44 replies to this topic

[doublenoughtspy]

I actually concur with the sentiments of your thoughts here.

I'm so glad.

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.

I see your point and have two comments.

1) I was referring to the production of a Bond magazine. Today's technology allows anyone to create a blog or their own web site that could be their vision of what Bond journalism/criticism should be. As mentioned previously, 007 and MKBB glady accept user submissions. Regardless of his talents however, Graham could not produce a Bond film.

2) If you look at the history of Eon Productions and fan/journalistic relations - there has consistently been a breakdown at some point. John Brosnan had permission to do his book, then he didn't. Steven Jay Rubin had permission, then apparently talked to the wrong people (how Terence Young, Peter Hunt, and Richard Maibaum qualified as the wrong people I'll never know) and then permission was yanked. Bondage the same thing. 007 was following a trend. CBn has felt the wrath of Eon's lawyers as well...

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".

It appears you have your own ideas of what should and should not appear in 007. As I've stated previously - you are welcome to contribute or better yet - start your own Zorin Bond mag

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.

Agreed.

[Zorin Industries]

I actually concur with the sentiments of your thoughts here.

I'm so glad.

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.

I see your point and have two comments.

1) I was referring to the production of a Bond magazine. Today's technology allows anyone to create a blog or their own web site that could be their vision of what Bond journalism/criticism should be. As mentioned previously, 007 and MKBB glady accept user submissions. Regardless of his talents however, Graham could not produce a Bond film.

2) If you look at the history of Eon Productions and fan/journalistic relations - there has consistently been a breakdown at some point. John Brosnan had permission to do his book, then he didn't. Steven Jay Rubin had permission, then apparently talked to the wrong people (how Terence Young, Peter Hunt, and Richard Maibaum qualified as the wrong people I'll never know) and then permission was yanked. Bondage the same thing. 007 was following a trend. CBn has felt the wrath of Eon's lawyers as well...

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".

It appears you have your own ideas of what should and should not appear in 007. As I've stated previously - you are welcome to contribute or better yet - start your own Zorin Bond mag

I'd only get carried away and end up filling the pages with Zorin's Recipes and Zorin's Pastoral Thought Of The Month.... and no doubt I will start criticising myself for not using the recipes books of the 1960's rather than these flashy, fusion ones filling the Sainsburys shelves.

What I meant about looking at a wider perspective with a Bond film is that so much writing about Bond (across the board) is either about tabloid-steered behind the scenes anecdotes or whether it is any good or not. To take ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE, A VIEW TO A KILL - there are a great many thirtysomethings (myself obviously included) who rate, praise, cherish and mark that 1985 effort. Are our views any less tangible and printable than, say, the umpteenth look at OHMSS or DR NO printed in 007 magazine or indeed anywhere? Bond exists because the next generation and a few people inbetween pick up the next baton of fandom (or even just keen interest) and run with it. Yes, the old guard from the initial years are going to stake their flag in the sand and say (with some justification granted) that the earlier incarnations of Bond had stronger ingredients working in better ways but I don't know if that is actually that true. I think Bond films and their following and their reputations ebb and flow as the years drift by. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is regarded as a classic and benchmark along the lines of ROYALE and OHMSS but on new viewings for me right now in 2009 it seems very sluggish and uber-safe all round. But give it another few years or even a few months and its cache, its stocks and shares will rise again. It will happen to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It - for some unfathomable reason - appears to get the most laziest, easiest, pointless criticisms levelled at it - but is akin to all the classic elements that mark out the Connery years but time and distance does not allow people to see that. Even THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH will improve in time when New Labour are long gone and the Millenium stamp on it doesn't so much date it as make it a curio piece in the way MOONRAKER and LIVE AND LET DIE have perhaps become.

[zencat]

Bond exists because the next generation and a few people inbetween pick up the next baton of fandom (or even just keen interest) and run with it. Yes, the old guard from the initial years are going to stake their flag in the sand and say (with some justification granted) that the earlier incarnations of Bond had stronger ingredients working in better ways but I don't know if that is actually that true. I think Bond films and their following and their reputations ebb and flow as the years drift by.

Well said. Very true. This is why I revisit Bond films (and books) with a fresh eye every few years. I find my own opinions ebb and flow quite a bit. And I never really know how I feel about "the last film" until it is at least one movie removed.

[007 Magazine]

"What I meant about looking at a wider perspective with a Bond film is that so much writing about Bond (across the board) is either about tabloid-steered behind the scenes anecdotes or whether it is any good or not. To take ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE, A VIEW TO A KILL - there are a great many thirtysomethings (myself obviously included) who rate, praise, cherish and mark that 1985 effort. Are our views any less tangible and printable than, say, the umpteenth look at OHMSS or DR NO printed in 007 magazine or indeed anywhere? Bond exists because the next generation and a few people inbetween pick up the next baton of fandom (or even just keen interest) and run with it. Yes, the old guard from the initial years are going to stake their flag in the sand and say (with some justification granted) that the earlier incarnations of Bond had stronger ingredients working in better ways but I don't know if that is actually that true. I think Bond films and their following and their reputations ebb and flow as the years drift by. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is regarded as a classic and benchmark along the lines of ROYALE and OHMSS but on new viewings for me right now in 2009 it seems very sluggish and uber-safe all round. But give it another few years or even a few months and its cache, its stocks and shares will rise again. It will happen to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It - for some unfathomable reason - appears to get the most laziest, easiest, pointless criticisms levelled at it - but is akin to all the classic elements that mark out the Connery years but time and distance does not allow people to see that. Even THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH will improve in time when New Labour are long gone and the Millenium stamp on it doesn't so much date it as make it a curio piece in the way MOONRAKER and LIVE AND LET DIE have perhaps become."


All that you say could be true!

007 MAGAZINE would welcome an article written by 'Zorin Industries' extolling the virtues of AVTAK or any other of the Bond films that he feels have been 'ignored' by our publication. If this is of interest to you ZI (or anyone else for that matter) please email Graham Rye at [email protected] to discuss further.

[MarkA]

I think Bond films and their following and their reputations ebb and flow as the years drift by. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is regarded as a classic and benchmark along the lines of ROYALE and OHMSS but on new viewings for me right now in 2009 it seems very sluggish and uber-safe all round. But give it another few years or even a few months and its cache, its stocks and shares will rise again. It will happen to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It - for some unfathomable reason - appears to get the most laziest, easiest, pointless criticisms levelled at it - but is akin to all the classic elements that mark out the Connery years but time and distance does not allow people to see that. Even THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH will improve in time when New Labour are long gone and the Millenium stamp on it doesn't so much date it as make it a curio piece in the way MOONRAKER and LIVE AND LET DIE have perhaps become.

I agree with the above comments. Especially having seen THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS back on the big screen at the NFT recently. A film I loved at the time and one I was glad finally saw the end of the Roger Moore era, (sorry). It is very sluggish and bad in all sorts of ways. But I have had a very interesting time recently. I have been viewing these films on the big screen with someone who was never a Bond fan and in fact had only ever seen Casino Royale and QOS (yes really, not even seen the Bonds on TV). And you know what. They were blown away by those early Connery's especially Goldfinger. So maybe us old codgers were right all along. Maybe we write and go on about those films because they are the ones that will always remain fresh and original. Even to people who were never born when they were made. Believe me it was fascinating to observe. As far as Graham is concerned. I have had serious run-ins disagreements with the man, and in my own small way I had something to do with many of those early 007's. But I for one am glad he is back. Nobody does it Better!!

Edited by MarkA, 15 June 2009 - 06:42 PM.

[Professor Dent]

Bond exists because the next generation and a few people inbetween pick up the next baton of fandom (or even just keen interest) and run with it. Yes, the old guard from the initial years are going to stake their flag in the sand and say (with some justification granted) that the earlier incarnations of Bond had stronger ingredients working in better ways but I don't know if that is actually that true. I think Bond films and their following and their reputations ebb and flow as the years drift by.

Well said. Very true. This is why I revisit Bond films (and books) with a fresh eye every few years. I find my own opinions ebb and flow quite a bit. And I never really know how I feel about "the last film" until it is at least one movie removed.

I'm also in the camp of needing one movie removed to really assess it so I don't get caught-up with the "newness" factor of it. At a minimum, I need the DVD on my shelf for about six months to see how often it makes it into my player over any of the other movies. It wasn't until I saw Quantum of Solace that it really solidified for me how much Casino Royale is a great movie. My opinion of certain movies & books have changed over the years & I'm sure they will continue to do so as I revisit them in the years to come.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I'm a big fan of 007 magazine, and looking back at the covers whilst reading this thread bought some great memories. I've always felt a sense of deference to the sixties Bonds in terms of special retrospective issues. This was only a problem for me because I would have loved a 007 Magazine special on some of the later (80's) Bonds I grew up with, as the TB and OHMSS editions gave excellent insights into those films.

[007 Magazine]

"What I meant about looking at a wider perspective with a Bond film is that so much writing about Bond (across the board) is either about tabloid-steered behind the scenes anecdotes or whether it is any good or not. To take ONLY AS AN EXAMPLE, A VIEW TO A KILL - there are a great many thirtysomethings (myself obviously included) who rate, praise, cherish and mark that 1985 effort. Are our views any less tangible and printable than, say, the umpteenth look at OHMSS or DR NO printed in 007 magazine or indeed anywhere? Bond exists because the next generation and a few people inbetween pick up the next baton of fandom (or even just keen interest) and run with it. Yes, the old guard from the initial years are going to stake their flag in the sand and say (with some justification granted) that the earlier incarnations of Bond had stronger ingredients working in better ways but I don't know if that is actually that true. I think Bond films and their following and their reputations ebb and flow as the years drift by. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS is regarded as a classic and benchmark along the lines of ROYALE and OHMSS but on new viewings for me right now in 2009 it seems very sluggish and uber-safe all round. But give it another few years or even a few months and its cache, its stocks and shares will rise again. It will happen to QUANTUM OF SOLACE. It - for some unfathomable reason - appears to get the most laziest, easiest, pointless criticisms levelled at it - but is akin to all the classic elements that mark out the Connery years but time and distance does not allow people to see that. Even THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH will improve in time when New Labour are long gone and the Millenium stamp on it doesn't so much date it as make it a curio piece in the way MOONRAKER and LIVE AND LET DIE have perhaps become."


All that you say could be true!

007 MAGAZINE would welcome an article written by 'Zorin Industries' extolling the virtues of AVTAK or any other of the Bond films that he feels have been 'ignored' by our publication. If this is of interest to you ZI (or anyone else for that matter) please email Graham Rye at [email protected] to discuss further.

I'm very disappointed that 'Zorin Industries', nor anyone else, has contacted 007 MAGAZINE with a view to writing something for the publication. It would appear that no one wants to put their copy where there mouth is!

Graham Rye
Editor & Publisher
007 MAGAZINE
www.007magazine.co.uk

[Ambler]

I enjoyed 007 Magazine back in the days of the much missed 58 Dean St.

However, Graham Rye's frequent appearances in 007 did put me off a bit ,,, The story's the thing, not the writer.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I'm very disappointed that 'Zorin Industries', nor anyone else, has contacted 007 MAGAZINE with a view to writing something for the publication. It would appear that no one wants to put their copy where there mouth is!

Graham Rye
Editor & Publisher
007 MAGAZINE
www.007magazine.co.uk

It would be great to write something for 007 magazine, but at present time constraints prevent me from this. I would not rule out contacting 007magazine.co.uk in a few months....

I enjoyed 007 Magazine back in the days of the much missed 58 Dean St.

I remember that shop, and purchased some Bond stuff from there.

[Jim]

I enjoyed 007 Magazine back in the days of the much missed 58 Dean St.

Much missed, indeed. Didn't they move to somewhere near to the British Museum - is it still a going concern?

[Loomis]

Didn't they move to somewhere near to the British Museum

Yes.

is it still a going concern?

Dunno. I haven't patronised them in years.

In any case, the Cinema Store in nearby Upper St. Martin's Lane should be able to sort you out with copies of 007 if that's the kind of thing you're after.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Anyone else got a flyer through the door about the new edition of 007 magazine? Brings back some old fan club memories....

[dee-bee-five]

I enjoyed 007 Magazine back in the days of the much missed 58 Dean St.

Much missed, indeed. Didn't they move to somewhere near to the British Museum - is it still a going concern?

The British Museum? Yes, I believe I saw people going in and out there the other day when I passed...

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I enjoyed 007 Magazine back in the days of the much missed 58 Dean St.

Much missed, indeed. Didn't they move to somewhere near to the British Museum - is it still a going concern?

The British Museum? Yes, I believe I saw people going in and out there the other day when I passed...