I agree...but let's not forget that Connery's Bond was a product of the sixties...that whole Rat pack era is looked back upon with fondness for it's cool....also, all the gadgets were very novel..hard to impress today when your 3 year old kid has a two way TV on his wrist.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Wait a minute, Sip, aren't we talking Dick Tracy now?

Lots of good memories in this thread. I read Fleming's books when I was in high school...watched Dr No and From Russia With Love at the drive-in during my freshman year in college. I worshipped Bond...managed to get a set of license plates for my first car (a '59 VW) that ended in '007. Never owned a PPK, though I've often looked at them, but I do carry a little Beretta in my pocket to this day. I haven't seen all of the Daniel Craig movies, but I'm still going with Connery...even as Admiral Ramius.

__________________
Rick, W0FG
CTR2 68-72

I like all the Bond movies. There isn't a single one of them I won't watch. BUT... in my opinion, the best Bond movie ever is Casino Royale with Daniel Craig. It's not even close, in my opinion.

This is the one Bond movie where the characters have any depth at all. If I had to level one criticism at the Bond movies, it would be that the writing is shallow, to the point where the characters (including Bond himself) have virtually no depth. You see them interact; you hear them speak; you understand the story, but you don't really know them. Sean Connery's Bond was a cad; Roger Moore's Bond was a creepy old guy; Timothy Dalton's Bond was... ummm... unremarkable; and Pierce Brosnan's Bond was sinister. But depth? None. This wasn't the actors' fault, I think; rather, the blame is on the writing.

Casino Royale broke this in fine fashion. James Bond was already a ruthless agent, but this movie told the story of how he became a sociopath. I thought the interaction between Bond and M was particularly poignant. You could see the concurrent admiration and loathing she has for him, and the disdain he has for her lack of field experience, as she relies upon numbers for her decisions.

Quantum of Solace was a big disappointment for me. I was hoping for more of the same, but I didnt' get it.

Apparently, the next Bond film is due in U.S. theaters in fall 2012. I almost never go to the theather any more, rather despising the 20 minutes of commercials, uncomfortable seats, sticky floors, and poor manners of fellow moviegoers. But I'll go to see the next Bond flick!

I'll take this further. Ian Fleming's Bond wasn't very popular in the US until Jack Kennedy in response to a question regarding what he read stated that he really enjoyed the James Bond novels. After that they took off like wildfire.
Also I agree completely with the post regarding Daniel Craig's portrayal of Bond. I think Casino Royale was one of the best-next to Dr. No of course

__________________
Forum consigliere

That's kinda anti Bond though BuckeyeChuck, Bond in the books WASNT a ruthless agent or a sociopath.

he was a man who took no pleasure in killing nor needed to do it, he just looked at it as a task that reluctantly needed to be done, like a soldier or in his case a naval commander.

and the only time he really started to hate his job and defy orders was after Tracy's death (his wife in the book ONHMSS) and he openly tried to get fired from his job by NOT killing a female Russian sniper in "The Living Daylights", hell the only time he really did anything questionabile was when he went after Blofield in you only live twice, which was purely for revenge for Tracy's death at more or less his hands.

and he had friends in his job like in "From Russia With Love", "Thunderball", "For Your Eyes Only", other intelligence guys doing pretty much what he was.

you know Felix Lighter, Lugi, Krambanko or however you spell his name.


and if I may be so bold, what you like isnt what bond was ment to be, your looking for leon or that girl from La Femna nika, bond is a spy not a hitman by trade, killing people is only second nature in his job in order to escape with whatever crutal people, files or machinery that he needs to get back to his goverment and sometimes you need to kill people in that job to get the job done, it comes with the territory.

(fun little piece of trivia my father actually protected the american equavalent of that codex machine that bond stole in "From With Russia With Love" back in the 1960's on his radar site in germany, and had a PPK in 7.65 mm next to it in a desk drawer for that very task! FYI he said he did that because the base security was way too lax around it)


But I do agree with you I'd like there to be abit more depth to them over the films like what was somewhat done with Lighter and I wish John Rhys Davies had become another regular fixture like he was in the indian Jones films.

however I myself have stopped going to the movie theater for the most part, theres only two franchises Ill wait through 20 bloody minutes of ads for and that's for the Bond and Star Trek franchises.

As the Bond fan I am, I must have a Walther PPK .32 from the Zella-Mehlis pre-WWII era. Here is mine:



The cover artwork for the first edition of From Russia With Love is just about the coolest there is, and it features our favorite gun maker:



Even though that cover gun was a S&W, the original Fitz-Colt Specials have always held a special place for me. That's why I had to have my own version of a Fitz-Colt:

...forget that the very first James Bond was played on television by none other than ------ you guessed it, Barry Nelson. It was an adaptation of Casino Royale.

The reason James Bond lost his Beretta, was that the little .25 caliber was fitted for a silencer, and it got caught in his trouser pocket when he got into the fight with Rosa Klebb in "From Russia, With Love".

M's words were (paraphrasing), "We can't have someone with a 00 number under-armed." "Would you rather go back to ordinary duties, 007?"

Bonds protestations about needing the silencer fell on deaf ears. Major Boothroyd sneered at the Beretta and the soft holster, almost the way Bond's tailor said when he got his first tailored suit. "I think we can do better than this."

I always only saw Sean Connery as James Bond. Before the movies really went over the top, Connery brought real emotions, like fear, to the role. When he got in danger, the audience felt it. Roger Moore was horrible, and I totally agree about Daniel Craig. He comes across as a hit man, and not the Eton-schooled, Fettes College- and Geneva University-educated, former Royal Navy Commander, that Sean Connery, or even Pierce Brosnan (Brosnan is a distant second).

As I remember, Ian Fleming did not like Sean Connery as James Bond, when he first met him. However, after he saw Connery on the screen, he changed his mind. It's rather odd, that Connery played somewhat of a buffoonish character as the British army soldier in "The Longest Day", yet he was completely believable as a spy in "Dr. No".

I think that "From Russia, With Love", is my favorite, followed by Dr. No. After those two, the special effects took over and dampened the story lines. I always thought they should have played the movies a bit closer to the book, and let the original stories take over. They were great in their own right. Of course, cinema is limited in how much of the book can be screened, and still limit things to two hours. Much like Tom Clancy's books. They really don't transition well.

The problem most folks who actually read have is whether you see a movie first or read the book first. It colors your perceptions.

If you read a book and then see the movie you are likely to be more disappointed as the writer's descriptions give you an idea about the main characters appearance, mannerisms, outlook/reactions, etc., that stick with you if you have any imagination at all. I read the 'Hunt For Red October' long before the movie ever came to be and to me, Alec Baldwin made a lousy Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford was not without his differences ala Clancy's descriptions, but he (in my mind) became 'Jack Ryan' in my reading of subsequent books. To me, he just fit the character better. The only thing that stuck out to me was Ford brought a human frailty and uncertainty to the character that doesn't come across in the books. Maybe that's why I accepted his interpretation and managed to implant him as the character - he successfully made the book hero 'human'.

Having seen 'Dr. No' early on at a young age and then getting into the Fleming books, Sean Connery was the mental image I had formed of 007 before the first page was ever read (since I loved the movie) and it's hard to divorce one's initial impressions once imprinted.

When reading a book I enjoy, I find myself 'inserting' known actors into the roles/people described in the book based on the written impressions and memories of past performances I've seen by the ones my mind has chosen. Then, when a movie IS made, I'm often disappointed because some casting director chose someone who (to me) was totally inappropriate for the role.

The success of a movie rarely hinges on the contrast or agreement with the original manuscript as most people (in my experience) can't be bothered these days to actually take the time to read anymore. Most of those posting here obviously are the exception rather than the rule, but I would expect no less here.

And more grist for the mill - to me they have yet to make a decent interpretation of any of Clive Cussler's books to film - Dirk Pitt is a character that has not been captured by an actor.

All of them? Don't forget that he also wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and two non-fiction books "The Diamond Smugglers" and "Thrilling Cities", a compilation of travel articles he wrote for the London Sunday Times.

I also have a Walther (made by Manurhin), but I chose a PP rather than a PPK. I have never seen a James Bond film in its entirety except for the spoof Casino Royale. I remember Roger Moore as The Saint back in the 60s, and at one time I owned a Volvo 1800E car, an upgraded version of the P1800 driven by Moore in The Saint.

I didn't buy either the PP or the Volvo because of their links with Bond or The Saint, but simply because I liked them.

__________________
Kill it, cook it, eat it.

The phrase from Dr. No: "Thats a Smith and Wesson and you've had your six" deeply troubles me.

oh come on its was the first film and they had trouble getting the right gun for some of the scenes, that one in particular where he had a walther PP instead of a ppk to begin with and in that particular scene he was using a browning 1910 instead of the walther.
Dr. No - imfdb :. guns in movies :. movie guns :. the internet movie firearms database

plus they were already a 100k overboard back then and they thought the film was going to flop and it nearly didnt get to theaters

I'm still deeply troubled.

One of the better short stories collection is "For Your Eyes Only".

Several of the stories are really great. I especally liked -

• "For Your Eyes Only" - A great story of revenge.
• "A Quantum of Solace" - Great story of human interaction, loss and redemption.
• "The Hildebrand Rarity" - A very interesting tale of "Who Killed Krest?"

We've heard that

The first Bond movie I remember seeing as a little boy was Goldfinger. I mean, live, sitting there in the movie theatre like. I enjoyed it I think, but I saw it with my parents. My Dad, a real-life people shooter-atter from W.W. II who used a Bren Gun shaken not stirred found Bond unconvincing and the villians fanciful. So, I kept quiet about it, but I believe I liked the movie. I got all the books along the way, and grew up watching Bond. Connery was always my favourite, and then next was Brosnan. Moore did not convince me. Lazenby was okay, but gone so quick it was hard to glom onto him much. Dalton was I suppose okay as a passing fancy, but I mean, I saw Flash Gordon. Can't get those green tights out of my mind when I picture him. Then came Casino Royale with Daniel Craig. My wife and I saw the film in Irapuato when it first came out, and only a few minutes into it, she whispered to me “Well, what do you think?”

We had debated what a blond-haired Bond might be like and decided that although I am blond and an International Man of Mystery in my own mind myself, it would probably not work out too well. “He’s exactly as I remember him being described in the book. Maybe not in appearance, but in character. I like him.”

Quantum of Solace disappointed, but I don’t blame Daniel Craig or the cast. I blame the Director. Although Speilberg could film the Invasion of Normandy clearly enough for one to see everything going on, there seems to be a new breed of Director that prefers to film fast, violent action in a series of quick, choppy cuts that pass by so quick that the viewer only gets a subliminal hint of what might in fact have been happening. It’s irritating, and strikes me that they probably do it that way because they don’t know HOW to actually keep the camera there steady and let us see what’s happening. Choppy cuts = poor direction, in my opinion. If you can’t show us what you want to show us so it’s there in our faces, get out of the chair and let someone else have a try.

Hopefully, the next Bond will be back up to snuff.

I had a PPK/S in .380 for a while myself before coming down here. Wish I had kept it, because there'd be no problem having it here. Oh, well...

Yes, especially since the weapon in question was (or appeared to be) a Colt M1911.

Well, in that same scene...before Bond sat down to play solitaire, he screwed a suppressor on the the barrel of an FN .32 (possibly a M1910) and not the Walther he was shown popping the bad guy with later.

The writers/producers obviously knew little to nothing about firearms...I remember Bond being issued an AR-7 Survival Rifle described as a sniper rifle "in caliber point two-five..." Imagine a Charter Arms AR-7 in .25 ACP!...or not.

__________________
The Last Standing Knight

the thinking was they could easily rebarrel it in .25 acp (just a slightly sized up barrel and a different hammer after all) and it was probably just a matter of them not having a smith on set at that time along with the walther.

and when you have a strict shooting schedule to stick with you stick with it and make due, and keep in mind in the rest of the films they made sure they had the right guns for the right scenes and if not they probably couldnt find a screw on suppressor that could fit the PP.

and they even made a mistake like that in miami vice during the hitlist where Michale Talbot was shooting crocketts bren ten at the end because they forgot his browning high power for the shoot.

so its all really minor stuff and keep in mind it was the FIRST film and it nearly didnt make it to theaters to begin with because of budget troubles so lay off.

It's possible that in Jamaica, they had trouble renting the right guns, but I also feel the producers just thought the audience wouldn't know the difference.

Even in the UK, Walther PPK's might have been in short supply at movie gun companies. It wasn't yet famous there.

I know of one outfit that filmed a series ion Australia. Because of the gun supply house not always having what they needed, they rented somewhat on the basis of what cost most. In two episodes, a Ruger Blackhawk subbed for a Colt SAA .45. The heroine usually had an Iver Johnson in lieu of the Webley or S&W hammerless break-top that the real character would have used if she wanted a gun of that sort. And the double-barrelled rifles often had external hammers. I guess the later sort with internal hammers that the expedition would have used were so costly or rare in gun rental places that they only appeared occasionally. A rifle that was suppposed to be a .416 Rigby was several different bolt action models, but they all looked pretty much the part. One was built on a P-14 action or a Remington M-30, which was just a slicked up P-14/P-17. The safety was the giveaway. It had been very nicely rebuilt as a sporter with the London look. And I think I also saw a Sako Safari model and maybe a CZ .375.

The pistols included Colt .45 autos, one probably being a Springfield, judging from the forward-canted slide grooves. The Webley revolvers were a type not made until 1927, I rhink, although the show was set from 1919-1922. MK IV .38's are simply a lot easier to find than MK III examples. The hero wore a brace of nickled MK VI .455's in shoulder holsters when he didn't have a 1911 .45 auto. Those, at least and the .45 auto, were correct for the times.

Most movies today do have more authentic guns for the roles. This is a great advance from films like one that I saw as a kid, where Winchester M-92's were fighting the Seminoles in 1830's Florida!

I did notice the gun errors in Dr. No, but these were less frequent in later Bond films, so maybe someone cared. They did sub Colt Diamondbacks or Pythons for S&W M-15's at an air base in, "Octopussy", which was nothing like the short story that Fleming wrote under that title. But it featured Maud Adams as Octopussy. That was a classy casting.

The other series I mentioned was, "Sir Arthur Conan Dyle's The Lost World", made in Queensland from 1999-2002. I have seen another series, made in the UK, based on the same book, as have been about five movies of that name. The UK series seemed to use Britsh military arms of WW I vintage. I guess that's what was most easily rented that fit the time period. The author of the book didn't know guns at all, as you Sherlock Holmes fans may have noted in those books, which he also wrote. But movies should try to make viable choices for the characters. I wrote fan fiction about the Aussie series, and had fun adding a few guns to those seen on the show, and simply corrected the Iver Johnson for what the heroine really would have used. Actually, in the later fics, she changed to a round-butt S&W M&P .38, acquired from another expedition that had perished on the enchanted plateau in Brazil. When they returned to Britain and had further adventures, she bought a spare of the S&W and used a Mauser M-1914 .32 auto bought from a shady pub owner in one story. In another, she received unexpected guests in her manor with a Colt .32 auto tucked in her skirt, with a sweater to cover the gun.

And I let one character trade her crossbow from the show for a S&W M&P with five-inch barrel. She would have had access to guns after joining the others, and it was only to give her a distinctive weapon that the writers had her keep the crossbow, I guess. Another girl who could have gotten a gun stuck with her knives. But not wearing holsters did keep their skimpy outfits uncluttered, which was nice from a male visual standpoint...

One thing's certain: Bond's use of the PPK made the gun really famous, and stimulated Walther's sales. A PPK was even on the cover of one of the paperback book editions.

But I'm a little disgusted that none of the actors who've played Bond likes guns, and some have openly stated that they hate guns. Connery owns/owned a 12 gauge shotgun, although I don't know the make. I presume he used it for bird hunting in the grand style. With the money he earmed from the Bond role, he became a socialite of sorts. But he dislikes pistols, and said so, to my considerable irritation. But actors who know anything about guns are rare, and if they like them, they dare not say so, given the political temperament on movie sets.

T-Star

As far as I'm concerned, Connery is James Bond.

But, I'm not sure as to who got more "action", James Bond, James West, or James Kirk.

Count me in! Although I prefer Roger Moore to Sean Connery, and the Walther PPK to anything else he carried!
My favorite movies are: The Man With The Golden Gun, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, and The Spy Who Loved Me.
Also I enjoyed George Lazenby in Her Majesty's Secret Service too, he had possibilities! Dale

__________________
"Long live the S&W 3rd. Gen.!"

I had all the books at one time, enjoyed each. My favorite is the original Bond, Mr. Connery. I found it curious that it seemed they had a different Felix Leiter in each film. I guess I liked "From Russia" the best of the films. Interesting that Robert Shaw was in that one, later in "Jaws", then in "The Sting" playing an utterly different character in each. A comparatively unrecognized fine actor.

I like them all and I too think there is no other Bond than Sean Connery. I don't have a favorite but I do have a favorite line...from Goldfinger - when Bond was on the table with the laser burning its way to his crotch and he asks, " do you expect me to talk, " and Goldfinger calmly answers with menace , " no mister Bond, I expect you to die...". Awesome!

These lines from "The Man With the Golden Gun" still make me smile:

Bond - "Who would pay a million dollars to have me killed?"

M - "Jealous husbands, outraged chefs, humiliated tailors. The list is endless."

Shaw was also very good in, "The Deep."

My first memories of Robert Shaw were as Captain Dan Tempest in The Buccaners. That was good at the time. I liked him in Jaws. I can't say that I ever saw him in a James Bond movie, but I have never watched one. I have only seen parts of some films, usually while visiting friends or when I turned the TV on in the middle of a movie. What I saw was mediocre entertainment with unrealistic fights and shoot-outs.

At one time I had all the books, but they are long gone.

__________________
Kill it, cook it, eat it.

I don't have the movie handy, but was it not the armorour (sp?) that described the delivery of the PPK? I might be wrong, tho'...

I have been a fan of the Bond series since childhood. I have a memory of seeing "You Only Live Twice" in the theater...I would have been about three years old. I remember the excitement of that "gun barrel logo" opening...that unique 007 music and its promise of adventure.

When a new Bond would open, my dad would skip work and take me to see it on opening day. So, the Bond films are tied to fond childhood memories.

I looked forward to each time ABC showed a Bond on the Sunday Night Movie (that dates me). For years, Bond films were only on ABC in a primetime slot.

I love them all. Some films are stronger than others, but each has great moments. Each are products of the times in which they were made and reflect the values of the day.

I remember, at age nine, being disappointed watching the trailer for "Live and Let Die". WHAT? NO SEAN CONNERY??? But, when the movie came out, I quickly accepted Moore, who was the primary Bond of my childhood and young adult years. I still like him very much as Bond and think he's vastly under-rated, as are his films. I think "The Spy Who Loved Me" is one of the best films in the series and his performance in it was excellent.

Connery, of course, will always own the role. As Brosnan said in a 1995 interview, he casts a long shadow over the series. I am particularly fond of those first four films.."Dr. No", "From Russia with Love", "Goldfinger" and "Thunderball".

For a long time, I didn't like George Lazenby in the role. However, after seeing "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" a number of times, and coming to appreciate it as an excellent Bond film, I have come to appreciate his performance more. He was following Connery's footsteps and that is a very tough act to follow, particularly for a novice actor (at the time).

The one actor I didn't think was right for the role was Timothy Dalton. However, I respect him as an actor and the serious way he approached the role. He tried to capture the Bond as written in the books and researched the role accordingly. I just don't think he had the right presence for the role.

I liked Brosnan very much. In the mid 80s, I doubted he would be a good Bond...but then saw him as a KGB assassin in the thriller, "The Fourth Protocol" (1987) and knew he would make a good Bond. For those that don't like Brosnan, but love Bond...just remember, he was a big part in bringing the franchise back to the screen successfully after a long absence, when it didn't seem like "James Bond will return". I was sorry to see him leave the series. Of the Brosnan films, my favorite was "Tomorrow Never Dies". I was particularly pleased with the score by David Arnold, the best Bond composer since John Barry.

I was skeptical about Daniel Craig, and was not sure the "Batman Begins" concept would work in "Casino Royale". How do you get a world wide movie audience, which has followed Bond since 1962, to go along with the notion that this is his first mission? But, as it turned out, I liked the movie very much. I even enjoyed the portrayal of Bond as a "boot" 00 man, too. Craig was excellent and made the role his own. I look forward to his next outing as 007. When he is on screen, I do not find myself missing any of his predecessors.

One thing I really appreciate about the movies...that is, the "official" EON Productions movies...are the many talented invidividuals behind the scenes who played such a great part in the development of the franchise. Think of Ken Adam's distinctive sets, John Barry's music, John Stears stunt work...Maurice Binder's main titles...Richard Maibaum's dialogue, the direction of Terence Young and Guy Hamilton...just to name a few from the early years. There is a whole family of people from all the disciplines in film making, brought together over the years by the EON procucers, particularly Cubby Broccoli, that have made the Bond films so great. We naturally tend to think of the actors who have portrayed Bond, M, Moneypenny, Q...the villains...the girls, but, without those behind the scenes filmmakers, there would be no Bond movies.

I am a big fan of the Ian Fleming novels. I have read and re-read them all. As I read them, the Bond character exists only in my imagination--in my mind's eye, I do not see any one of the actors from the films. The novels and stories transport me, as a reader, back to the 50's-60's cold war period. Like Raymond Chandler's work, Fleming's work takes you back in time. I like that.

For me, I don't really compare the films and books. They are different media...and the films took off and had to grow with the times. So, I'm not one of those book fans who gets bent out of shape when the movies are not strict intrepretations of the original source material. That said, I like when the films try to stay grounded. Fleming, due to his own association with the intelligence world during WWII, imbued the books with details that gave an air of authenticity that helped the reader suspend disbelief when the plots became fantastic. I like when the films try to do the same and draw upon elements of the original novels.

The series (films and books) certainly influenced my interest in firearms and, yes, prompted a few gun purchases, including a 60s era Walther PPK 7.65mm and an AR-7 (the lastest version, as made by Henry). For that matter, the books influenced my taste in clothes, watches and the like. They even influenced my choice of profession, of government service in LE. When I met the woman who became my wife, I discovered she was a huge Bond fan...who had grown up in Denmark...and moved to the US...and become a hard charging LAPD cop. Fleming would have liked her! I fell for her, of course, and she's the best thing that ever happened to me. Needless to day, my wife and I never fail to see the latest Bond film on opening day.

I disagree when the Bond character (either the books or films) is described as a "sociopath", as some film critcs have in recent years. I think the term is poorly understood by such critics and applied carelessly.

A true sociopath (or psychopath, or "anti-social personality") is a person with a personality disorder. Such men are not reliable in combat and would not be reliable in the intelligence world. They are totally ego centric and lack real feeling for others. Bond, as Fleming wrote him, was a man of war (or cold war), but one with a conscience, who found killing distasteful, even when necessary. Above all else, he was a dedicated servant to his government, prepared to sacrifice his life if need be. No sociopath would have this sense of duty.

To me, the Bond character is intelligent, competent, resourceful, honorable, tough when he must be, ruthless when he must be, but always with a moral compass, and often with compassion. This comes through in the books and also in the films.

So, those are my late night thoughts on my childhood hero of fiction, in books and movies. I continue to find the series entertaining and am very glad that "James Bond will return". In a few years, I hope to skip work to take my daughter (who is now 4) and my wife to see a Bond movie on opening day.

__________________
Trust, but verify - R. Reagan

Wow! Lew Archer, that was a fantastic post! I'm with you on every single point you made. Every one, right down to watching the ABC Sunday Night Movie when it was a Bond film with my dad and then taking my daughter to the new ones when they come out!

I recently purchased an Ernest Borel SUB 200T Sharkhunter vintage Swiss Automatic in great shape, but I needed a band/bracelet for it that would fit my big wrist. I decided on a NATO dive strap and, of course, I just had to get the "Bond" NATO strap like the one Sean Connery wore in Goldfinger with his Rolex (although mine is properly sized in width to the watch).

Bond's Rolex on a British Royal Navy colors NATO strap:



My SUB 200T Sharkhunter on a British Royal Navy colors NATO strap:

Most interesting. I had never seen a Rolex on other than the original stainless or gold link bracelet.

Because Bond was a SCUBA diver as one of his sports (the other was golf), I supposed that he had a Submariner. That feeling was confirmed when in, "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", he used his watch as a improvised brass knuckle and commented that it was heavy. The watch was damaged, but Bond decided to replace it with the same model.

Fleming just called it a Rolex, never giving the model. The movies changed the watch, partly perhaps to give Seiko publicity. No idea if they helped to sponsor that movie.

But it seems improper to change the Rolex or the PPK. Those made Bond, Bond. Like his Sea Island casual shirts or his modified Bentley. He was a man of strong loyalties to certain products. Even what he drank remained mostly consistent.

Where'd you get the shark tooth, presumably from C. megalodon?

I picked up the tooth for $20 at the Our World Underwater dive show in Rosemont, IL last year.

The Royal Navy issued the NATO straps for use with dive watches. The strap still secures the watch if one of the springbars fails. The strap withstands saltwater with its nylon construction and stainless steel hardware and it will fit on the wrist as well as over any wetsuit or other bulky material. They are very comfortable, secure, and available in a myriad of colors and color schemes. The Royal Navy had them made up in their official colors as did many other military units.

Of course, Bond would have one in the proper colors of his former attachment. The thing that drives watch fans crazy is the fact that the NATO strap on his Rolex in Goldfinger is way too small for the width of the watch's springbars as you can see in the photo. It's always at odds how movie production companies will go the length of getting the proper NATO strap, but then get it in the wrong size. Geez!

I was at the dive show last year because Doxa Watches presented 24 of the most famous living diving legends with a limited editon (99) of their SUB 1200T Professional dive watch. The "Diving With Legends" book by Dr. Pete Millar was released and Doxa kept 5 of the watches made with the DWL logo in the lower left quadrant. That left only 70 watches left and I had to have one.

http://www.padi.com/scuba/news-event....aspx?id=14938

As a fan of Clive Cussler and his adventure hero Dirk Pitt (who went up against James Bond in the book "Night Probe!"), I had to have an orange face Doxa dive watch!

I even found a great deal on a rare, vintage SUB 300T Professional as well so now I have an old one and a new one!

I can remember being taken to see Diamonds are Forever at the Odeon cinema in Leicester Square during opening week. My mum worked in Selfridges in Oxford Street at the time. I still have the movie program somewhere.

Connery and Brosnan are tops for me. They brought all the elements of the franchise together in perfect balance, action, charisma and humour at the right level.

The Roger Moore films overplayed the humour side for me. The movies are still fun to watch, though.

Timothy Dalton had too much thrusting diction for the role IMHO. I have seen him do much better stuff. He was great as Prince Barin in Flash Gordon. Barin to Zarkov while both are chained to a wall "Tell me more about this man Houdini". Priceless.

Lazenby struggled a bit and was also given the poison chalice of the first Bond film where you saw him genuinely involved with a woman. Diana Rigg was simply wonderful as the spoiled brat growing up at last. Lazenby did get a laugh from me after the fight scene right at the beginning of OHMSS. "This never happened to the other bloke".

Danial Craig and the writers have taken Bond in a new, harder direction. Not all will like it, but he does it so well. Will his new bride, Rachel Weiss, appear in a Bond film soon?

I grew up watching the James Bond films. I have read several of the books but did not like them as much, though I agree that the characters have much more depth to them in the books.

One thing that really impresses me about Bond is that he could survive with the Walther as his prime weapon. I have owned three Walther PPK - because of my "I wanna be like Bond" bug. The first one was a genuine Walther, worked great but cut the snot out of my shooting hand. The second was an Interarms import and worked pretty well but not well enough to last very long as my carry gun. The last was a Smith version of the Walther and it truly sucked. It never worked from the get go, even though I bought it new. It jammed multiple times per mag. Later there was a safety recall for the gun.

I think that a Smith Bodyguard would have been a more reliable concealment piece for Bond.

Ahh well, us skinny Englishmen with small hands don't get slide bite.

I agree, and so did Geoffrey Boothroyd, who told Fleming to get 007 a Centennial, which he did use,, along with the Walther, in, "Dr. No" (the book). In his splendid, "The Handgun", Boothroyd said that the then-new S&W M-60 would have been the ideal Bond gun, because of reliability and stainless construction. But Fleming had died by then.

Fleming liked small automatics because they were flat and concealed more easily.

Oh yeah! Best (non)wardrobe of ANY "Bond Girl"!

Exactly. I'm also a skinny Englishman with small hands. I have no problems with my Manurhin PP. Prefer it to the PPK. Greater length for greater accuracy and one extra shot. I could never understand why it was reduced in size for concealed carry by German detectives. Compared with my CZ 75B the PP is a small pistol. Fits nicely in my pocket, but we are not allowed to carry, concealed or otherwise, here in France. Does a reduction of 25mm in length and 5mm thickness make that much difference?

__________________
Kill it, cook it, eat it.

Hi Buck,

Sorry for the delayed response to your post, I missed it somehow.

While I don't claim to be a Beretta expert, the gun in my picture is dated on the frame 1948. My understanding is that the 318 was produced until sometime in 1937. My gun also has an alloy frame and a cocking indicator. To my knowledge those features were only available on a 418. On the other hand, I have read that the grip safety changed during the run of 418s so that either would be correct.

I agree with you that the books are less then specific on exactly which model he used. Also the gun is lost/replaced several times in the books as well. While they never mention him using an alloy framed Beretta, I choose to believe that is the "shiney new Beretta" that "M" gave him at the end of Moonraker.

Here is an excellent write up on "The Handguns of Ian Fleming’s James Bond":

The Handguns of Ian Fleming’s James Bond

Regards,

__________________
Dave

Cool. Looks like this might be turning into a tactical/dive watch thread! Here's Bond's Nato band again from mm6mm6:



Here's a pic of my Luminox 8802 on the same band (with a daily carry):