It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
There was not much all things Bond back then. The movies were just not taken seriously. there were no books that broke down the films or any real decent reviews. One had to hunt down the occassional magazine article.
Yes, GF was the first one shown on network TV in the early 70's on ABC. (1972). And it so edited. The gunbarrel was cut, the electrocution in the bathtub was cut down, even Oddjob's and Goldfinger's death scenes were cut down. Go figure.
Your second question: there is so much more info out there today. Good and detailed books, (I recommend License to Thrill for a good read), more specials on TV and more articles in addition to the internet. There was not much out in the 70's and even the 80's. I was in Denver on business back in the summer of '81 prior to FYEO release and a film festival was going on. I got to attend. They showed GF, ran trailers on all the films released up to that point and the upcoming FYEO. they had a half-assed Q&A where they served vodka martinis but that was about it. The event was on a Saturday afternoon and fairly well intended.
What is your favorite Bond film?
I think you know what mine is...
A comment now...
At the time back in 1968-69 did we really think that Sean would go on forever? It seemed that so many were disappointed that he was not in OHMSS and an argument back then was "would the film have been better had Sean starred in it?"
IMO, I think OHMSS is fine the way it is sans Sir Sean. After seeing his lackluster performance and his physical condition (and bad toupee) in YOLT and DAF, I for one am glad he was not in OHMSS. George may have been wooden in a couple of scenes but handled the fights, the romance very good. He was by far the most physical of the Bonds.
You say you guys?
I remember 1965 as the year of "Bond mania." Lots of commercials associated with Bond, also tv shows "Secret Agent" "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." and "Get Smart."
DBS: Oh so nice to see someone my age on here! :)
Did I think Sean would go on forever? No ... but I wanted desperately for the series to go on forever. I was happy with Moore and adjusted pretty quickly to him. It helped that I fell in love with Bond from the books first.
First of all, welcome DB5 and good to have you here. Glad you could add to the "Bondmania" perspective.
My favorite will always be the "icon", the mighty Goldfinger. From everything my Dad and Pop-Pop said, and from the UDVD's, it's obviously the movie that started "Bondmania" and made the series immortal. It just ticks all the boxes that Bond fans look for to this day and influenced the series in a major way.
I knew Sir Sean could not go on forever, but in the acting department there is no contest between he and George, none whatsoever. I feel Sir Sean would have been way better in every aspect of the OHMSS role, especially after I saw him in "Robin And Marian". Of course, Sir Sean is my all time favorite cinematic hero so he pretty much can do no wrong with me. I think he would have been inspired and challenged by the superior script and story that was OHMSS. But we'll never know.
Sir Sean was a lot more physical in the early rather than later films, but even in DAF he had that terrific elevator fight which showed he could still do that. When speaking of George's physicality, I think Craig is right there with him. He's just been creaming people on screen. Plus he knows how to pull a punch, I hope poor Yuri Borienko got hazard pay for working with George. I've always seen George as more comparable to Chuck Norris as opposed to Sir Sean. Nonetheless, OHMSS is a terrific film and a series classic, and I have grown to love it as much as any.
It's funny how much mis-information we believed about films when I was a kid...someone would repeat (or start) a rumour and we had no way to check it. Often times most kids would just believe it (like the one that said that there were to be 12 Star Wars films and Luke would get a different body part chopped off by Darth Vader in each one, until he defeated Vader in the final film because he was a Jedi robot with Luke's head!).
My Bond fandom was interesting. I was 13 in 1982 and the perfect age to be a Bond fan. At that time you saw a movie in a theatre or else you waited a year or two to see it on TV. If you missed it on TV then you had to wait a few months to see it again! Even if you had cable (which was about 3/4 of the families I knew) you only had 13 channels. So movies were much more special then because you had limited opportunities to see them. I only knew one family that had a VCR and it cost $80 to buy a VHS copy of a film! So we had to see the film the night it was shown on TV because you had no way to record it. TV stations would run promos in Sept detailing all the movies that they would show in the upcoming months. Sometimes we'd be excited to know we'd get to see a certain film 3 months later and would count the days.
Of course, movie theatres were different as well. Popular movies would run for months at a time (The Empire Strikes Back played the first-run theatres for 11 months in my city). But once a film was gone, it was gone. Sometimes they'd bring a film back for a limited engagement two years later but it would only be the biggest films, like Star Wars.
So this was the situation with films when I was young. But a very unusual thing happened - they started playing Bond films on TV fairly regularly. My recollection was that between my local independant station and one of the big three networks we'd see a bond film every two weeks, or at the most after 2 months. So I was very quickly able to catch up on all of the Bond films in a pretty short time. I really only watched all the Connery films and also OHMSS - I couldn't stand Roger Moore or his films. But I absorbed all of the films over and over again and tried to get every little detail.
Mind you, there was no internet at the time so we got a lot of stuff wrong. Someone said the gunbarrel sequence was called "the eye" and depending on who you talked to it was the view through a camera (of someone stalking Bond), a robot's eye, or the inside of a human eye! No one knew that it was a gunbarrel until about a year later. I still remember when I saw a double feature of GF and DAF on TV when I was 11 - myself and all my friends loved the films but we all wished that the cool guy from GF could have played Bond in DAF - we thought they were two different actors!
The only way to learn more about the Bond films - other than talking to kids who just guessed at things or made stuff up - was to get a book about the Bond films from the library. There were only 2 or 3 and we treated them like bibles when I was young. Now I laugh at some of the stuff in those books - I realize that a lot of the author's opinions seem strange and that there were a lot of factual errors. But we assumed that they must be experts to have written a book!
4EverBonded- I know what you mean! Most of the people on this site are younger than my son!
I haven't missed seeing each new Bond film on opening day since "Live And Let Die" and I've enjoyed EVERY Bond incarnation. Each actor brought something fresh to the character which was important to keeping the franchise viable throughout the decades; each had their strengths. Connery was the original and his first four were incredible (but he should definitely have stayed away from "DAF"). Lazenby was very physical and would have been terrific if he'd continued. Moore's lighter touch was perfect for the 70's and I think kept the franchise alive. I especially enjoyed Dalton's take, since I always felt Bond needed a return to the harder edge that the series started with. Brosnan was great as well; a combination of the best of both Connery and Moore; plus, he was MY age and still getting the girls!! At first I thought Craig was a puzzling choice, but after seeing him in "CR" and "QOS", I have to admit that his Bond is certainly the most physically capable thus far. He's a violent guy! I can actually believe that this Bond could handle anything.
Since you're a little bit older than my 50, do you remember all the merchandise that was everywhere you looked? We've had some differing takes on that so it would be interesting to see what you remember.
I had never for the life of me knew what that thing was. My freinds could not figure it either. It was not until a college pal told me ( just prior to the release of TMWTGG) that it was a gunbarrel. It amazes me to this day how no one actually knew that it was a gunbarrel.
I was doing ROTC training and the next time I got to handle a rifle, I opened the bolt , put my thumb in there and looked down the barrel. AND VOILA! THERE IT WAS. :))
How many of you plan on purchasing the complete blu ray set for all 22 films when it comes out on Sept 25 ? I checked Amazon and right now the price is about $180.00 I suppose that is a good price. I would like it for the bonus and behind the scenes info that each film will have in addtion to the movie.
Along with OHMSS several other never released on blu ray will be included.(OP, YOLT, TSWLM, DAF) Can hardly wait. :
That's rather presumptuous I think. Most people I know don't have guns.
The Blu-Ray set I'll pass on for the moment as I'm happy with all the UDVD's and have other things I'd rather collect, but eventually I'm sure I'll have it.
Dear Commander Ross,
By the time Thunderball was released in '65, the franchise was in full swing and both the cinematic and literary Bond had scaled unprecedented heights of popularity.
The spy genre had blossomed and our hero had spawned a pelethera of imitations and yes, there was a huge merchandising programe in place and you could buy everything from a model of the undertaker's hearse in Dr.No,to the famous corgi Aston Martin,to the attaché case in FRWL.
It was an incredibly impressive time because Fleming's Bond heralded so many firsts.
From a cinematic perspective, Maurice Binder's title sequences were an artistic masterclass. The fusion of Barry's pulsating and sweeping scores into the fabric of the movies gave a level of importance to film music that was to become the new industry standard. The locations took us to places that the majority of people had never experienced. The glamour, clothes and style oozed class and the action sequences and gadgets were revolutionary. Furthermore, Thunderball was the last movie that was quite solidly routed in Fleming's stories so there was an aura of believability to the adventures that made them much more exciting than the silliness that was to follow.
From a literary perspective, there were just as many firsts .Wether it was the Jonathon Cape hardbacks with their fabulous Richard Chopping cover art, or the Pan paperbacks, the books sold like hot cakes and were merchandised in a way that had never happened before. Furthermore, some very creditable authors entered the market and the quality of thriller writing benefited greatly. The likes of Peter O'Donnell, Len Deighton, John Gardner, Andrew York, James Munro, Fredrick Forsyth, or even the great John Le Carre might not have entered the fray had it not been for Fleming's success.
In short, it was an amazing time to be twelve years old and make no mistake, Bond was part of a cultural and social revolution. The like of which we haven't seen since.
Regards,
Bentley
Although I must grudgingly admit that she made quite the lust inspiring appearance in "The Beastmaster". >:)
Weak story and a weak Blofeld.
Naturally I was devasted when Connery opted out and GL helmed OHMSS. Yes, it was impossible not to think of Connery, but what a great film. It took its time and developed a good story, even though I never understood why Blofeld didn't recognize Bond.
And then came DAF, the next major slip up. An older, heavier, and obviously bored Connery phoned in it. A completely unbelievable and unthreatening Blofeld and Jimmy Dean served up the formula for the Moore years--an actor who never ever convinced me he was dangerous, serious, or ever threatened.
Despite the ordeal of Moore, I have seen every Bond first in a theater and of course later on tape and disc.
Moore's first was his best. Dalton's first was his best. None of the Brosnan films have been memorable, except by DAD because of how it was. CR was a great beginning only to be followed up by a disappointing QOS. Here's hoping Skyfall gets the reboot back on track.
For me the best Bond films are story and character centered, rather than spectacle and clever quips.
In the beginning of any franchise it's seen as revolutionary and breath-takingly original. Think Bond, Star Wars, Harry Potter. Then as it goes on it becomes more normal, then the imitators come. After a period of time it isn't cutting edge anymore and it becomes just one of many entertainment choices.
I envy those who lived through the original Bondmania of the early/mid-60s. With the 500-channel universe, the internet, and home video-game systems Bond is just one of many entertainment choices for young boys now. Even when I was young (early 80s) there were only 12 channels and two of them played Bond films every few weeks - seeing a Bond film was still an event and they were seen as "special".
But then again, we're at 50 years of Bond so the appeal hasn't diminished too much :-)
If not, there are so many other things to do for children today as has been said, I've met people who say they were 'huge ' Bond fans when they were young, yet it's worn off over time, no doubt due to other choices.
50 years on, we're OK though. I don't think die hard Bond fans are in danger of running out just yet. ;)
Great stuff Crab Key, thanks for joining in.
Just 2 weekends ago I watched my UDVD version of Dr.No, and it's just amazing to consider the impact that the film has had 50 years later. What I think I'd like to do at this point is do a weekly review of the films in order of release. But not just the film itself, let's discuss any and everything behind the scenes and what was going on as far as public reaction. Since some of us like yourself can recall what was going on in that respect, we can preserve our thoughts for posterity and for future generations. The UDVD features can provide us background information to help us remember.
I'll break the films down by categories such as the lead actor, women, villains, locations, music, etc so we can get in depth discussion going. We'll begin tomorrow.
I second what you say. Great stuff and deep insight. I agree with all your comments and insight.
Sir Henry: Great idea. Will look forward to your breakdowns and the comments that we all can contribute.
One comment: Beginning with DAF and the light hearted Moore days, I for one never felt the films needed that light hearted touch. I liked the films of the sixties (all except for YOLT). The early ones had that sense of brutality and realism then end with a one liner from Sir Sean and George. "She's just dead." "He had lots of guts"
Agreed, Carole Bouquet carried herself with far more class than Tanya and Barbara Bach, who used how Bond movies portrayed women as a platform to speak out on regarding her feminist beliefs.
Now that the film has attained a cult status, do you think any other Bond films might attain this status?
My vote would go to LTK. a great movie, unjustly underrated by some purists.
Your thoughts or nominations?