71 replies to this topic

[TheSaint]

Actualy, its a shot from the filming of DAF: Lazenby, in fact, DID get to the set of his second Bond movie before chucking it up.

Any suggestion that he might have been a brainless Aussie who gave up the part while he was still actually FILMING OHMSS is complelety untrue.

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Moonraker]

I actually knew this one already. It's in that by book John Cork did awhile back.

[David Schofield]

Actualy, its a shot from the filming of DAF: Lazenby, in fact, DID get to the set of his second Bond movie before chucking it up.

Any suggestion that he might have been a brainless Aussie who gave up the part while he was still actually FILMING OHMSS is complelety untrue.

Please tell me you're kidding.

No, its true. Laz got to set, started to film - I believe - then was offered Universal Soldier by a hippie mate and jumped ship.

How else do you explain Connery turning up in the physical condition he was in for DAF: he was brought in at the VERY last minute after Laz jumped without having chance to trim down.

[ACE]

Lazenby never shot a frame for DAF.

[stamper]

But he did screen test all the actresses, I believe this shot is from a screen test ?

[David Schofield]

Lazenby never shot a frame for DAF.

Honestly? You're knowledge of Bond, oh great one, far outstrips this mere mortal

[mccartney007]

Timothy Dalton plays one of the tarantulas in DR. NO.

[spynovelfan]

Timothy Dalton plays one of the tarantulas in DR. NO.

If you freeze-frame the scene on DVD, you can just see make out his Dracula haircut.

[mccartney007]

Timothy Dalton plays one of the tarantulas in DR. NO.

If you freeze-frame the scene on DVD, you can just see make out his Dracula haircut.

Really?

Hey, did you hear that Daniel Craig's mom eats a ton of bran? Man, I bet he's going to suck as James Bond if it's true. WHERE'S BROSNAN?!!!!

[spynovelfan]

Hey, did you hear that Daniel Craig's mom eats a ton of bran?  Man, I bet he's going to suck as James Bond if it's true.

You're forgetting that Cubby approached Daniel Craig to be James Bond for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE back in '68. Craig declined, gurgling that he was too young.

[ACE]

You forget Pierce only got the role because Cubby thought his name was "Branston".
After signing, a condiments company threatened to sue.
Pierce really was in a Branston Pickle....

From Fibre with love

[ACE]

Error

[David Schofield]

Lazenby never shot a frame for DAF.

Honestly? You're knowledge of Bond, oh great one, far outstrips this mere mortal

Er, why the need for such pointed sarcasm?
Why the personal flame?
I know it was obvious but someone else wanted assurance that the poster was kidding.
Sorry if you got upset. I wasn't implying anything about anyone's knowledge of Bond....

Glad YOU got the sarcasm in the first place, ACE. Bit of a firm put down, though: "Lazenby never shot a frame of DAF", no? I'm really sure that everyonee with the level of interest in Bond as CBNers that everyone knows about Laz's departure. The joke wouldn't have worked otherwise.

Perhaps you guys in the hierachy of Bond fandom should loosen up a bit and perhaps not be quite so dogmatic with superior knowledge and proximity to the product?

Anyway, want to see some stills from Connery filming Casino Royale for Charlie Feldman because "he really wanted to do an authentic version of Fleming's first novel" before Cubby caught him moonlight and pulled the plug?

[ACE]

Glad YOU got the sarcasm in the first place, ACE. Bit of a firm put down, though: "Lazenby never shot a frame of DAF", no? I'm really sure that everyonee with the level of interest in Bond as CBNers that everyone knows about Laz's departure. The joke wouldn't have worked otherwise.

I wasn't my intention to be a "put down". Sorry if you didn't like the tone of it.

Perhaps guys in the hierachy of Bond fandom should loosen up a bit and perhaps not be quite so dogmatic with superior knowledge and proximity to the product?

I totally agree with you. No-one should be. And few are.

Anyway, want to see some stills from Connery filming Casino Royale for Charlie Feldman because "he really wanted to do an authentic version of Fleming's first novel" before Cubby caught him moonlight and pulled the plug?

Oh yeah! Yes please! Where, when? But only if they are eating bran.

[David Schofield]

Anyway, want to see some stills from Connery filming Casino Royale for Charlie Feldman because "he really wanted to do an authentic version of Fleming's first novel" before Cubby caught him moonlight and pulled the plug?

Oh yeah! Yes please! Where, when? But only if they are eating bran.

They're out there, you know. All that stuff about Jap reporters annoying him was a ruse (sort of like the scam perpitrated in James Bond, the Authorised Biography): Connery couldn't get enough of Bond in 1967 (and probably bran).

[ACE]

Do you think that's why Sean was always in the toilet on set of YOLT?
The Bran struck back!

[David Schofield]

Do you think that's why Sean was always in the toilet on set of YOLT?
The Bran struck back!

Is seems a logical conclusion to a 39 year old mystery

[ACE]

Do you think that's why Sean was always in the toilet on set of YOLT?
The Bran struck back!

Is seems a logical conclusion to a 39 year old mystery

LOL!

[doublenoughtspy]

Perhaps you guys in the hierachy of Bond fandom should loosen up a bit and perhaps not be quite so dogmatic with superior knowledge and proximity to the product?

I guess it is so much cooler to make up stuff then and watch fans react, eh?

I didn't get that memo.

The original poster asked a question. I answered it. But you decided to be "funny" and make up a scenario which didn't happen, and more than one person has emailed me asking if it is true.

I could explain about why I know when and where the shot was taken. I could explain why I know about Jill St John calling reporters to come out and photograph her and Lazenby in her pool.

But I wouldn't want to be "dogmatic with superior knowledge".

[ACE]

Perhaps you guys in the hierachy of Bond fandom should loosen up a bit and perhaps not be quite so dogmatic with superior knowledge and proximity to the product?

The original poster asked a question. I answered it. But you decided to be "funny" and make up a scenario which didn't happen, and more than one person has emailed me asking if it is true.

My point exactly. It was obviously confusing some people. Hence my clarification.
It was not meant as a put down although was taken as that.

As for your knowledge on this particular subject, doublenoughtspy, there are few people who would deny that you do have superior knowledge.

And no-one would say you were "dogmatic".

It would be a shame to deny the rest of us the fruits of your knowledge because of a particularly pithy post that came out of nowhere.

I'd love to hear more about the photograph.

[David Schofield]

Perhaps you guys in the hierachy of Bond fandom should loosen up a bit and perhaps not be quite so dogmatic with superior knowledge and proximity to the product?

I guess it is so much cooler to make up stuff then and watch fans react, eh?

I didn't get that memo.

The original poster asked a question. I answered it. But you decided to be "funny" and make up a scenario which didn't happen, and more than one person has emailed me asking if it is true.

I could explain about why I know when and where the shot was taken. I could explain why I know about Jill St John calling reporters to come out and photograph her and Lazenby in her pool.

But I wouldn't want to be "dogmatic with superior knowledge".

Charles, how anyone can take seriously a statement from me which suggests Laz actually worked on the DAF set and was "not just a brainless Aussie who chucked Bond halfway through OHMSS" is beyond me.

ACE has, I think, taken things in the spirit of which I intended: I assume most CBners would. If you've personally had CBner's emailing you because of my ludicrous suggestion I am very surprised indeed. Hence, my subsequent joke with ACE about stills of Connery filming Casino Royale in 1967: spare you're agony fans, there aren't any and he didn't!

Clearly, you do have indeed superior knowledge than I of this subject and OHMSS. I am pleased you are proud of that - and your efforts to achieve that knowledge require praise. However, my comment about the dogmatism of those closer to the Bond product than I was aimed at ACE's put down - and again subsequently debated between the two of us. I think ACE took on board my point that in personal experience - and has been clear on CBN in the past (yes, you know who I mean)- various individuals have impressed their "inside knowledge" on the rest of us because they are placed within the Bond "community", for want of a better expression.

There are many CBners whose knowledge of Bond extends no further than Brozza. I can honestly say I bought a hardack UK First edition of Chris Wood's Moonraker in Harrods in 1979 aged 14: perhaps you can work out the length and depth of my interest in Bond. However, I know no one in the movie industry, do not know anyone at IFP, Graham Rye, John Cork, Lee Pfeiffer (sic), Dave Worrall, etc. None of us whether you're new to Bond via Brozza or John Gardner need to be reminded of a "Bond supremacy", though.

No one likes a smart-.

[ACE]

Perhaps you guys in the hierachy of Bond fandom should loosen up a bit and perhaps not be quite so dogmatic with superior knowledge and proximity to the product?

I guess it is so much cooler to make up stuff then and watch fans react, eh?

I didn't get that memo.

The original poster asked a question. I answered it. But you decided to be "funny" and make up a scenario which didn't happen, and more than one person has emailed me asking if it is true.

I could explain about why I know when and where the shot was taken. I could explain why I know about Jill St John calling reporters to come out and photograph her and Lazenby in her pool.

But I wouldn't want to be "dogmatic with superior knowledge".

Charles, how anyone can take seriously a statement from me which suggests Laz actually worked on the DAF set and was "not just a brainless Aussie who chucked Bond halfway through OHMSS" is beyond me.

ACE has, I think, taken things in the spirit of which I intended: I assume most CBners would. If you've personally had CBner's emailing you because of my ludicrous suggestion I am very surprised indeed. Hence, my subsequent joke with ACE about stills of Connery filming Casino Royale in 1967: spare you're agony fans, there aren't any and he didn't!

Clearly, you do have indeed superior knowledge than I of this subject and OHMSS. I am pleased you are proud of that - and your efforts to achieve that knowledge require praise. However, my comment about the dogmatism of those closer to the Bond product than I was aimed at ACE's put down - and again subsequently debated between the two of us. I think ACE took on board my point that in personal experience - and has been clear on CBN in the past (yes, you know who I mean)- various individuals have impressed their "inside knowledge" on the rest of us because they are placed within the Bond "community", for want of a better expression.

There are many CBners whose knowledge of Bond extends no further than Brozza. I can honestly say I bought a hardack UK First edition of Chris Wood's Moonraker in Harrods in 1979 aged 14: perhaps you can work out the length and depth of my interest in Bond. However, I know no one in the movie industry, do not know anyone at IFP, Graham Rye, John Cork, Lee Pfeiffer (sic), Dave Worrall, etc. None of us whether you're new to Bond via Brozza or John Gardner need to be reminded of a "Bond supremacy", though.

No one likes a smart-.

I fail to see how you have come to all this based on a single line post that was not even a reaction to your post.

Once again, it was NOT a "put down" and cannot see how it can be interpreted as such. I was responding to TheSaint's post #31, not yours. I'm sorry you feel the need to interpret it this way. It was never the intention.

Where has all this come from? No-one is debating "Bond supremacy". No-one is thinking in those terms. Apart from you. That is the confusing thing.
Anyway, this is all silly. Let's get back to being really silly.

[Jim]

I thought it was Bourne Supremacy anyway.

As for me, I know plop all.

[David Schofield]

I fail to see how you have come to all this based on a single line post that was not even a reaction to your post.

Where has all this come from? No-one is debating "Bond supremacy". No-one is thinking in those terms? Apart from you. That is the confusing thing.
Anyway, this is all silly. Let's get back to being really silly.

But that's the trouble isn't it, ACE? You and I debate back and forth this afternoon and reach, I think, humorous conclusion. Then Charles reprimands me again because I've started a rumour which is clearly nonsense - and taken out of context - BECAUSE I can't possibly have the insider knowledge to know such a fact, which wasn't one really - and that doing so causes grief for those on the inside who do know!

PS - I still have the video evidence that Brozza DID film the TLD precredits.

[ACE]

I fail to see how you have come to all this based on a single line post that was not even a reaction to your post.

Where has all this come from? No-one is debating "Bond supremacy". No-one is thinking in those terms? Apart from you. That is the confusing thing.
Anyway, this is all silly. Let's get back to being really silly.

But that's the trouble isn't it, ACE? You and I debate back and forth this afternoon and reach, I think, humorous conclusion. Then Charles reprimands me again because I've started a rumour which is clearly nonsense - and taken out of context - BECAUSE I can't possibly have the insider knowledge to know such a fact, which wasn't one really - and that doing so causes grief for those on the inside who do know!

PS - I still have the video evidence that Brozza DID film the TLD precredits.

David, I really want to wind this down now but things are getting worse.
I post something. You didn't like it. I post a response which I then delete because it's not worth it. But you run with it in the seconds that it remains. We debate it and reach what I thought was a conclusion. Then, in a separate post to another party, you reiterate that my post was a "put down", and proceed to talk about a bunch of people you do not know with no relevance to the thread.

I don't think doublenoughtspy thinks "[you] can't possibly have the insider knowledge to know such a fact..." I certainly do not get that from his posts.
The question of the depth and strength of any poster's knowledge of Bond has been raised and repeated by no-one but you. On a thread where I can't see how such a thought came from or has any relevance.

Now, I have only reposted because when I thought we had moved on, it appears we hadn't. No-one is suggesting, saying or feeling superior about anyone's knowledge. No-one is questioning your knowledge or devotion to the cause.
I for one love the fact you bought that wonderful MR hardback in Harrods.

Can we agree not to re-open the wound re: my purported "put down"? I have apologized at least twice for making a statement that somehow could be interpreted as such.

I have sent you a PM.

[David Schofield]

I fail to see how you have come to all this based on a single line post that was not even a reaction to your post.

Where has all this come from? No-one is debating "Bond supremacy". No-one is thinking in those terms? Apart from you. That is the confusing thing.
Anyway, this is all silly. Let's get back to being really silly.

But that's the trouble isn't it, ACE? You and I debate back and forth this afternoon and reach, I think, humorous conclusion. Then Charles reprimands me again because I've started a rumour which is clearly nonsense - and taken out of context - BECAUSE I can't possibly have the insider knowledge to know such a fact, which wasn't one really - and that doing so causes grief for those on the inside who do know!

PS - I still have the video evidence that Brozza DID film the TLD precredits.

David, I really want to wind this down now but things are getting worse.
I post something. You didn't like it. I post a response which I then delete because it's not worth it. But you run with it in the seconds that it remains. We debate it and reach what I thought was a conclusion. Then, in a separate post to another party, you reiterate that my post was a "put down", and proceed to talk about a bunch of people you do not know with no relevance to the thread.

I don't think doublenoughtspy thinks "[you] can't possibly have the insider knowledge to know such a fact..." I certainly do not get that from his posts.
The question of the depth and strength of any poster's knowledge of Bond has been raised and repeated by no-one but you. On a thread where I can't see how such a thought came from or has any relevance.

Now, I have only reposted because when I thought we had moved on, it appears we hadn't. No-one is suggesting, saying or feeling superior about anyone's knowledge. No-one is questioning your knowledge or devotion to the cause.
I for one love the fact you bought that wonderful MR hardback in Harrods.

Can we agree not to re-open the wound re: my purported "put down"? I have apologized at least twice for making a statement that somehow could be interpreted as such.

I have sent you a PM.

ACE, pm sent.

[Streetworker]

it's also implied in his biography that Adam West had a brief relationship with Jill, (she was in the first two Batman episodes) always the gentleman West is glad that she finally found happiness with Robert Wagner. (aahh isn't that sweet?) lol
There's also a joke in Futurama that Henry Kissenger (!!!!) had an affair with her? I don't know about this one...

She's been a busy lady, hasn't she?

[hcmv007]

I don't know if Jill and Harry Kissinger ever hooked up, but I do know from what I have heard he had a HUGE crush on her. Seeing her as she looked back then, so did all of the Western World I'd imagine. Anywho, I just have a thing for redheads.

[Kalel577]

"[P]ower is a great aphrodesiac."

Interesting that you use that quote, since it was Henry Kissinger himself who first coined it when he was asked how a man with his appearance could bag Jill St. John.

[ACE]

Jill St John certainly got around in those days. Remember she was in the John Gardner adaptation The Liquidator (with the great Shirley Bassey title song).
She was the It girl of her time. Very nice. She certainly never made me think it was a pity "they" weren't brains!