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
No, just moray eels...
Spring of '81 started it all with the release of John Gardener's License Renewed, the first new original Bond novel in 13 years. There were articles on the comeback in several leading U.S. magazines. It would lead to a new original Bond novel for about every year for the next 20 or so years.
Foremost in '81 was the release of FYEO and a return to a more down-to-earth Bond adventure after MR took the series to its outrageous limits and was well received by critics and fans at the box office amid strong competition from films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Superman II. So we had new Bond in the book stores and new Bond in theaters.
Although there wasn't a ton of merchandising as there had been with MR, FYEO saw the first significant return to Bond in comics form, at least in the U.S., with the Marvel Comics FYEO adaptation. We got both a magazine-size, a paperback version and later a 2-issue regular comics version. Two years later, OP got a magazine adaptation.
Also that year, the U.S. James Bond Fan Club put out the first collected Bond comic strip collection with 3 stories.
That fall, after many years, we got the first significant book on the making of the Bond series, Steven Jay Rubin's The James Bond Films. I spent hours with that book and eventually read the cover off it.
Later still, the above mentioned Brosnan book updated through MR came out and it and the Rubin books complemented each other. Now we have countless books on the Bond series, too many probably, but these were the only real outlet outside of fanzines to get this type of information. This was before VCRs were common and you could really only catch a Bond film when the ABC network showed one made the Brosnan book valuable in recapping the films' narrative while peppering in his comments.
What was also significant was these books also sometimes criticized the films, especially Brosnan. It opened my young eyes in that I thought the films were mostly just accepted as great because they were popular.
I even started my own Bond project that year, a scrapbook, back when that meant collecting clippings from magazines and newspapers. I cut every newspaper ad for FYEO or reviews, some with the original thong version and others in the hot pants version. I kept up with the scrapbook throughout most of the decade and eventually just compiled everything into a clipping archive, a couple of bins worth now residing in a storage unit.
If it had a proper Barry score it would be my solid favourite. As it is it's one of his best.
A Barry score would have helped but there is no getting around the utterly lackluster ending once inside the monastery. That said, FYEO was such a breath of fresh air after suffering though Moonraker.
Which brings up an interesting question: do we score some films differently than we really ought to, just because of the circumstances behind them? Plenty of us have a sentimental attachment to the first Bond film we ever saw, and that's understandable -- but does it go even father than that? Do some folks give higher marks to GE than it really deserves, just because they had waited so long after LTK that any new Bond film was just a godsend? Do others unfairly downgrade QoS simply because it wasn't up to the standard set by CR? Certainly, there are legitimate reasons to prefer any one film over another -- but which of these judgments are justifiable and which are just capricious? @delfloria critiques the "lackluster ending" of FYEO, while I was completely amused by 007's summation, "that's detante, comrade." I'd say both opinions are justifiable.
My own Top Ten has 3 Connerys, 2 Moores (and yes, FYEO is one of them) 1 each from Lazzer, Dalton, and Brosnan...and 2 from Craig. No telling what I'll do if NTTD is great enough to impinge on that established ranking...
I love the showdown with Gogol but it's the action between that and Bond's arrival at the monastery buildings that leaves me cold. Yes, there is something to be said about the circumstance around the arrival of particular Bond films. Years and content matter. I found QoS an interesting entry because it almost felt like what the film series would have been like had Golfinger had never existed and set a new tone for the series.
GE was highly-lauded just because it was what a lot of people, at least at the time, considered a proper Bond film and Brosnan was more of a hybrid Bond reflecting what they were used to as opposed to Dalton's take. I didn't agree in '95 and still don't. Okay film but overrated. QoS a lot of the same. I liked it from first viewing and only have slight reservations of not living up to CR, but the friend who went with us was disappointed it didn't hit those heights.
Another view along these lines: There are a couple of films that are among the most popular in the series with fans, critics and the general public, GF and SF, that I don't think as highly of as the majority. There's another poster here who often makes the claim on such that that view comes just from wanting to dislike what is popular, which I strongly disagree with. Both are excellent films with their obvious strong points, but as a whole they just don't do it for me and I will counter with what I think are valid points as to why I don't value them as highly.
;)
Maybe I should move this over to controversial opinions: I have a lot more fun watching MR than SF. SF is the better film, no question, but not a better time watching it. Give me the double-taking pigeons and drunks over Tennyson readings with overly dramatic music.
I will now duck for cover.
You're totally entitled to your opinion. Both of those are in my Top Ten but I can certainly recognize that each has some flaws. I also recognize that MR can be loads of fun to watch if you just hit the *PAUSE* button on your brain...
Didn't Sir Sean teach you to never say never watch anymore?
Actually, I never watch that one anymore either...
On that one in particular, I can't say that I blame you!
And obviously I'll add "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."........................ Which Ian Fleming contributed to.
Yes! But I kinda liked The Girl From U.N.C.L.E. more... *CRUSH* (Not to be confused with THRUSH).
Oh, beyond question: U.N.C.L.E. was one of the high water marks of the '60s spy craze, and I too was quite enamored of Stephanie Powers as April Dancer... but far less interested in Noel Harrison's character (whose name, quite frankly, I had completely forgotten until just now. Thank you for the reminder, Wikipedia.) Truth be told, I begrudged the series every moment Mark Slate (a forgettable name if ever there was one) was onscreen without Miss Dancer. (Maybe his first name should have been "Blank.")
I understand the crush on Steph but the series itself was......................TERRIBLE.