44 replies to this topic

[Osato]

Hi, just read news about 007 mag back in action.. It's long overdue, and can't wait. I was never a member of the fan club but always used to pick one up in store, and am very pleased it's making a return, as the online edition was never the same as having it in your hot little hands. Does anyone know when it will available or do we just have to email them and wait?

[007 Magazine]

Please follow this link http://www.007magazi...ess_release.htm for full information regarding the publication of the new editions of 007 MAGAZINE.

[zencat]

Very excited about this. Always loved OO7. Can't wait to get these.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Very excited about this. Always loved OO7. Can't wait to get these.

Same. My collection dates back to when Tim was cast in TLD.

[zencat]

Very excited about this. Always loved OO7. Can't wait to get these.

Same. My collection dates back to when Tim was cast in TLD.

Mine goes back to #1. When it was just a one page talking about Moonraker.

Go here for a retrospective of the entire history of OO7.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Very excited about this. Always loved OO7. Can't wait to get these.

Same. My collection dates back to when Tim was cast in TLD.

Mine goes back to #1. When it was just a one page talking about Moonraker.

Go here for a retrospective of the entire history of OO7.

Thats a great retrospective. Many memories of looking at those covers. Was a real highpoint to get one of those come through the door, and they were always delayed
Love to own em all

[Osato]

Is it still possible to get the very early issues?

[DamnCoffee]

Club poll names Diamonds Are Forever the favorite Bond film.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Is it still possible to get the very early issues?

Last I knew they had all sold out only apart from the recent ones.....
You may be lucky on ebay/spyguise somewhere like that

Club poll names Diamonds Are Forever the favorite Bond film.

Really When was the poll done do you know?

[DamnCoffee]

Really When was the poll done do you know?

‘OO7’ - Issue #1, April 1979.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Really When was the poll done do you know?

‘OO7’ - Issue #1, April 1979.

Ah that explains things!

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 13 June 2009 - 08:21 PM.

[Qwerty]

Fantastic news.

[Mark_Hazard]

Great, looking forward to something I can hold in my sweaty hands again - it beats squinting at a screen.

[Turn]

This is great news. I've enjoyed the thrill of the chase of getting past issues, joined the club when it about ended and then the new club began.

That concept cover showing the OHMSS pretitle sequence is a knockout. I hope it may materialize someday, maybe as an upcoming 40th anniversary tribute to the film.

If only get the James Bond Collectors Club magazine could get back up and going it would make a nice comeback in two ways.

[Osato]

That concept cover showing the OHMSS pretitle sequence is a knockout. I hope it may materialize someday, maybe as an upcoming 40th anniversary tribute to the film.

I could be wrong, but I think that's exactly what the press release says it is, in the first paragraph?

[Gri007]

Would this in anyway effect the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang magazines. Would this run alongside it or would they cancel it.

[zencat]

Would this in anyway effect the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang magazines. Would this run alongside it or would they cancel it.

They are separate. KKBB is now the official magazine of the JBIFC. OO7 has gone independent.

[Professor Dent]

Excellent! Online is nice but there is something about getting that new glossy magazine in the mail that is just so much more fun.

[zencat]

I love to pluck a random issue of OO7 off the shelf and sit down with it. It really brings me back to a time and place. In fact, I think I'll do that right now.

[Turn]

I love to pluck a random issue of OO7 off the shelf and sit down with it. It really brings me back to a time and place. In fact, I think I'll do that right now.

I prize my 007 Magazine collection as well, although it's nowhere as extensive as what you have. I almost like these more than most of the hard and softback reference books on the series that sit on my bookshelves.

So out of curiosity, which issue did you pick out?

[David_M]

This is great news. And this part is brilliant:

...and will be published at intervals throughout the year on a non-subscription basis.

The perennial and most devastating complaint against all the "fan" mags over the years (From 007 to Goldeneye to KKBB, etc) has been their erratic publishing schedule and all the peeved subscribers out there who want their issues faster. Rye has solved this already by saying right out of the gate, "You can't subscribe, and they'll be out when they come out." :-)

Looking forward to them both, but as an increasingly crusty old codger, I'm really looking forward to the "Archives" title.

[Zorin Industries]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

[Osato]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

If I read this right, you are saying they were over biased towards Connery and Lazenby? I've just had a look at my collection and it is awash with Brosnan/Dalton and Moore in the main part, I wish it was more inline with your statement as that is my preference, but I don't know how you can say that? Your last sentence I don't actually understand at all

[Zorin Industries]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

If I read this right, you are saying they were over biased towards Connery and Lazenby? I've just had a look at my collection and it is awash with Brosnan/Dalton and Moore in the main part, I wish it was more inline with your statement as that is my preference, but I don't know how you can say that? Your last sentence I don't actually understand at all

Just thinking of Mr Rye's er "review" of SOLACE which - for me personally - typifies the slightly over-nostalgic starting point his journalism comes from. Though of course there are other contributors and plus-points to the magazine. And the more the merrier when it comes to Bond...

[Jim]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

If I read this right, you are saying they were over biased towards Connery and Lazenby? I've just had a look at my collection and it is awash with Brosnan/Dalton and Moore in the main part, I wish it was more inline with your statement as that is my preference, but I don't know how you can say that? Your last sentence I don't actually understand at all

I support the observation - obviously in terms of timeframe of publication of the magazine it was bound to contain material relating to the latest Bond films, and those were Moore, Dalton and Brosnan films, and that's only natural, there did seem to be a particular bias towards the Connery films and Thunderball in particular. Not that this is a bad thing - Thunderball is splendid. Did seem to get more special anniversary issues than anything else, and was always a bit suspicious why there wasn't something similar for, say, The Spy who Loved Me.

But hey ho, it's nice to see it back; a hard copy magazine won't be able to compete with websites like this for news/random acts of speculation but they always did do retrospectives very nicely indeed.

[Zorin Industries]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

If I read this right, you are saying they were over biased towards Connery and Lazenby? I've just had a look at my collection and it is awash with Brosnan/Dalton and Moore in the main part, I wish it was more inline with your statement as that is my preference, but I don't know how you can say that? Your last sentence I don't actually understand at all

I support the observation - obviously in terms of timeframe of publication of the magazine it was bound to contain material relating to the latest Bond films, and those were Moore, Dalton and Brosnan films, and that's only natural, there did seem to be a particular bias towards the Connery films and Thunderball in particular. Not that this is a bad thing - Thunderball is splendid. Did seem to get more special anniversary issues than anything else, and was always a bit suspicious why there wasn't something similar for, say, The Spy who Loved Me.

But hey ho, it's nice to see it back; a hard copy magazine won't be able to compete with websites like this for news/random acts of speculation but they always did do retrospectives very nicely indeed.

And I for one cannot wait for Graham Rye to produce that lovingly written ode to A VIEW TO A KILL's Silver Anniversary next year. I'm presuming he's planning the Pinewood BBQ as we speak...

I can see it now...

A VIEW TO A KILL
25th Anniversary BBQ
May Day 2010
£170 per head

MENU
Soft Shell Crab Tchaikovsky Style
Stuffed Aubergine
Pegasus Steak
A Roger Moore Individual Quiche with Rock Salt Garnish
Over-Baked Alaska

Coffee and Zorin Industries Mints.

David Yip will be available for autographs in the afternoon and Caroline Munro will be turning up to open the fridge.

[doublenoughtspy]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

While there is a slight editorial slant towards the 60s, that is Graham’s prerogative. If you don’t like it you don’t have to buy it. But as others have said there is plenty of coverage of the other films.

If you want the cookie-cutter “Every Bond film is wonderful, they have never made a mistake, praise-be-to-Broccoli” then you should be satisfied to consume the official Eon products. I would prefer to read a magazine that does not pretend TMWGG (sorry Loomis), AVTAK, DAD, and QOS are masterpieces.

And you might want to compare 007 to contemporary Bond publications of the 1970s, like Bondage and The Sight – those two publications were SLAMMING the Moore films, before, during, and after they were made.

Part of the reason Graham revamped the Thunderball special issue was because the original issue was going for upwards of $75 on the secondary market – people who wanted it had to pay outrageous prices. Sure, if you already had issue 23 you might have questioned why Thunderball was getting more coverage – but what if you didn’t have the issue?

The special issue covering Casino Royale 67/NSNA flew off the shelves and sold out immediately – Graham wasn’t afraid to cover the two films that a large portion of Bond fandom tosses aside.

I think what irks me the most though is when people sit back and complain rather than doing something about the problem. As John Cork says “it’s very easy to criticize, it’s very difficult to create.”

I’ve contributed photographic content for previous 007 issues and will be providing written and photographic content for the upcoming OHMSS issue. Graham has a wonderful archive but he welcomes contributions as well. I’ve also contributed to MKBB and hope that the two magazines bring each other to the top of their game.

I’ll never understand the potshots taken at people who take on the thankless task of producing a Bond magazine. No one had anything handed to them. Once they’ve taken the reigns of a publication anyone who is a human being will have some editorial bias, and they can only produce material that is in their grasp or is provided by contributors.

So go back to your bitching and moaning, but I certainly welcome the return of 007.

[zencat]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

Maybe this can be said of the special editions, which do tend to be 60s-centric, but so what? That's what Graham loves. But I don't think the magazine itself ignores the other Bonds or films at all. Maybe there was a bias toward NSNA during the "battle of the Bonds", but Graham explained in our interview that was mostly because the NSNA camp provided photos, interviews, etc., while Eon didn't offer squat (even withheld). And has been pointed out, OO7s coverage of the Dalton era was phenomenal, as was the Brosnan era coverage. And one of the last issues was a terrific all Roger Moore issue. Sure, Graham trashed QOS, but he praised CR. I think you may be basing your opinion on a very small sampling of OO7. As a whole, it has covered the entire Bond series beautifully.

[Zorin Industries]

I just hope the editorial directions remember that Bond films can work with actors other than Sean Connery and that the best ones were not all made between 1962 - 1969. I always find the blinkeredness of 007 magazine to be what made it a bit parochial to read. There seems to be an inability to look at the films as cinematic entities with their own cultures and zeitgeists to consider.

While there is a slight editorial slant towards the 60s, that is Graham’s prerogative. If you don’t like it you don’t have to buy it. But as others have said there is plenty of coverage of the other films.

If you want the cookie-cutter “Every Bond film is wonderful, they have never made a mistake, praise-be-to-Broccoli” then you should be satisfied to consume the official Eon products. I would prefer to read a magazine that does not pretend TMWGG (sorry Loomis), AVTAK, DAD, and QOS are masterpieces.

And you might want to compare 007 to contemporary Bond publications of the 1970s, like Bondage and The Sight – those two publications were SLAMMING the Moore films, before, during, and after they were made.

Part of the reason Graham revamped the Thunderball special issue was because the original issue was going for upwards of $75 on the secondary market – people who wanted it had to pay outrageous prices. Sure, if you already had issue 23 you might have questioned why Thunderball was getting more coverage – but what if you didn’t have the issue?

The special issue covering Casino Royale 67/NSNA flew off the shelves and sold out immediately – Graham wasn’t afraid to cover the two films that a large portion of Bond fandom tosses aside.

I think what irks me the most though is when people sit back and complain rather than doing something about the problem. As John Cork says “it’s very easy to criticize, it’s very difficult to create.”

I’ve contributed photographic content for previous 007 issues and will be providing written and photographic content for the upcoming OHMSS issue. Graham has a wonderful archive but he welcomes contributions as well. I’ve also contributed to MKBB and hope that the two magazines bring each other to the top of their game.

I’ll never understand the potshots taken at people who take on the thankless task of producing a Bond magazine. No one had anything handed to them. Once they’ve taken the reigns of a publication anyone who is a human being will have some editorial bias, and they can only produce material that is in their grasp or is provided by contributors.

So go back to your bitching and moaning, but I certainly welcome the return of 007.

I actually concur with the sentiments of your thoughts here.

But you rightly suggest "it’s very easy to criticize, it’s very difficult to create”. I personally think that is sadly a little applicable to Graham Rye and his occasionally narky approach to the output of Eon Productions - a collection of filmmakers who have (from what I have read and sensed myself) once co-operated with the likes of Mr Rye but less so when the knives were out for their product.

Maybe film fans are never meant to agree, but statements such as "I would prefer to read a magazine that does not pretend TMWGG (sorry Loomis), AVTAK, DAD, and QOS are masterpieces" is sort of missing my point and underlining the blinkered nostalgia that can shift a magazine's focus to love-fests about restored milk vans seen in the background of a shot of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or whichever Shirley Eaton biography is out that month.

What about the coverage of spectatorship, audienceship, cultural frameworks and the reasoning behind the Bond films? Why shouldn't SOLACE or A VIEW TO A KILL get some decent, intelligent coverage? If a magazine doesn't like a film, fine. But say why - and that can't just be based on "that would never have happened in Sean's day".

For the record, I agree with what you say about the effort and personal toil that goes into producing and contributing to something like a magazine. As a Bond fan who used to scour the newsagents as a young teenager in the vain hope I would find an issue of '007' (a holy grail of Bond-ness back in the day) I would like to see a little more rounded editorial policy - and not one that is always directed at Bond fans in their late 40's and 50/s. But as you say that is Mr Rye's decision and I genuinely wish any new take on '007' the best of British.

[zencat]

As to a lack of A View To A Kill coverage... Remember that back then Graham was putting out OO7 Extra, which was a newsletter mag devoted to what was current. Most of his AVTAK coverage appeared there (but I am hoping for AVTAK and OP issues of the new Archives mag).

And, again, the Dalton and Brosnan films received ample coverage. I believe TND even had its own special issue.