I cannot tell for sure, but I don't think that Bond wearing a dress watch was an accident, since he had it in three or four films. By that time they could afford every watch they wanted. It's just that Rolex Submariner was more emphasized, and was the main Bond watch at the time. And my favourite watch, btw.
Thanks for sending. The YOLT photo doesn't show what he's wearing but I'll check it out the next time I watch it. Yes, but as I've said, after YOLT, isn't it interesting how Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, etc. are shown wearing Rolexes more extensively? It's because as I've said, at a certain point I think they stopped borrowing Cubby's personal watch. (1) In movies where Bond uses multiple watches, Cubby loaned out his watch, and; (2) in movies in which Bond's watch was consistently the same throughout, except for watch changes as a plot element, it was because they had one watch worn by Bond that was especially designated for the entire shoot, whether it was a Rolex, Seiko or Omega; this is the one consistent conditional phenomenon we can logically and easily discern in practically all the movies, e.g., Occam's Razor.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Again, taking what Cubby said about loaning his personal watch for key scenes, maybe there were scenes without the close-ups in which they still had Cubby's watch on hand. We can't really tell, except about what was explicitly said that they went out of their way to use a Rolex for the close-ups and they tapped Cubby for that need. It's just like borrowing someone's pick-up truck to move a few things, then deciding on the fly to buy a dresser from Ikea while you still have the truck. In those scene in which Bond is suited up in business or evening wear and he is wearing the Rolex, who knows if there weren't any close-ups that ended up on the cutting room floor? I'm avoiding making it any more extraneous and proceeding with what we know vs. what we don't know; that Cubby loaned out his watch for certain scenes for a purpose and based on his statement, not for the duration of the whole shoot.
I'm aware of this. I still don't see how this makes the other watch not count at all. Sure, it counts less than the Rolex does, and it doesn't matter what make of watch it is. But if they didn't want to associate Bond with any watch other than a Rolex, why put him in another, very different watch in the other scenes when the watch doesn't even play a role? They could at least have found a steel watch with a black dial to pretend it's the Rolex rather than a gold watch with a white dial. Only once in From Russia with Love is the Rolex shown close-up and the dress watch in other shots with the same suit. For that your points make sense.
I think the simplest explanation is pretty much what’s been said; they didn’t want to needlessly deprive Cubby of his watch when there wasn’t a scheduled close-up. However, on the option of using a dummied-up faux Rolex, I’d think they would have erred on the side of caution with the non-money shot scenes lest an unintentional close-up show the watch for what it was, a dummied-up faux Rolex, which would not just be embarrassing, but it would have possibly tainted audience perception about the real Rolex seen in another shot.
Going by your theory of Bond’s watch selection having a conscious, sartorial consideration, why did Lazenby and Moore wear sport-model Rolexes with their suits and evening wear? Shouldn’t they be more discriminating? I think the simple answer is that they were no longer relying on Cubby in those later productions and naturally had great flexibility with having a Rolex at their disposal for the whole shoot.
Good point regarding Lazenby's and Moore's Bond and their use of Rolex.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I'm aware of this. I still don't see how this makes the other watch not count at all. Sure, it counts less than the Rolex does, and it doesn't matter what make of watch it is. But if they didn't want to associate Bond with any watch other than a Rolex, why put him in another, very different watch in the other scenes when the watch doesn't even play a role? They could at least have found a steel watch with a black dial to pretend it's the Rolex rather than a gold watch with a white dial. Only once in From Russia with Love is the Rolex shown close-up and the dress watch in other shots with the same suit. For that your points make sense.
I think the simplest explanation is pretty much what’s been said; they didn’t want to needlessly deprive Cubby of his watch when there wasn’t a scheduled close-up. However, on the option of using a dummied-up faux Rolex, I’d think they would have erred on the side of caution with the non-money shot scenes lest an unintentional close-up show the watch for what it was, a dummied-up faux Rolex, which would not just be embarrassing, but it would have possibly tainted audience perception about the real Rolex seen in another shot.
Going by your theory of Bond’s watch selection having a conscious, sartorial consideration, why did Lazenby and Moore wear sport-model Rolexes with their suits and evening wear? Shouldn’t they be more discriminating? I think the simple answer is that they were no longer relying on Cubby in those later productions and naturally had great flexibility with having a Rolex at their disposal for the whole shoot.
Good point regarding Lazenby's and Moore's Bond and their use of Rolex.
DG
Perhaps it's because fashions had changed. Sean Connery was dressed, for the most part, fairly unfashionably in his Bond films and wore a traditional Savile Row cut in his suits. The dress watch is more traditional as well. Lazenby and Moore were more adventurous with their fashions. The dress watch is the only watch in YOLT, I suppose since there are no close-ups where they wanted to show a Rolex. The dress watch is seen most prominently at the beginning of Dr. No (in which I'm guessing was used instead of the Rolex on purpose since it's a dressy occasion and the Rolex is worn more in this film than in the others) and in the second half of Goldfinger.
What's interesting is that if the gold watch turns out to be Connery's personal watch then you're theory is really blown. Because then it is just Connery wearing his personal watch when the Rolex was not available. The use of the gold watch would really have to have been at the direction of the producers or director to make your assumption about its use correct and as it stands there is no evidence for that.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
What's interesting is that if the gold watch turns out to be Connery's personal watch then you're theory is really blown. Because then it is just Connery wearing his personal watch when the Rolex was not available. The use of the gold watch would really have to have been at the direction of the producers or director to make your assumption about its use correct and as it stands there is no evidence for that.
DG
I'd probably have to give in then. But what if they wanted Connery to wear his own watch to save money, for the same reason he wore Cubby's Rolex?
Anyway, here are screenshots of all the non-Submariner watches (they might not all the be same, especially not the one in Diamonds Are Forever) that Connery wears in five Bond films:
Dr No:
The only close-up of the watch.
From Russia with Love:
This outfit shows the only example of how superado says Cubby loaned his watch for close-ups only. That's the case in the scenes where Bond wears this outfit and the watch switches a few times between the Rolex and the dress watch.
Goldfinger:
Look closely for it in this last photo. Though we only see the strap, the Rolex wouldn't hide so well under the cuff so it has to be a thinner watch.
You Only Live Twice:
Diamonds Are Forever:
We see (well, hardly see) a different watch in this film.
But again there is no evidence that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear a gold watch. It's all supposition on your part. While there is evidence that says that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear the Rolex. The fact that the gold watch appears on Bond's/Connery's wrist only means what you think it means if you can prove it. So prove it. Show me where it is written that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear the gold watch. All you have is a theory about a watch that no one remembers or can even identify.
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
But again there is no evidence that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear a gold watch. It's all supposition on your part. While there is evidence that says that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear the Rolex. The fact that the gold watch appears on Bond's/Connery's wrist only means what you think it means if you can prove it. So prove it. Show me where it is written that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear the gold watch. All you have is a theory about a watch that no one remembers or can even identify.
DG
The fact that the gold watch appears on Bond's wrist in a number of scenes means that Bond is wearing a gold watch in a number of scenes. The watch is there, and you can't deny that. If the producers and directors didn't want Bond to wear a gold watch then why would they let Connery wear it? If it was an accident once then I wouldn't think about the watch, but the damage was done. The gold watch appears with at least seven different suits and in some publicity stills with these suits and the tweed jacket in Goldfinger (I couldn't see the watch with that jacket in the film), and another dress watch in Diamonds Are Forever appears with at least two more suits. I get that producers wanted Bond to be identified with the Rolex, but I still can't see why that means Bond couldn't wear other watches as well. If it was a steel watch with a black dial I could see it as being a stand-in for the Rolex, but it looks nothing like the Rolex.
But again there is no evidence that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear a gold watch. It's all supposition on your part. While there is evidence that says that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear the Rolex. The fact that the gold watch appears on Bond's/Connery's wrist only means what you think it means if you can prove it. So prove it. Show me where it is written that the producers/directors wanted Bond to wear the gold watch. All you have is a theory about a watch that no one remembers or can even identify.
DG
The fact that the gold watch appears on Bond's wrist in a number of scenes means that Bond is wearing a gold watch in a number of scenes. The watch is there, and you can't deny that. If the producers and directors didn't want Bond to wear a gold watch then why would they let Connery wear it? If it was an accident once then I wouldn't think about the watch, but the damage was done. The gold watch appears with at least seven different suits and in some publicity stills with these suits and the tweed jacket in Goldfinger (I couldn't see the watch with that jacket in the film), and another dress watch in Diamonds Are Forever appears with at least two more suits. I get that producers wanted Bond to be identified with the Rolex, but I still can't see why that means Bond couldn't wear other watches as well. If it was a steel watch with a black dial I could see it as being a stand-in for the Rolex, but it looks nothing like the Rolex.
That's still not proof. It's circular logic based on an assumption you have made about the use of the gold wach. If I said Connery wears the gold watch high on his wrist in effort for it not to be seen. You would still say but you see it. It still does not prove what you're alleging. I asked for proof and you don't have it. It's just yours and Wendell's theory. You could say you see the gold watch over and over, but you still don't have proof or evidence as to why, and the why is what it is really all about. I freely admit that you see the gold watch if you really look for it. But it does not answer definitively, without a shadow of a doubt why.
The answer you always give is a theory, not evidence as to why. Show me definitive proof as to why and you'll convince me.
DG
Edit: your to you're
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Asp9mmOver the Hills and Far Away.Posts: 7,535MI6 Agent
In the FRWL Embassy escape scenes, Bond is shown in close up as wearing the Sub. In the long shots, he is wearing the gold watch. This is the strongest evidence that they wanted him to be seen to be wearing the Rolex, but didn't think they needed it for long shots. It's probably Connery's. In those days there was no pause, rewind or multiple home viewings. You saw the film and that was it. They didn't dream his wrist would be scrutinised so much for the long shots, just the big money shot on his wrist in close-up.
Sorry to be off topic with this question, but seeing that this is about NATO strap basics, what is the best way to clean a NATO strap?
I either hand wash it or stick it in a pants pocket and throw it in the wash.
I just got a couple of new NATO straps in the mail yesterday. Of course they were not Omega's version. Very smart move on the part of Omega if you think about it. They'll probably sell a boat load of them. Inexpensive when compared to the price of a new watch. But despite the high cost when compared to say a Phoenix Bond strap, they'll sell like hot cakes because of the SPECTRE/Bond connection. A brilliant way to make scads of money!
DG
So, what sharp little eyes you've got...wait till you get to my teeth.
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Comments
But it was used in plenty of entire scenes and not only in close-up shots. If it was used in a few entire scenes in Goldfinger, couldn't they have used it in other entire scenes and not the dress watch if they didn't want to use a dress watch?
Let's say for the sake of argument you are correct Matt. That Connery's Bond wore the gold watch to show that he had a sartorial awareness regarding watches and modes of dress. An awareness that is more attributable to modes of dress today than in the 50's/60's. Why don't they (producers/directors) ever show what that watch is? I mean if it is key to how Bond is portrayed on screen, how come they don't ever gives us a full frontal of the gold watch? The money shot, as it were.
See what I mean? It does not pass the sniff test. It sounds like you are trying to prove something you believe rather than really trying to find the truth. The same thing Wendell is famous for.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I do see what you mean. Obviously the dress watch isn't important enough to be shown up front. The Rolex is certainly the most significant watch to Connery's Bond, and I completely agree with that. It is certainly not important what the dress watch actually is, and that's why only the Rolex is shown up close. The association with the Rolex is what is most important. But I don't see how Bond is also unable to wear another, less important watch that still has a place in his wardrobe. The truth is that Sean Connery often wore a dress watch in the Bond films, which I would be happy to post visual evidence of. I think the dress watch (or perhaps multiple dress watches) appears too much to not consider it at all, and thus I think it is valid to consider the reasons why Connery would wear it rather than the Rolex.
Hope springs eternal, I guess.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Don't you.....
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I can post photos later if you'd like to see some. The Rolex isn't only used for money shots. It's used in many complete scenes as well, so I don't see why the watch that Connery wears with his suits is throw-away when they didn't use a throw-away watch for sportswear. Maybe because the watch is more visible with sportswear even without close-ups. But even if they wanted "just to show that Bond is wearing a watch" they could have found a similar-looking, cheaper diving watch to use to at least mimic the look of the Rolex if they wanted to. Instead they used a watch that looks completely different.
www.justgiving.com/inMemoryOfLewisCollins
www.helpforheroes.org.uk
I hate you, Magnum!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Again, taking what Cubby said about loaning his personal watch for key scenes, maybe there were scenes without the close-ups in which they still had Cubby's watch on hand. We can't really tell, except about what was explicitly said that they went out of their way to use a Rolex for the close-ups and they tapped Cubby for that need. It's just like borrowing someone's pick-up truck to move a few things, then deciding on the fly to buy a dresser from Ikea while you still have the truck. In those scene in which Bond is suited up in business or evening wear and he is wearing the Rolex, who knows if there weren't any close-ups that ended up on the cutting room floor? I'm avoiding making it any more extraneous and proceeding with what we know vs. what we don't know; that Cubby loaned out his watch for certain scenes for a purpose and based on his statement, not for the duration of the whole shoot.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I'm aware of this. I still don't see how this makes the other watch not count at all. Sure, it counts less than the Rolex does, and it doesn't matter what make of watch it is. But if they didn't want to associate Bond with any watch other than a Rolex, why put him in another, very different watch in the other scenes when the watch doesn't even play a role? They could at least have found a steel watch with a black dial to pretend it's the Rolex rather than a gold watch with a white dial. Only once in From Russia with Love is the Rolex shown close-up and the dress watch in other shots with the same suit. For that your points make sense.
I think the simplest explanation is pretty much what’s been said; they didn’t want to needlessly deprive Cubby of his watch when there wasn’t a scheduled close-up. However, on the option of using a dummied-up faux Rolex, I’d think they would have erred on the side of caution with the non-money shot scenes lest an unintentional close-up show the watch for what it was, a dummied-up faux Rolex, which would not just be embarrassing, but it would have possibly tainted audience perception about the real Rolex seen in another shot.
Going by your theory of Bond’s watch selection having a conscious, sartorial consideration, why did Lazenby and Moore wear sport-model Rolexes with their suits and evening wear? Shouldn’t they be more discriminating? I think the simple answer is that they were no longer relying on Cubby in those later productions and naturally had great flexibility with having a Rolex at their disposal for the whole shoot.
"Higgins I can explain!"
Tom Selleck received his eye emoting training from Timothy Dalton
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k151/teeritz/DrNoStill3.jpg
http://38.media.tumblr.com/3410e57eefb53ff08ac1838aac17cfa5/tumblr_nb8n5rQN1B1rf1jvro1_1280.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/JublpoI.jpg
http://seanconneryfan.ru/photos/f13-17-64.jpg
I cannot tell for sure, but I don't think that Bond wearing a dress watch was an accident, since he had it in three or four films. By that time they could afford every watch they wanted. It's just that Rolex Submariner was more emphasized, and was the main Bond watch at the time. And my favourite watch, btw.
Thanks for sending. The YOLT photo doesn't show what he's wearing but I'll check it out the next time I watch it. Yes, but as I've said, after YOLT, isn't it interesting how Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, etc. are shown wearing Rolexes more extensively? It's because as I've said, at a certain point I think they stopped borrowing Cubby's personal watch. (1) In movies where Bond uses multiple watches, Cubby loaned out his watch, and; (2) in movies in which Bond's watch was consistently the same throughout, except for watch changes as a plot element, it was because they had one watch worn by Bond that was especially designated for the entire shoot, whether it was a Rolex, Seiko or Omega; this is the one consistent conditional phenomenon we can logically and easily discern in practically all the movies, e.g., Occam's Razor.
Good point regarding Lazenby's and Moore's Bond and their use of Rolex.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Perhaps it's because fashions had changed. Sean Connery was dressed, for the most part, fairly unfashionably in his Bond films and wore a traditional Savile Row cut in his suits. The dress watch is more traditional as well. Lazenby and Moore were more adventurous with their fashions. The dress watch is the only watch in YOLT, I suppose since there are no close-ups where they wanted to show a Rolex. The dress watch is seen most prominently at the beginning of Dr. No (in which I'm guessing was used instead of the Rolex on purpose since it's a dressy occasion and the Rolex is worn more in this film than in the others) and in the second half of Goldfinger.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
I'd probably have to give in then. But what if they wanted Connery to wear his own watch to save money, for the same reason he wore Cubby's Rolex?
Anyway, here are screenshots of all the non-Submariner watches (they might not all the be same, especially not the one in Diamonds Are Forever) that Connery wears in five Bond films:
Dr No:
The only close-up of the watch.
From Russia with Love:
This outfit shows the only example of how superado says Cubby loaned his watch for close-ups only. That's the case in the scenes where Bond wears this outfit and the watch switches a few times between the Rolex and the dress watch.
Goldfinger:
Look closely for it in this last photo. Though we only see the strap, the Rolex wouldn't hide so well under the cuff so it has to be a thinner watch.
You Only Live Twice:
Diamonds Are Forever:
We see (well, hardly see) a different watch in this film.
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
The fact that the gold watch appears on Bond's wrist in a number of scenes means that Bond is wearing a gold watch in a number of scenes. The watch is there, and you can't deny that. If the producers and directors didn't want Bond to wear a gold watch then why would they let Connery wear it? If it was an accident once then I wouldn't think about the watch, but the damage was done. The gold watch appears with at least seven different suits and in some publicity stills with these suits and the tweed jacket in Goldfinger (I couldn't see the watch with that jacket in the film), and another dress watch in Diamonds Are Forever appears with at least two more suits. I get that producers wanted Bond to be identified with the Rolex, but I still can't see why that means Bond couldn't wear other watches as well. If it was a steel watch with a black dial I could see it as being a stand-in for the Rolex, but it looks nothing like the Rolex.
That's still not proof. It's circular logic based on an assumption you have made about the use of the gold wach. If I said Connery wears the gold watch high on his wrist in effort for it not to be seen. You would still say but you see it. It still does not prove what you're alleging. I asked for proof and you don't have it. It's just yours and Wendell's theory. You could say you see the gold watch over and over, but you still don't have proof or evidence as to why, and the why is what it is really all about. I freely admit that you see the gold watch if you really look for it. But it does not answer definitively, without a shadow of a doubt why.
The answer you always give is a theory, not evidence as to why. Show me definitive proof as to why and you'll convince me.
DG
Edit: your to you're
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I remove mine from the watch, rub- in some washing up liquid and rinse it off.
I either hand wash it or stick it in a pants pocket and throw it in the wash.
I just got a couple of new NATO straps in the mail yesterday. Of course they were not Omega's version. Very smart move on the part of Omega if you think about it. They'll probably sell a boat load of them. Inexpensive when compared to the price of a new watch. But despite the high cost when compared to say a Phoenix Bond strap, they'll sell like hot cakes because of the SPECTRE/Bond connection. A brilliant way to make scads of money!
DG
"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." Richard Grenier after George Orwell, Washington Times 1993.