229 replies to this topic

[stamper]

Here we go again... this stuff be covered before... I never been burned by any order from 007 magazine, even if it took months or years to get the issue I subscribed to... I think the message you quote was at a time when GR had personal, family problems If I remember. Not that I care.


http://commanderbond.net/article/2829

Enemies? To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: “Graham Rye is an excellent man; he has not an enemy in the world, and none of his friends like him.” Well I suppose they know who they are, but personally, I’ve never had time to waste on negativity or small and petty minded people, who mainly have their own axes to grind and agendas to amplify. Life’s too short and so are they (mostly).

[oatesy]

Rye's problems with the club members are well documented, and I personally won't forget what he did. But to be fair, I did agree with every single word of his review of DAD, and with his review of Casino Royale as well. So his review of QoS here is worrying me.
That being said, the highly unproffesional way he has written this review, particularly by giving away the entire plot of the movie, leads me to suspect there is another motive here.

I'm just really confused with what is going on here. I was not expecting QoS to be slated by anyone other than the usual "we want Q, Moneypenny and invisible cars" crowd. All the clips of QoS I've seen are awesome. Forster and Craig have been saying the right things in interviews etc. about focusing on character and emotion. If it is this bad I just don't see how it could have happened. With Forster, Craig and Haggis on board it could, and should, have been one of the greatest Bond movies ever (at least in terms of how I view greatness, with FRWL, OHMSS, CR etc. being the ones I view as great). Apparently its short on plot and character, but in every interview Forster goes on about how he focused on these areas. There have been no stories about studio muppets re-cutting the picture, or about any re-shoots. From the trailers of DAD it was clear it stank, but the QoS trailers are fantastic

I guess I'll know in 4 hours....

[The Dove]

I'm not even going to waste my time reading this piss-poor review from Graham Rye, who is supposed to be a Bond fan??? Perhaps he went into seeing the film expecting too much and thinking it would be Casino Royale 2: The Return of Bond or something! I really think he should give the film another look-see.

As for me, I'm being very cautious and am lowering my expectations. The most I'll expect it to be is a 8 or 9 out of 10, which is an excellent rating for any true sequel.

[stamper]

This thread is about Graham's review, not his past blunder, whatever they were. But since I see some here do still have an axe to grind, I quote here Andrew Pilkington response in it's entirety, so that people can understand what is talked about here.

RESPONSE TO FORUM POSTS ON THE ‘MI6’ WEBSITE AT http://www.mi6forums...t=22842&start=0
from ANDREW PILKINGTON (Vice President - The James Bond 007 International Fan Club & Archive 1979-2001)

Over the past week a number of posts have appeared in the forum section of the MI6 website concerning Graham Rye and ‘The James Bond 007 International Fan Club & Archive’ [JBIFC] (1979-2001).

The allegations contained in these postings are inaccurate, vindictive, un-called for, and ill-advised. As someone who is privy to the truth, I have set out the facts below to correct these slanderous remarks. All those who have participated in these aforementioned postings are strongly urged to read what follows.

I have read some garbage in my time but the drivel that has been regurgitated on this thread passed off as fact or nudge nudge ‘insider information’ is quite unbelievable. While some of the contributors have been fair, others have their own hidden agendas and the worst of these is Gravity’s Silhouette (Michael Kersey), James Page and TheMantis (David Zaritsky). What a nasty little trinity you are. Graham has never met you, never to my knowledge done you any harm (other than to overshadow your obviously fragile egos) and yet you take every opportunity to muckrake, and fill your forum with all manner of allegations which you must know have not the slightest basis in fact.

This even extends to James Page removing posts or cutting short, threads from this forum in the past supporting Graham because they told the truth and therefore made Page look a fool and a persecutor. How can he consider himself an impartial unbiased editor when he clearly permits libellous postings by his cronies to remain on his MI6 website? And also REPEAT allegations from older postings from other newsgroup forums whilst appearing to be a public guardian of James Bond fans? It is frankly, sickening.

Mi6 own terms and conditions state:

“While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators or webmaster (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws.”

The puny egos fighting for attention on these pages is laughable. Unfortunately the more impressionable readers of the MI6 forum might actually believe you DO have the inside information you profess to have, and might actually believe (God forbid) the crap that you’re attempting to pass off as fact.

Gravity/Kersey’s post of March 1st mentions some ‘vicious’ campaigns, and he should know as his post is the worst offender, as they have also been in the past. If I was Graham, I would be reaching for my lawyers right now. Do any of you nerds appreciate libel laws are equally applicable to The Web in 2006? The legal profession could retire on the damages it could squeeze out of his post alone (and may yet do so.)

PAY ATTENTION. I am only going to post this here once, for the record.

The FACTS are as follows:

FACT: The members of The JBIFC in 20 years under Graham’s management had no claim on anything the club did, or how it spent its (rare and occasional) profit. They paid a fee for a set number of issues of 007 MAGAZINE. Provided they received those issues any obligation on The JBIFC’s behalf ceased. They were not shareholders, they were subscribers. This is not to belittle the club members, far from it. They supported The JBIFC through thick and thin; but let us put things in their proper perspective.

FACT: The JBIFC was never a Limited Company.

FACT: The assets of The JBIFC were never more than the funds the members paid over for magazines and ALL the money paid to The JBIFC for subscriptions was reserved for the production of the magazine. Incidentally those funds did not cover the production cost of the magazine. Over the years Graham invested huge sums of his own money, not to mention unpaid time in keeping the magazine alive. Any occasional small profit was Graham’s to do with as he pleased, and usually it pleased him to plough even that back into the business.
Please note the word BUSINESS. It is not illegal for a fan club to make a profit. The profit paid the people who assisted to produce the magazine and other commercial JBIFC projects, although in reality all the people (bar an assistant and a Mac Operator) who worked for The JBIFC worked as unpaid volunteers.

FACT: At no time did any of the so-called ‘treasures’ belong to the fan club, or anyone else. They belonged to Graham personally, as did the rest of the Archive, and he could do what he wanted with them.

The whole of Gravity/Kersey’s regurgitated March 1st posting, as I have said, is libellous drivel.

FACT: The JBIFC closed down due to a drop in memberships, therefore the income could no longer cover the outgoings for rent, staff, etc., as there was no finance to pay the bills there was certainly no money to pay for upgrades to cars or anything else.

I agree the closing wording on The JBIFC website could have been better handled, but as ACE (Ajay Chowdhury) pointed out so charmingly, Graham is human, and when your livelihood and a project which you have devoted 20 years of your life to folds, you tend not to worry about social niceties. The fact was that there was no finance to refund the small number of members that were owed issues of 007 MAGAZINE, so unfortunately there was little point in them writing in. As for merchandise orders; every order was honoured before The JBIFC closed its doors. No customer lost money on a merchandise order when The JBIFC closed.

When The JBIFC folded the idea that Graham had disappeared and everyone from Credit companies to the media, to the fans themselves was seeking him out is complete rubbish. The media have always known how to contact him (and regularly continue to do so), the fans knew The JBIFC addresses and we had few letters or emails from them, and the idea that a large number of disgruntled fans contacted MI6 is, simply, laughable.

There are also seriously libellous postings hinting at some underhand reasons for resurrecting The JBIFC.

FACT: The only reason The JBIFC was resurrected was because a businessman (David Black) came up with some finance to buy the membership list, and The JBIFC name and web domain address, thereby allowing Graham to resume publication of 007 MAGAZINE under his ‘umbrella’ and potentially create some badly-needed income.

There seems to be some bizarre belief that Graham’s activities over the years have somehow queered everybody else’s pitch, or damaged Bond fandom in some way.

Well, I can see how he has queered the nasty little trinity’s pitch because they are still Bond Nobodies trying to be Bond somebodies, whilst Graham and the 007 MAGAZINE legacy is still around. As for the fans, if it were not for the ground-breaking events and publications that Graham produced over the years then Bond fans would have had a very boring two decades.

FACT: EON have not the slightest interest in what the fans want, or what they think. It was, in fact, for many years EON’s actual company policy not to deal with any fan clubs. The JBIFC’s troubled history with EON was certainly down to a clash of personalities, but that was essentially down to Graham refusing to tow the party line so far as EON was concerned, and quite rightly so.

FACT: EON have never loaned, given, sold, or otherwise allowed Graham to receive any items of any value whatsoever from their archive or elsewhere. So the notion that he sold off the ‘family silver’ under EON’s nose is laughable - and, once again, libellous.

FACT: If The JBIFC had not held their 1990 convention at Pinewood Studios (together with other similar events) none of the recent Pinewood events would have taken place. Pinewood Studios were adamant they would not allow the public in (let alone Bond fans) and it was only down to our careful planning and professional acumen that they allowed the event to go ahead, even to the extent of allowing a guided tour that was plotted and planned by Graham. However, the Pinewood Studios’ management at that time also made it clear that no other group would be allowed to do the same thing. Hence there were only JBIFC events held at Pinewood during the ‘nineties. The JBIFC having set the precedent and proved such events could work, subsequently other groups were eventually granted permission, copying the already successful JBIFC format.

FACT: With the exception of Press Show tickets to four new Bond films, EON have never done anything to assist Graham - no pictures, interviews etc. etc., and have on numerous occasions gone out of their way to block Graham’s activities, due no doubt to the personality clash. Whilst on the subject of Graham’s contribution to fandom: apart from the Pinewood events who else made it possible for 200 fans to see the Press screenings of new Bond films? And Cubby Broccoli’s tribute event at the Odeon Leicester Square? I certainly didn’t see anyone else stepping up to the challenge in 2002 when Die Another Day was released.

However, it is due totally to Graham and myself that EON was able to mount the Bond props exhibitions that have toured the world since 1990. I will allow the more fanciful contributors on this forum to exercise their over-active imaginations and take an educated guess as to how that might have been achieved.

‘tainted communication from Eon to the fan community’:

What planet are you on? There never has been, nor will there ever be, communication from EON to the ‘Fan Community’. And the only person who has been adversely affected by Graham’s relationship with EON is Graham.

FACT: 007 MAGAZINE has no connection to young upstart Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Graham has been clear in saying that for over a year with a Press Release placed prominently on the 007 MAGAZINE website. And, ACE, if (based on Issue 1, and the very-overdue issue 2) you are around in 12 months’ time I will be completely and utterly amazed.
NB: The decision to adapt 007 MAGAZINE into a webzine wasn’t even considered until late December 2005, and had nothing whatsoever to do with any perceived threat from KKBB. So any posting to the contrary is complete fiction.

TheMantis please note! Graham did not buy Oddjob’s bowler hat from Christie’s, he SOLD it at Christie’s. And there was no controversy over the sale, nor was there any problem over his sale of the Moon Buggy. Both items were his to sell. The majority of the finance from the sale of the bowler hat DID go into the business and helped support 007 MAGAZINE and other projects.

Here endeth the lesson. If ever you idiots decide to post this kind of ill-considered and factually-incorrect, damaging drivel again, check your facts first, or get a good lawyer.

These ‘posts’ over the past few days have caused considerable distress to those about whom they are concerned, since there is not a shred of accuracy or truth to any of them.

Be advised furthermore, I understand that formal action is now being considered in relation to the posters mentioned herein.

No, can we get on with Quantum Of Solace reviews ? Thank you.

[DLibrasnow]

1 out of 10? Yeah, I'm sure it's that bad.

My thoughts exactly. I haven't seen a film I would class as 1/10 in many, many years.

Agreed. I hate The World is not Enough with the intensity of a thousand suns but even I would give it a 3/10. It does after all have a pretty neat boat chase down the Thames and sexy window dressing in Denise Richards. who gives some of the most unintentionally hilarious line deliveries in Bond history

[Fiona Volpe lover]

I didn't read all of the review becasue it was giving away too much for me bur I am a little worried, it sounds like I'm not going to like QOS very much. Grahan seems to criticise things which I would criticise. However, he didn't like MR which I love so he could be wrong!

[DR76]

No I don't, Craig isn't in fault, he is one of the saving graces of the movie. I'm just worried they take a big break again if the numbers aren't up there. I'm just afraid of a box office sinking. Ideally, they should as written here do YOLT/MWTGG next time, and re-hire Martin Campbell, even if just as a producer.

If movies I consider mediocre like MOONRAKER, GOLDFINGER and DIE ANOTHER DAY can generate great box office, then I feel that QUANTUM OF SOLACE has nothing to worry about. It won't have any real competition, this fall. Unless I end up being proven wrong.

Yes, right. I actually believe I'll probably agree with Rye's assessment of Quatumn. The one scene I saw previewed had me scratching my head. The dialogue seemed muted and didn't flow well.

Aren't you jumping to conclusions over ONE scene? Hell, I thought that the trailer for CASINO ROYALE wasn't that impressive, yet I ended up loving the movie.

Edited by DR76, 29 October 2008 - 06:18 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Rye's problems with the club members are well documented, and I personally won't forget what he did. But to be fair, I did agree with every single word of his review of DAD, and with his review of Casino Royale as well. So his review of QoS here is worrying me.
That being said, the highly unproffesional way he has written this review, particularly by giving away the entire plot of the movie, leads me to suspect there is another motive here.

I'm just really confused with what is going on here. I was not expecting QoS to be slated by anyone other than the usual "we want Q, Moneypenny and invisible cars" crowd. All the clips of QoS I've seen are awesome. Forster and Craig have been saying the right things in interviews etc. about focusing on character and emotion. If it is this bad I just don't see how it could have happened. With Forster, Craig and Haggis on board it could, and should, have been one of the greatest Bond movies ever (at least in terms of how I view greatness, with FRWL, OHMSS, CR etc. being the ones I view as great). Apparently its short on plot and character, but in every interview Forster goes on about how he focused on these areas. There have been no stories about studio muppets re-cutting the picture, or about any re-shoots. From the trailers of DAD it was clear it stank, but the QoS trailers are fantastic

I guess I'll know in 4 hours....

SOLACE is short of neither character or plot. See for yourself.

[jake speed]

Maybe we could give Graham some credit for doing his bit to spread the word of Bond in the days before the internet. I have printed issues of 007 Magazine/007 Extra from 1990 to 1997 and not only am I glad to own them, I appreciate the work and time that must have gone into them.

[Judo chop]

SOLACE is short of neither character or plot. See for yourself.

The fact that others who have proven themselves to have keen Bond minds, like Zorin and ACE, claim to see redeemable plot and character qualities in QOS makes me 99% sure that they are there to be found. These aren’t things easily imagined.

It’s like when a pregnant couple go in for an ultrasound… they put that goop on the mommy’s belly and draw imaginary pictures with that big pen-looking thing and dad ogles at the black and white monitor looking for any semblance of anything human. The nurse then says, “Ooh! I think I just saw something! Yep… it’s a PENIS! IT’S A BOY!!!” And the whole crowd goes wild.

If the child is a GIRL, nobody is going to find a penis.

If the child is a BOY, there is a chance that nobody finds the penis and so they wrongly predict GIRL.

But it’s rarely, RARELY the case, that one sees a penis when it isn’t there.

If Zorin and ACE see a penis, then I say it’s there.

[The Dove]

So after reading all these rants and raves about Graham Rye, can we conclude that Graham Rye is "someone you thought that you could trust...is just Another Way To Die"?

[Royal Dalton]

It’s like when a pregnant couple go in for an ultrasound… they put that goop on the mommy’s belly and draw imaginary pictures with that big pen-looking thing and dad ogles at the black and white monitor looking for any semblance of anything human. The nurse then says, “Ooh! I think I just saw something! Yep… it’s a PENIS! IT’S A BOY!!!” And the whole crowd goes wild.

If the child is a GIRL, nobody is going to find a penis.

If the child is a BOY, there is a chance that nobody finds the penis and so they wrongly predict GIRL.

But it’s rarely, RARELY the case, that one sees a penis when it isn’t there.

What if nobody finds a penis and it's a hermaphrodite?

[Judo chop]

It’s like when a pregnant couple go in for an ultrasound… they put that goop on the mommy’s belly and draw imaginary pictures with that big pen-looking thing and dad ogles at the black and white monitor looking for any semblance of anything human. The nurse then says, “Ooh! I think I just saw something! Yep… it’s a PENIS! IT’S A BOY!!!” And the whole crowd goes wild.

If the child is a GIRL, nobody is going to find a penis.

If the child is a BOY, there is a chance that nobody finds the penis and so they wrongly predict GIRL.

But it’s rarely, RARELY the case, that one sees a penis when it isn’t there.

What if nobody finds a penis and it's a hermaphrodite?

TWINE. And God save us all.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

Don't worry. I think Graham did a bad review of the film because he's a Connery/Bond fan and perhaps he doesn't likes a Licence to Kill-like Bond film.

[Royal Dalton]

TWINE. And God save us all.

Neither one thing nor the other, Eh?

[stamper]

Oh my, the following days/weeks are really going to be interesting...

[doubler83]

Oh my, the following days/weeks are really going to be interesting...

Stamper, I'd love to see your prediction come true. Be fun to see people taking sides and readying themselves for battle.

[Trident]

Fact is: Rye doesn't like it.

And that's about all we can say.

Do I care? Certainly not. I wouldn't have cared if he loved it and proposed.

All I care about at the moment is if I'm going to like it.

[Royal Dalton]

Oh my, the following days/weeks are really going to be interesting...

Yeah. Hopefully we'll get a bit of feedback later from some of the people who are seeing it tonight.

[Elvenstar]

Perhaps he went into seeing the film expecting too much and thinking it would be Casino Royale 2: The Return of Bond or something! I really think he should give the film another look-see.

Yes. I think you're spot on I guess. Haven't read his review but I guess most of the CR fans will go into the theater expecting CR2 cause that idea of a direct sequel 20 mins after CR was prominent in interviews of the whole bunch of cast and crew and the producers. So they have the right to desire that story to continue much in the same vein and come to the conclusion of Bond finding his QOS.
But then GR got completely different film having no resemblance to CR in any way, so certainly he was disappointed and I just feel sorry for him. He's just in love with CR too much (me too I must admit )
Now Im prepared to see a completely different film than I had in my mind thanks to bits of reviews I've seen. I would have been as disappointed as this man if I had the chance to see it without any advance reviews and opinions...

So thank God for Internet

Edited by Elvenstar, 29 October 2008 - 07:50 PM.

[Marquis]

Oh my, the following days/weeks are really going to be interesting...

Regardless of how good or bad QOS actually is, expect to see the anti-Craig fraternity out en masse from Friday onwards, knives at the ready....and expect the pro-Craigers to meet them head on in what will undoubtedly be the bloodiest battle in Bond fandom. 'Interesting' won't even begin to cover it.

[The Dove]

LOL!! Nice one Marquis.. I'll be expecting a good old fashioned rumble a la Jets vs Sharks from West Side Story outside the theater..

[JackWade]

To be honest I didn't really know much of this Graham Rye fellow until buzz started circulating around the interwebs that his opinion of QUANTUM was unfavorable. Now that I've read his crap excuse for a review (not that I take issue with his opinion but rather the fact that it's more of a plot outline than a critique) and the word on the grapevine about his involvement with 007 Magazine he sounds like a right sleazeball.

[HildebrandRarity]

Oh my, the following days/weeks are really going to be interesting...

Regardless of how good or bad QOS actually is, expect to see the anti-Craig fraternity out en masse from Friday onwards, knives at the ready....and expect the pro-Craigers to meet them head on in what will undoubtedly be the bloodiest battle in Bond fandom. 'Interesting' won't even begin to cover it.

I suspect that the criticism - if indeed there is criticsm en mass - will be aimed at the Broccolis for letting Forster have free reign or for doing a 180 from Bond 21...not at Craig.

If box office comes in at levels as CR - adjusted for currency fluctuations and ticket price inflation - then Craig definitey won't bare the brunt of criticsm. Moore, Dalton and Brosnan had their second outings which weren't as successful...so Craig would be in Connery territory if the adjusted box office is maintained.

In essence, the criticisms will be leveled at Broccoli and Wilson. But no one will be able to do anything about it. They (Eon) were never interested in making Casino Royale 2 and they haven't. They have given themselves lots of elbow room to manouver as they wish and make whatever type of movie they want for 2011.

But that rating of 1/10 definitely smacks of an agenda and feelings of being snubbed.

[Judo chop]

But that rating of 1/10 definitely smacks of an agenda and feelings of being snubbed.

It definitely does.

I want to see other film titles that have earned a '1' rating from this fella and see the words QUANTUM OF SOLACE sitting right amidst them. So I can laugh at the preposterousness of it all.

JAWS THE REVENGE
LEPRECHAUN 4
CATWOMAN
JOHNNY PNEUMONIC
QUANTUM OF SOLACE
GIGLI
STOP OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT

Oh really? Is that really what we're to believe?

<rolleyes>

[Emma]

I'm not put off by this review. I get the impression that this guy is one of the Bond snobs. I liked Casino Royale, however I also liked TND, AVTAK and TB. I don't need Bond films to be Shakespeare.

From a critic's point of view, QOS was really the Promised Land. For all the critics who liked CR, what could possibly go wrong with this one? They had Craig, Haggis and Forster. And yet, it seems like they ended up with what the critics will call an average movie. Try then to imagine how much creative work there is behind a franchise with 22 'average' films!

I agree. I wonder what went wrong, and where the finger pointing will lie.

I really am anxious to see this film. For the most part, all the reviews allude to the fact that there's no depth and it's just action! action! action!. But I never got that from the trailers.

[HH007]

Meh. I have no idea who Graham Rye is, and nor do I care. He's entitled to his own opinion, butit means nothing to me.

Why can't we have more sensible posts like this ? Who the is Graham Rye ?

That's exactly what I said!

WHO. THE. . IS. GRAHAM. RYE?????????????

His opinion means nothing to me either, but the way some have reacted, you'd think Jesus Christ himself watched the movie and gave it 1/10.

[Shot Your Bolt]

It just somebody's opinion. Unfoutunately, it seems to be a reoccuring opinion about this film.

[Safari Suit]

If his opinion really means nothing to you why have you posted in this thread more than once?

That goes for similar posts too; announcing indifference is boardering on oxymoronic.

I think a lot of people are being more effected by these negative reviews than they like to let on.

[Judo chop]

Meh. I have no idea who Graham Rye is, and nor do I care. He's entitled to his own opinion, butit means nothing to me.

Why can't we have more sensible posts like this ? Who the is Graham Rye ?

That's exactly what I said!

WHO. THE. . IS. GRAHAM. RYE?????????????

His opinion means nothing to me either, but the way some have reacted, you'd think Jesus Christ himself watched the movie and gave it 1/10.

I don't know who he is. I'm not sure if he knows who Bond is. But he's the subject of this thread, and as good CBn citizens we are obliged to stay on topic.

As for what Christ would give the film... let's ask Daddy.

(just a joke Daddy)