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
;;)
Say again, saw it on release, and don't remember the nudity in question, but wasn't whooping around the theater at the sight of a womans breasts, so maybe it wasn't included to begin with, or was it,was just of a mature enough age to appear indifferent about it all. Maybe I just can't recall
Isn't there a brief glimpse of Ursula Andress - undressed - in Dr No when she comes out of the showers, only for a (damn) towel to intervene ? You do get a quick shot, or even Maud Adams in The Man with the Golden Gun, if you're alert enough. Obviously these incidents weren't quite so blatant as the scenario we discuss of here, but the whole point of it is - two things in fact - One, nudity in the Bond franchise has hardly been uncommon, there have been glimpses here and there, some more tangible than others, and secondly, no-one seems to know for sure if the Virginia Hey 'furore' even occured, in that I, as the next, can't even say for sure if it was ever included on original release to begin with, as I don't remember the time in question. Sure haven't seen it on any home releases as of yet
Then the page was static and I lost some work, but tried to add, in the simplest terms, it was a long time ago (original theater viewing), we've all most likely seen a fair number of breasts in the subsequent time, so there's no shame in not recalling all the important details. Can't really add anymore to this debate - in fact, not going to - but here at least is a relevant link that some may find useful
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-58269.html
I'm not feeling the Virginia Hey thing. No more than a side-shot there and I've seen the movie probably as many times as anyone else on the planet, and believe me I've tried to sneak a peek, but it's not there.
It's Hey's pantaloons though that I find stand out more than anything. :|
Re. Andress emerging from the decontamination treadmill. She's clearly wearing a flesh coloured body suit. It's obvious if you freeze the frame.
If you want to "see" Honey nude though, it's in the book. She strolling about quite starkers when Bond first lays eyes on her.
Indiana Jones and the Lost Bond Prints
Older than ever, Indy takes on a global quest that will carry him from Nepal to London, India, Paris and Afghanistan all in the search of the lost prints of the James Bond film The Living Daylights that supposedly contain frontal shots of Virginia Hey's bosom. Are giant man-eating spiders, mystical crypts, deep chasms, spiked death walls and the seductive powers of the common woman too much for Indy? Will he be able to recover the prints and claim them for submission into a museum before his clock runs out? The journey will be dangerous and full of both figurative and literal booby traps with the stakes higher than ever, but in the end Indy will prove through his resourcefulness, determination, unbreakability and strength of character why he is the breast around.
Well, don't forget also you're in fandom territory where some people may be actually able to tell you which costume was used that day on the set, because the archives are kept here and there etc...
Also you may remember at that time that this particular scene was quite noticed by critics as the type of "It's not Roger anymore" scene. I'm 100% sure we would have known about any edit at that time (I was starting to be involved in fan clubs etc).
Also did you read the thread where many people were really, really sure that
Dolly had dental braces in Moonraker ?
Also don't overreact to our resident arrogant maniac poster, he's very young and has probably never experienced how strong a false memory can be. And some other are even more arrogants (and this a French man that says that).
"In answer to your question, full frontal shots of Rubavitch (Virginia Hey) were never shot, she had knickers on and was bra-less. The big close up never showed full breast or nipples. All in the imagination! Which was of course the intention!"
He also explained that Eon invited censors from across the world to Pinewood to view a cut of the film before submission so there would be just one final version of the film distributed worldwide as this was more cost effective.
That clears it up for me and I'm happy that I don't have to eat a hat. And those who are misremembering the scene can be pleased that it was intentionally cut in such a way to give that very impression.
I think the problem you might be having here is that there's nothing to explain.
I'm not going to ask that question for you because I don't happen to share that view.
And, honestly, I'm not going to tell a respected veteran film editor, who helped me out with some professional advice and was also kind enough to answer a trivial query I had, that I don't believe what he has told me because a guy on the internet thinks there's some sort of conspiracy because he remembers seeing a pair of tits 25 years ago.
Sorry but, for what I would hope are fairly obvious reasons, I'm not going to pass on John Grover's private contact information to someone I met on an internet forum.
That said, I can't prevent you obtaining his details yourself and I'm sure he would say to you exactly what he has said to me. Or perhaps @Harryfyhr, @Kenric8 or @Rickvb could find them and pass them onto you.
Good work Sir James. That's all good enough for me but not for some it appears.
This.
Just out of interest what would convince you? A signed affadavit from John Glen? EON to issue a press conference? Or would @Harryfyhr, @Kenric8 or @Rickvb swearing on the bible be sufficient?
I didnt think the thought that you might be wrong was a possiblity you were prepared to entertain?
What different versions? Theres only your assertion that there are any and unless you can actually show the topless scene what will you prove even if you manage to unearth any different versions?
Several different cuts of the same scene do not prove that any of them ever had a shot of some tits in all their glory. Your case is beyond flimsy. The CPS would never even take it to trial.
Is the issue that you don't believe me? Fair enough, I suppose. I pointed out earlier that you're just a guy I met on an internet forum and I guess I'm the same to you. You could look at my posts here on MI6 or AJB and ask yourself if I seem like the type of person to pretend that I've had an imaginary conversation with an editor to prove a point. I don't think I seem like I am that type of guy.
John Grover is a real man living in the south of England and it took me less than ten minutes to obtain his contact details and get in touch. There's nothing stopping you doing the same and asking "John, did someone contact you at the beginning of May asking about a nude shot in The Living Daylights?" to which, I imagine, he would reply "Why, yes. An absolutely delightful chap called Sir James. He's a really great guy!" or something along those lines.
If the issue is that you don't believe John Grover, then I don't really think there's much more to be said.
But you didn't answer @Wizard's question and I am really keen to know the answer: What would it take for you to think, "hey, maybe I'm wrong?" This is a genuine question and I would really like to know.
You are right to say that Sir James Moloneys testimony is as dubious as yours in that we just have his word the same as you and theres no reason we should believe either of you.
The difference is that you are the one making accusations above of censorship by EON without a shred of evidence.
In a court of law the burden of proof would be upon you to substantiate these accusations otherwise you would end up paying damages and costs.
Not saying you are lying or indeed wrong but without empirical evidence (which you have still not been able to produce) your case is just hearsay and would be laughed out of court I'm afraid.
Hey, I've been wrong in my life, I'm not infallible. But as long as people keep coming to this thread and telling me that they remembered the scene in the same way, it doesn't exactly dissuade me from my claim. I told you before that I would be weary of taking the word from someone who was involved in the production, because it's the very production that (I believe) was involved in the actual censorship. I don't think it's a matter of me changing my plead or admitting I'm wrong, heck, I can believe what I want concerning this film. But I admit at some point I will hit a brick wall on my convincing this forum, in which case this thread will die out on my end. Which I'm sure some of you can breathe a great sigh a relief. Right now I'm probably more excited by the fact that others have come forward or posted a link that shows that this has been discussed on the internet since 2001.
Hilarious.
EON arent North Korea. What would they have to gain exactly and what are they trying to hide by suprressing the 'truth'? Its just a pair of tits.
The idea that John Grover has been nobbled by EON just shows up the Walter Mitty world you seem to inhabit.
They were quite candid about all the cuts made to LTK just 2 years later so I fail to see why you think there has been some politburo cover up here. And as usual I presume you have not a shred of evidence to back up your claim?
Two random comments I found :
"What happened to Dolly's braces in Moonraker. I swear to god she has braces on her teeth in the old VHS copy I had yet the DVDs from a few years ago show her without braces when she first meets Jaws. The whole gag is that Jaws smiles with a metal smile and Dolly smiles back with the same."
and
"One funny thing about this movie is that every one I've ever met who's seen it is totally sure that when Dolly first smiles at Jaws, it's revealed that she's wearing shiny, metal braces. Which, of course, is such an obvious joke, in a very obvious movie, that you just assume they did it. But they didn't, and I've actually made money on bets with people who INSIST that gag is there."
And the very same TheWizardOffice who is arguing with you here, experienced the same thing as you do :
"I could have sworn having watched MR as a kid on Christmas Day and Boxing Day and then on VHS every time we went to my uncles (we were too poor to own a VCR in the early 80s) that in the scene where Dolly digs Jaws out of the rubble she is wearing braces on her teeth.
This was discussed a while back and I wasn't the only one to be 100% certain that this was the case. I always thought that was what had Jaws worried when Drax said that anyone not physically perfect would be eliminated.
I'm almost prepared to suggest there's some conspiracy going on whereby EON CGI-ed the braces is out for the UE DVD such was my conviction."
Hilarious? Hilarious, is your insinuating a court procedural to my thread, or suggesting that my claim to EON is somehow comparable to Korea. Again, why are you so invested in this thread? What do you gain from this back and forth conversation?
I was in the same boat and I concluded that I must have been mistaken as for me to have been right would mean EON had retroactively CGI-ed Dollys braces out for no fathomable reason. As this would be absurd I concluded, quite reasonably, that I was wrong.
Now take your own position - are you seriously suggesting that in a couple of prints of the film there was a shot of the tits, that these prints were hastily withdrawn and no one has ever been able to unearth a copy or a screenshot and that EON have tapped up John Grover not to reveal the truth? The idea that you accept this sequence of increasingly odd events over the fact that you might be simply mistaken is frankly ridiculous.
But as you say this a pointless exercise so I've had enough.
Time to start a new debate: 2+2 what does it equal?
I'm going to test the water by saying I reckon its 4 but we'll see what Jarrod thinks.
-Sherlock Holmes
Thanks for answering @Jarrod although the answer appears to be that nothing can convince you.
Did you actually read @Baltimore's link from 2001? It was a guy who said he saw the phantom breast shot on DVD. Someone queried it so He then went back and checked and realised he had misremembered.
It doesn't seem like there's a great deal more to say so I'll check out of this thread now. I'll just leave you with these three links @Jarrod:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
If you can't be bothered clicking through to the links, they basically say that you can't prove a negative, the memory is fallible and the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
At least you'll get to watch The Living Daylights a lot and, who knows, maybe you're right and, even as we speak, Mr Grover is urgently calling through to Eon HQ, "Mike? Babs? This is JG. We have a Code Red. They're on to us. Repeat: they're on to us...."
Babs and MGW are ordering John Grover some polonium sushi as we speak.