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
Just be honest with yourself and download some porn.
Don't bother, he's a troll who doesn't have a life other than making others miserable.
Never thought I'd say it but well put Jarrod.
I thought Happiestinthesaddle was long gone mods?
Oh well perhaps he can remind us all how he is gay once again (as if his avatar doesn't give it away)?
He's not gay, he's just drawn that way.
;))
Everything makes me think of a line from a movie; sorry! :))
There comes a time when you either need to step away from the computer & get some perspective, or admit you're a creep & subscribe to a porn site & leave James Bond to those who want to have a rational discussion.
I don't see Jarrod dedicating post after post to Fleming or John Barry.
Perhaps mi6.com is not for him.
Perhaps try BigJuggs.com with all the ither pervs.
thanks. :)
Back to the topic, you should also try to imagine what would have happened if what you think you saw was indeed there. I'm clueless about USA at the end of the 80's, but weren't there "movie ratings from a Christian perspective" already at that time ? That would have surely noted this shot if it was there ?
I mean nowadays for Skyfall, in ten seconds I could find :
But ask yourself.
1. Why does no-one else report having the same experience. You say 5 other persons on this thread, but I can't find them. No-one else has that same recollection with any certainty, yet I maintain with certainty that if anyone actually did see that shot, they would remember it with certainty, as such a shot is just not done in a Bond film. It would have an immediate impact. Most of us that like girls, can remember attractive female film-nudity quite clearly, from films that we have only seen once. We tend to lock-it in as something we remember from the film. We may not obsess over it (hopefully not) but we do remember that we saw it.
2. For your theory to be true, it would require that rogue prints existed and somehow found their way into select theatres but clearly not all theatres, as I would have seen it, but I didn't. How is this possible?
Basically for you to achieve closure, you will need to find "reliable" fellow eye-witnesses, or someone involved in the production or initial distribution of the film, that can attest to the existence of the rogue prints.
I am not sure what obsessing over supposed editing anomalies achieves. We already know that a "no-nudity" version of the scene played in theatres from the very get-go, thus no need to edit. The version already existed.
I think you've got nothing but a faulty memory here. The fact there are no other witnessess is telling.Combine that with the witness of plenty of others, such as myself, that can say with absolute certainty, that the lovely Ms Hey's mams were absolutely not exposed, in the original theatrical release showing. [-(
....but nice try. :)
StationG
Just to give a supporting post to thouse who recall the frontal breasts shot. It WAS there. I can vaguely recall it in the cinema (age, only saw it in the cinema once), however I certainly know it was on the UK rental VHS version. Or at least the first rental versions. I had a copy of this, but the tape wore out (not from watching this scene, but the openeing sequence). Replaced it with an off-air recording from Sky Movies, only later did I discover the shot had been zoomed in.
t was not 'full frontal', it was frontal top. The frame stopped just below the bottom of her breasts.
As I said, I'm 85% confident it was at the cinema release I saw (first day). However I was young, and I only saw the film once in the cinema. So that is what has stopped me saying 100%.
I can however be 100% certain it was the UK PAL VHS rental/hire copy. I had a copy of this, and it was certainly there. (Sadly, tape wore out from watching and showing people the Gibraltar sequence, so I replaced it with an off-air version only noticing the adjusted shot later).
Kenric8
I was 13 when I saw this in the theater and it was the first Bond film I saw in the theater (US). The frontal boob shot was absolutely there and my dad apologized afterward saying no other Bond ever had anything like that which was why he assumed it would be safe to take me. Obviously a harmless shot and appropriate for the scene. Can't believe all the cover up surrounding it and lack of restoration in any home copy version.
Taffin
I saw TLD in the Netherlands when it first came out. It definitely had the top frontal shot! I hope they restore it one day it makes more sense to put it back in. The scene looks too edited now.
harryfyhr
I saw this two times at the theater, in Norway, when it came out in 1987 and remember that scene clearly.
Full front top shot ,which surprised me as a young man at a James Bond movie.
Strange it's been cut in all releases and very little to nothing info on it.
rickvb
I know I'm really late to the game here, but I was just doing a general web search on this subject and can't resist adding my 2 cents.
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've seen TLD many times since on different media and have never seen that shot again. Its existence is going to be difficult to prove and may depend on someone with an ex rental VHS more than a quarter of a century old.
Another member with a mighty 4 posts to his name backing Jarrod up there to add to all his reputable sources above. Why is it that the only people who support his theory don't even have a post count in double figures?
Why have none of the members with several hundred or several thousand posts (whom you could infer from the frequency of their posting are bigger fans) come forward to say they remember this scene?
I still suspect the whole thing could be a wind up to be honest.
I'd stopped commenting on this thread because there wasn't anything left for me to say. I do feel that I can contribute to this point, however, as it's a question relating to the UK.
I know nothing of how the MPAA works but I do know a little about the BBFC (that's the British Board of Film Classification, for those outside the UK.) One submits a film to the BBFC and receives a classification (currently U, PG, 12A/12, 15, 18, R18.) The classification is only valid for that particular cut of the film. Any changes which are made (however minor or insignificant - no exceptions) require the film to be resubmitted to the BBFC for classification. As there's only one video classification for the film from 1988 - 1994 we know that this did not happen in the case of TLD.
As there was only one version of the video classified, we can be certain @Bond_Bombshell is totally incorrect.
@Jarrod, I know you're determined to do this the hard way but another perfectly simple way of receiving a definitive answer on the topic would be to contact the MPAA and BBFC - they keep incredibly comprehensive records and would be able to give you a definitive answer without any bother. And this would have the advantage, from your POV, over contacting members of the crew because the BBFC and MPAA are not part of the "cover up" as they're a completely neutral body.
Can we be sure? The BBFC and MPAA have no doubt been 'got to' by the same dark forces who kidnapped John Grovers kids to keep him schtum. I reckon this goes all the way to the White House.
You are my hero, @TheWizardOfIce. =))
Like I said, very little encouragement. Thanks again.
@Sir_James_Moloney
Yes, I do like doing things the hard way, because it is only then, that you know with certainty, that you can be sure of the results. If one is investigating a claim, does a detective question one person get a result, and then call it a night? Not if they're any good. I'm a massive collector of European cinema, and you can take my word on it that I'm a bit of expert of cuts and edits when it comes to Italian exploitation cinema. If you don't believe this, then you can merely look to my youtube channel and see that I have already uploaded over 70 Eurospy film clips/ credit sequences of some of the rarest films ever made!
Now, this doesn't need to convince you that my claim is genuine, but it does suggest that I'm a bit of an archivist when it comes to cinema images. If you don't mind, I'd like to play this one out and see what I find. I can be absolutely positive in saying, that a lot of films I collect have various versions in existence.
@TheWizardOfIce
Posting a thousand comments on an MI6 forum does not make you a bigger Bond fan. Sorry, that's just funny.
I've never insinuated that there was anything "political" about my claim. I'm not wasting the President or the Queen's precious time, yet apparently I am wasting pachazo's. The only real time I see myself wasting, is possibly my own. Again, one is free to come on this thread and participate in this discussion, or better still, get off their duff and help investigate this claim, or they can just sit on the sidelines and make a mockery. I've seen more of the latter I'm afraid.
As I pointed out above, @Bond_Bombshell's memory is certainly incorrect as there was only one BBFC classification of the film on video. That much is certain. Just seems like a bit of a waste of your time and money to hunt down a 25 year old PAL rental copy of the film - and the equipment to play it - when you really don't need to.
That's fine, @Jarrod. I think we each know where the other stands on this and I'm sure, as a film buff who enjoys looking at edits, you'll have fun going through the different cuts regardless of what you turn up. So best of luck to you, anyway.
As you know, if I were you I'd contact John Grover (as I already have done), John Glen, Alec Mills and Virginia Hey; and also the BBFC and MPAA and you'd have a definitive answer verified by 6 independent and credible sources.
You could also probably contact Charles Helfenstein, the author of The Making of the Living Daylights and almost certainly the most knowledgable independent authority on the film, and ask him for his opinion. I don't know him but if you ask him very nicely, I imagine he might even show you an image of the storyboards for the sequence. (If you haven't read the book, it's fantastic, BTW, and I'm sure you would hugely enjoy it as a fan of the film)
I think you're completely wrong (and, frankly, a little bit nuts) as you know, but I'm interested in you getting to the bottom of it for yourself (even though there's clearly nothing to get to the bottom of, as far as I'm concerned) You've been wondering about this for over a quarter of a century now and I guess I just think you're going about it in a very laborious way when you could easily have a definitive answer within a week or two.
For someone so obsessed with the minute detail of a one frame difference between various different cuts of a scene try actually paying attention to what I said.
The words 'could infer' do not constitute stating something definitively.
I would contend though that someone like, say, Brady who has 13000+ posts on a James Bond fansite is far more likely to be a big Bond fan than someone who has 3. OK its not beyond reasonable doubt but I would stand by it being a pretty good indicator so the question still stands why are none of the people backing your theory longstanding members of this site rather than only people with a handful of posts between them?
I would expect a random spread - a couple of people with thousands of posts, a couple with hundreds and a couple with a handful. Is this merely a statistical blip? Or are they all long time lurkers who have only been moved to sign up for an account and make their first posts in this rather obscure thread because you have uncovered the greatest cover up in Bond history and they want to see justice?
Where are all your supporters now by the way? kenric8, Station G, harryfyhr, rickvb -the last time many of them seem to have posted was on about page 3 or 4 of this thread when they all conveniently backed you up. Why dont they come on and tell me I'm wrong if they are such big fans and respected members?
@Sir_James_Moloney
Thanks for your last comment. Some of it is actually helpful. :)
I disagree... With similar analyses, I've been called "newcomer" by some poster we see here only every 2 or 3 years with weird historical analyses :)
Jarrod, I have/had many VHS (French dubbed versions) of the movies at my parents' home + I had rented all of them before they could be bought (yes I'm that old - I don't know if that mean I'm a fan as I have only 300 messages on this forum though). For TLD, I have one from early 90's. Nothing to be seen there on the TLD VHS I can tell you...
They're not PAL but SECAM (the codor coding is different, a PAL VCR would display a B&W image I think).
Just a quick word on my lack of posts. I never was a big poster on this site. I think my post count was probably only in the 10 to 20 range before the forum revamp and I've only rejoined because I thought I had something relevant to contribute to this thread. However, I'm not a Bond forum novice and can be found on this site's main competitor (same username but without the underscore) where I have notched up 459 posts.
I think us older Bond fans are probably less inclined to post on forums than our younger counterparts. I'm not really a fan of posting on forums generally because of the ill will that's often displayed on them, but that doesn't make me any less of a Bond fan.
How ironic isn't it ? Several persons post about seeing something (the braces in MR, or the nude shot in TLD), and some other joke "they" are close to mental illness - while making the hypothesis it's all a conspiracy of a single person bothering to create multi-accounts to write the same story under several names. Who's paranoid ? :)
The funny thing is that in France, some legends I re-read here have also been known (the alleged cameo of Fleming in FRWL in particular), but this nude shot ? Never. It shows you it wouldn't have been a big deal here (naked breasts in family movies are ok here).