• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

'Moonraker's Dolly'—Braces Or Not?

It came sooner than I expected, and...........no braces!
 
Simon said:
Moonraker is on ITV1 right now. The 'Dolly' scene is coming up in about 10 minutes or so.

I'll keep you posted!
Click to expand...
I already saw it - no braces, sadly!
 
And apparently, there was ANOTHER Moonraker film. Directed by Orson Welles to boot.
So do we add Dirk Bogarde to the list of Bonds?

mr_poster.jpeg



Like most people who know a little about these things, I always thought Dr No was the first (not counting the 1954 TV Casino Royale). Well I was wrong. And I was also under the impression that the only Bond film Orson Welles had anything to do with was that other Casino Royale, the 1967 spoof, in which he guested as the villainous Le Chiffre. Wrong again…

Look in any movie guide and I’ll guarantee you won’t find an entry for a 1956 film adaptation of Ian Fleming’s James Bond novel Moonraker, aka Hell Is Here, directed by none other than Orson Welles.


https://iansadler.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/moonraker-the-forgotten-1956-james-bond-film/

An interesting read.
 
jimv1 said:
And apparently, there was ANOTHER Moonraker film. Directed by Orson Welles to boot.
So do we add Dirk Bogarde to the list of Bonds? ...
Click to expand...

... And Peter Lorre to the list of Dollies? :evil:
 
There was an ad on 'Carrot's Commercial Breakdown' or something like it, way back, which played on that scene and added the braces. They weren't in the film, you were just meant to worry that he was going to eat the girl and then be relieved that he didn't.
It's late, but something like that anyway...
 
What a wonderful topic! Off the top of my head, I would have said she had braces too!

As well, I would have thought there had to be an 80s movie where two kids get their braces stuck together.

I can remember a friend of mine who claimed it happened to him (this would have been around 1983 or 84, I guess.

Lol. Mandela Effect, indeed!
 
Well, I don't want to say `I told you so`, but I was sayig (and you can look back) on this thread a long long time ago that there was something odd about her bottom teeth (with other posters denying this).

My own theory was (on the basis of this) was that she had lower braces only (as a compromise option between the need to preserve the comedy in the script and in keeping with the demand from the actress and her agents that she is not made too ugly - perhaps). On the big screen this would have been visible enoguh to telegraph the fact that she was wearing braces - but this is far less visible on the smaller screen formats we watch it on nowadays, hence the confusion.

I think this proposition still has some legs. Either way, thiere seems to be something truly Fortean going on here.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Wow. Her teeth do look pretty awful, looking at those pictures.
It also does look like evidence of tampering. But...how and why?
Click to expand...

Just looks like normal, non-braces-wearing teeth to me, with a few digital artefacts thanks to the author messing about with the images. Should have looked at the Blu-ray!
 
GNC said:
Just looks like normal, non-braces-wearing teeth to me, with a few digital artefacts thanks to the author messing about with the images. Should have looked at the Blu-ray!
Click to expand...
OK, good point. Probably just 'digital dirt'.
 
Mythopoeika said:
OK, good point. Probably just 'digital dirt'.
Click to expand...

But don't you find it odd that the digital dirt just happens to coagulate around the woman's teeth - which just happen to be the very point of contention?

It would settle it for me if someone could find a still from the same film in whch another actor (not Dolly or Jaws) is grinning or smiling and we could see similar `digital dirt` connected with their gnashers. A sort of control sample, if you like.
 
Just get the DVD, make a screengrab and blow it up so much that the image is distorted. Simple as that.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
But don't you find it odd that the digital dirt just happens to coagulate around the woman's teeth - which just happen to be the very point of contention?

It would settle it for me if someone could find a still from the same film in whch another actor (not Dolly or Jaws) is grinning or smiling and we could see similar `digital dirt` connected with their gnashers. A sort of control sample, if you like.
Click to expand...

I'd rather see some tits if we're going to all that trouble.
 
Zeke Newbold said:
. A sort of control sample, if you like.
Click to expand...
An excellent & logical suggestion.

GNC said:
Simple as that.
Click to expand...
No it's not. Unfortunately...

The aspect of which specific version of the film print has been telecine-adapted, for each of the video format versions, is also a valid variable.

A problem with all of this 'Dolly's Braces' mystery is (I suspect, possibly) that those of us who saw the original 70mm celluloid version at the cinema (or perhaps early direct transformatted versions used for initial real-time tv broadcast in the 1970s/80s) may have seen a different 'cut' from that which is now the common video / online version.

Since she says that she didn't wear a dental brace in the movie, did the version we saw (at original release) perhaps have classic frame-based analogue retouching on the emulsion to add-in a brace?

I would love to see a 16mm reel of the movie...if a print still exists somewhere (small private cinema??)

I still insist that the narrative continuity of the shot sequence makes no real comedic sense without her having a brace.
 
Ermintruder said:
..I still insist that the narrative continuity of the shot sequence makes no real comedic sense without her having a brace.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The entire shot makes no sense if she wasn't wearing braces, as the whole rest of the set-up depends on showing that in all other respects they are diametrically opposite from one another. The braces show a sudden, unexpected similarity: just smiling with unadorned teeth would not only perpetuate the difference, but also be as you say a pointless scene, and Bond films of that era in particular didn't hang about narratively.
 
Ermintruder said:
I still insist that the narrative continuity of the shot sequence makes no real comedic sense without her having a brace.
Click to expand...

a) I never remembered Dolly having braces in the first place.
b) I thought the comedic effect came from the size difference of the two characters

If you look at the scene, she is filmed from high up and he from down below, so as to show their respective angle due to the height difference. That's the joke.

Well, that and the huge glasses, implying very bad eyesight.

But I am one of the illuminati, so I would say that.
 
Last edited:
stuneville said:
Exactly. The entire shot makes no sense if she wasn't wearing braces, as the whole rest of the set-up depends on showing that in all other respects they are diametrically opposite from one another. The braces show a sudden, unexpected similarity: just smiling with unadorned teeth would not only perpetuate the difference, but also be as you say a pointless scene, and Bond films of that era in particular didn't hang about narratively.
Click to expand...

I wore braces for about a year, and they never looked anything like the blow-ups purporting to show Dolly sporting them. Showed up in photos, too.
 
Kingsize Wombat said:
Well, someone on Reddit has already done this. Result - no braces. Because they never were any braces.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/5bj4p7/moonraker_braces_solved_by_film_collector/
Click to expand...
.. unlike in Poltergeist 2 .. that film was braces agogo .. someone should start a thread spoofing this one with "I'm sure I remember that kid in Poltergeist 2 had braces but you can't quite make it out ? it must just be the mandala effect or the lighting ?"

 
Last edited:
Swifty said:
.. unlike in Poltergeist 2 .. that film was braces agogo .. someone should start a thread spoofing this one with "I'm sure I remember that kid in Poltergeist 2 had braces but you can't quite make it out ? it must just be the mandala effect or the lighting ?"

Click to expand...
That's braces and then some.
 
Kingsize Wombat said:
Well, someone on Reddit has already done this. Result - no braces. Because they never were any braces.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/5bj4p7/moonraker_braces_solved_by_film_collector/
Click to expand...


Well take a close, zoomed in look at the second picture provided by the poster on that link: if you can't see something oddly discolured about Dolly's lower teeth then either you have poor eyesight-or I've gone potty.(And if it's just `digital dirt` then let's seem some other examples of it from the same movie - especially on other people's teeth).

I would also ask people to watch that scene again (in any format). The difference between Jaws and Dolly is emphasised byt the camera angles - as has been said above. It is then, however Jaws smiles - and the sun glints along his metallic gnashers (thus emphasisng their importance to that scene). Then when Dolly smiles back it is very tentative at first, almost in an embarrased way - as if she first wants to hide something. Then as she gives a full on smile that's the moment Jaws properly falls for her. They have something in common after all (and the comedy of it suits the vein of that whole film).


Without braces, or something to suggest them, this scene lacks bite.

Even if you are of the opinion that Dolly never had braces, or anything suggestive of such in this film,then you still have to account for the fact that so many, so many people out there are adamant that she did - and this includes film critics, the BBC and hardcore Bond fans who must have watched the movie many times.

It's still a puzzler - and to me constitutes the only really significant `Mandela effect` issue there is - regardless of what the explanation for it turns out to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top