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
look at the sudden cut from the guard (not as bad as the infamous "Poltergeist Cut" (if you catch my drift (and my 80's lingo)) to a cropped image of Virginia Hey,in all the released (VHS,DVD, Blu-ray) editions
Why isn't it even mentioned in the commentary tracks?
I know what I saw (twice!)
I seem to be older than most of you here, and while I didn't see the movie at the theater, I am *sure* I remember the scene including the full frontal shot (probably about 4 frames) when it first aired the next year on cable here in the US. (I've been digging to see if I can find out exactly where and when that was; I can't remember which cable network it was on, as I believe I subscribed to all of them at the time.)
I have seen it many times since, on recordings and on TV, and recall seeing the scene at one time or another in all the states mentioned here (with only the bodyguard reaction shot; with that, then the wide shot showing her side; and the reframed [just below the neck up] front of Hey followed by the BG shot; and with all three shots).
My curiosity was piqued just as Jarrod's was; why would they bother to edit this, and exactly when was it done? And what happened to the original version?
I'm afraid the law is littered with cases of people who honestly swore on the bible and had what they truly believed to be the complete truth shown up to have never happened. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly after 25 years. You may well be convinced of what you saw but with an absence of any corroborative evidence and only two suspiciously recent members who choose to use their first post to support you when the general consensus is you are mistaken, every judge in the land would direct the jury to acquit the film on the charge of having a full frontal topless scene.
A similar precedent occurred here a few years ago when every single member, myself included, thought that Dolly always wore braces but looking through every edition of MR we could find this proved to untrue. So sure were we of this that we came up with convoluted theories like they removed them with CGI or something but in the end the only logical explanation was that we were just plain wrong and we just had to accept the fact.
I would conclude that you have misremembered this and that the scene has always been what we have now. The moment where Bond throws her the neglige if you pause it shows the edge of her nipples (yes I've done it!). That moment blown up on the big screen and left to ferment in a febrile adolescent imagination and coupled with the side boob shot its easy to see how this memory has now become lodged in your head as fact.
The only possibility I would be prepared to entertain of you being right on this would be if you saw a preview as part of a test audience and they then went away and cut it before release. If it was a screening on general release then it makes no sense that they left it in just the Sacramento print and cut it for everyone else. It is much more logical to conclude you are mistaken than some sort of conspiracy has gone on, although if you are found dead tomorrow in suspicious circumstances for speaking out then perhaps there could be a nugget of truth in all this?
You may very well be right. I'm just saying there's nowhere near enough for it to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and with quarter of a century old witness testimony as your only evidence it's all very flimsy.
It looks like a case of false memory, as suggested by @Wizard and @thelordflasheart. Probably the easiest way of telling is looking at the BBFC website:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/c2fb077ba3f9b33980256b4f002da32c/27853a000018bb488025660b0034df88?OpenDocument
As you'll see, no cuts were made to either the theatrical or video releases.
As also suggested above, contacting the editors would be the way for you to answer the question for yourself for once and for all.
What would it take to make you doubt your memory? It's interesting, isn't it?
I also doubt that Ms. Hey could be depended on as a reliable source. It seems to me that actors have little input to post-production, and one with such a minor (albeit historic ;-) ) part would certainly not be involved final edit decisions.
I do find it very interesting that this debate has been going on for at least 7 years on the Internet, yet it seems no statement either way has ever been made by those who would know, i.e. Glen, Broccolli, et al.
I don't think you should expect Wilson and Broccoli to respond, as a matter of course, to spurious rumours posted on fan sites with a handful of comments.
I'm positive that the OP really does believe that he saw the shot. But I think the burden of proof falls on him, who swears to seeing this extraordinary nude shot 25 years ago when he was just a 15 year old boy, despite the fact that there isn't a single shred of proof that such a scene was even shot - let alone released in theatres.
I've contacted John Grover to clear it up for once and for all. I'm 100% sure that such a scene never existed and I will very happily eat my hat (and post a picture) if wrong. I'll update you all as soon as I know.
I don't know much about film distribution but I assume the studio decides on a cut for a particular territory and then send that version to every cinema in that country.
Which is more likely? The idea that there was a separate version distributed exclusively in the Sacramento area or that Jarrod is simply mistaken?
Good work by Moloney for contacting John Grover but I doubt this will convince him. He'll probably say his memory is more reliable than Grovers.
I am forced to concur with my esteemed colleagues who estimate that shock & awe of the teenage calibre back then created a false idea of what we actually saw.
Sometimes your mind can fill in the blanks... helped of course by raging hormones. :))
No need to be offended. You remember seeing a shot of an actress's bare breasts in the film quarter of a century ago when you were a 15 year old boy. It's been suggested by several people that you may be misremembering in light of the fact that there is no footage of the scene in question, no mention of it in the script and no record whatsoever of this scene having ever existed.
As you've made it clear that you won't be convinced even if the man who actually cut the scene confirms it then there's not really much more for us to say about it but as I've contacted the editor of the film, I'll let the rest of the forum know what he comes back with.
I'm a bit surprised by your reaction. I thought that you would be expecting John Grover to confirm that such a scene did exist and was removed for some reason?
Thanks for posting the clippings
"Listen, man, I saw IT. I saw BIGFOOT!"
"Yeah, sure you did."
"What, you don't believe me? I know what I saw!"
"Where is your proof, amigo?"
"Ah...well, I don't exactly have proof."
"Exactly. That's what I freakin' thought."
"But...I saw it, I did!"
"Yep, whatever. You have some screws loose, pal."
Sometimes I wonder if I'll ever actually grow up.
I am only arguing from a position of logic and balance of probabilities.
Which is more probable? That there was a separate print made just for your local area and a different cut to the rest of America that was then recalled and expunged from existence or that over time your memory is playing tricks on you?
If your cut was approved by the censor it would have been shown across the states and given the amount of yanks we have on here you'd have more than a couple of suspiciously new members to back you up.
Also it would mean that EON presented to the censor a cut with full frontal tits showing which they had never done before even if they had hinted at it with Tania and Anya. The side boob shot in TLD is consistent with the glimpses of nudity we had before in FRWL, DAF and TSWLM and after with LTK, TND and TWINE. But even in the new gritty DC age where we have the first 'fuck' uttered and the extra leeway of a 12A cert we are still yet to have a proper shot of some tits as EON always have a very clear policy of making family films.
I'm not saying its impossible you are right just like its impossible to disprove the existence of God but it does seem extremely unlikely.
If its any consolation when I was a teenager regularly on the prowl for nudity (kids today have got it made with their internet porn. They'll never know the excitement of finding it in a layby or the frisson of terror at having to go into a newsagent and physically buy an actual porn mag. It was a rite of passage!) in the film Shattered I swear I saw Joanne Whalley Kilmer get them out but in subsequent hunts it seems my adolescent mind is mistaken. My memory playing tricks certainly seems a far more likely scenario than a conspiracy by the film company for Christs sake!
You're right that it's very common for different versions to be released in different markets. The US and UK both had slightly different versions of LTK, for example. I think the issue here is that (a) it seems that it's being suggested that two different versions were released in the US alone* - this would require it to be resubmitted to the MPAA, I think (but I'm not sure - that certainly would be the case with the BBFC in the UK) and (b) there's no record whatsoever of the film ever containing this scene. The safecracking scene in OHMSS was well documented.
*A good example from Bond of this occurring would be that there were apparently early prints of Thunderball released in theatres with the legend "James Bond will return in On Her Majesty's Secret Service" at the start of the end credits - you can still see where the cut jumps in the current version. But, again, this has been quite well documented.
I never saw what you saw, and I even distinctly remember the short slow-mo/freeze effect in that scene, as it's quite inusual in movies in general (like at the end of QoS PTS).
Even if it is a cliche, I'd add that having naked breasts in a family movie in France is not a problem at all so I don't know why they would have censored it here and let it in a country where such topics are more touchy :)
Thanks, Id say that pretty much settles it for me then. :)>-
Yeah if that cut of the film existed the frogs would have shown it.
I agree that France tends to be more lenient when it comes to nudity, but the film did open there 3 months after it did in the U.S., so one never knows? StationG says he saw the scene in the U.K. at the theater and that it appeared on the original PAL VHS version, harryfyhr claims to have seen the shot in Norway 2 times when it opened, Kenric8 says he saw the scene in the U.S. with his dad, rickvb says he saw the scene on an early cable viewing and Taffin says he saw the scene in the Netherlands, so obviously I'm not the only one, and this wasn't exclusive to just Sacramento in the U.S. But this apparently holds no weight with anyone?