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
If only.
You know, your comments are making me not like Vladek Sheybal, which is really not fair to Vladek Sheybal. I thought you were done with this thread? Can't resist can you.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1503559
You're really racking up the puns in that post.
I guess that just about sums it up.
Nice to see you can take a quote out of context, and I'm to use your quote from Glover as gospel? Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that bigfoot exists. I'm suggesting that because one does not see it for themselves, does not mean it doesn't exist. It means it debatable, which bigfoot is. If it wasn't debatable there wouldn't be a slew of shows dedicated to debating it's existence. I personally do not believe in bigfoot, just as you do not believe my claim. But then I don't spend my time disproving bigfoot, because I'm secure in my belief that it doesn't exist.
Well, exactly, it just about sums it up.
You're in much the same situation as those individuals who spend their time trying to prove Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or the Celestial Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists inasmuch as, because of the way you're approaching it, you'll go on searching forever. You can never disprove a negative so if you don't find what you're looking for in all the different formatted versions of the film you're looking at, it won't dissuade you (after all, the shot could have been "censored" before then.) So you'll check the PAL video version of the film and if you don't find what you're looking for there, it still won't dissuade you. So maybe you could get your hands on an original 35mm print of the film and if it's not there, it still won't dissuade you (after all, you saw it in a particular place). So maybe you find an original print which screened in Sacremento and.... etc. you get the idea.
Well, as I've said several times, there's nothing stopping you speaking to any of these people yourself. I daresay it would take less time than checking the edits across several versions of the film and tracking down the PAL copy. It took me 10 mins to find John Grover's contact details and get in touch. I daresay it would be easy enough for you to do the same with him or John Glen or Alec Mills. You could do the same with Virginia Hey in seconds as she has a contact page on her website. It would also have the advantage that you'd receive a definitive answer. As I already have done from John Grover.
So my amusement now is - How many new posts on this particular thread will there be every morning? For some members this is obviously a titillating topic.
(yeah, even I couldn't resist a pun ...)
I just watched FYEO on bluray for the first time and I swear that theres a bit of nippleage I've never noticed before.
As Bond is sneaking through Gonzalez's grounds theres a shot of one of his 'hostesses' making out with a guy who looks like Murray from Flight Of The Conchords.
On 00.20.28 is that a nipple, only clear as day because of bluray? Or is it just a shadow?
If proven this would surely make FYEO the most nipple heavy Bond film, given the well known Cassandra Harris nipslip later on.
How many more hidden nips are out there in Bond waiting to be uncovered by us intrepid nudity Indys?
Not so fast. Someone really convinced Dolly had braces (and remember, many different persons think so...), could say that two copies exist : one with the braces, the original one, and one without, when it was reported to EON that psychologists were concerned that braces shown in a jokingly way would be a harm to kids having them in the audience. And there you have some reason for censorship. Note how the shot of her smile is a shot that is independent from the others, etc...
John Glen is a very didactic director (even though TLD was hopefully less problematic in this way than with Roger's last movies), so well here we've got a split second to understand that the guard is surprised. I don't think he intended something "arty" as the split second freeze edit in QoS (unless you think we had a shot of a naked Mr White there in some copies :) ).
Also don't be fooled by the fact that this edit is a weird coincidence with your confidence over what some think they saw in the theater. It's rather that without this edit, you wouldn't be so confident IMO.
And don't use the fact that many answers have been ridiculous and/or arrogant indeed, to strengthen your idea you''re right ! You should rather read how other persons first though like you, and then changed mind.
Also, for the anecdote, I've seen several times the myth that "Ian Fleming has a cameo in FRWL" popping back alive over twenty years. It's part of things that come and go, many people are sure despite all the evidence etc.
"Flying Spaghetti Monster". Bigfoot is a ridiculous notion but I genuingly want to believe in this! Native to Italy I presume? ;-)
In respect to the topless did she or didn't she, who cares? The question should be is whether the Spagahetti monster is made of it or just looks like it?
Good question. The religion that follows the FSM is called Pastafarianism (really!) so I think it is made out of pasta (and meatballs apparently)
Much like Virginia Hey's breasts, you seem to have also imagined all this so called amazing attention this thread has received.