19 replies to this topic

[Hotwinds]

I just finished listening to the first three Bond film commentaries via the Criterion Laserdisc’s that came out in 1991.
They are totally different from the ones currently on the DVD’s and in some ways better in that, when Terrence Young is talking you feel that you are listening to him in real time watching with you and this is also true of Peter Hunt. Guy Hamilton at times sounds like he is reading his prepared comments and does always come across as well.
One thing I learned from them is how much Peter Hunt did other than just edit. He was a huge asset and I did not realize that he shot many inserts. I did not know he did that and how he improved things overall. Also included is Richard Maibaum as well as Ken Adam although Ken is heard from the least overall I think. They are much less edited than the DVD’s today. Young and Hunt talk the most and at times are not always politically correct which is apparently why Cubby banned them soon after they came out and why the current commentaries do not include any part of them. I enjoy that part too and some times make me laugh out loud because you dont expect them to say these things for fear of offending certain groups of people. Also way they talk about sex, race, and sexual preference are very natural which again gives it a relaxed feel, like maybe you are watching it with them in their living room.
I recommend you listen to them if you are a fan of the first three films and enjoy all the behind the scenes stuff like I do.
Maybe one day they will be included in the next edition of the films whatever that will be.
Sorry if this has been talked about before.

[Tybre]

Certainly sound interesting. Now if only I owned laserdiscs...was always a VHS man myself...

[Krilencu]

You can listen to them commentaries online
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51958

Edited by Krilencu, 28 September 2009 - 02:05 AM.

[Hotwinds]

Thats were I found them to. Interesting site for commentaries but I dont think I would want to just listen to films now that I am spoiled by being able to own the films outright. I used to record things off the TV back in the day before VHS etc.
Wow how things have changed.

You can listen to them commentaries online
http://debrief.comma...showtopic=51958

[MarkA]

Those commentaries are fun and interesting especially hearing from Richard Maibaum, but I find Terence Young seems to really stretch the truth. There are a lot of things he says which are blatantly untrue and therefore possibly libelous. I can understand why they were banned. But as I said fun never-the-less.

[Hotwinds]

MarkA thanks for responding. Could you please tell me some of the things that were untrue because I did not hear anything that stood out.
By the way I loved it when Young kicked Harry S. off the set because he was being a pain in the a**.
Thanks

Those commentaries are fun and interesting especially hearing from Richard Maibaum, but I find Terence Young seems to really stretch the truth. There are a lot of things he says which are blatantly untrue and therefore possibly libelous. I can understand why they were banned. But as I said fun never-the-less.

[scaramunga]

Watching and listening to Dr. No right now. These are very good!

It was interesting to know about Maurice Binder's opening work with the "3 blind mice". I never realized the first shot of them was just on a stage with color projection behind them!

Great stuff on here. Can't wait to listen to the other 2!!

[Dan Gale]

On the Goldfinger track, I beleive, Peter Hunt says that "Sean Connery was the type of man who could walk into a room and f*** any woman he wanted". I think it's that kind of talk that got the releases withdrawn...

[Zorin Industries]

On the Goldfinger track, I beleive, Peter Hunt says that "Sean Connery was the type of man who could walk into a room and f*** any woman he wanted". I think it's that kind of talk that got the releases withdrawn...

"Sean Connery was the type of man who could walk into a room and f*** any woman he wanted".

"fist"...?

[Dell Deaton]

... Cubby banned them soon after they came out....

What's the original (reliable?) source that says "Cubby banned them"?

Thanks.

[doublenoughtspy]

I believe the story is told in the American fan club newsletter Bondage quarterly.

Broccoli sued Criterion, claiming he had only authorized standard laserdisc releases - not ones with bells and whistles and commentary.

Criterion tried to placate Broccoli by releasing the commentary on audio tapes separately - but that idea was apparently nixed as well.

Criterion would later create and sell commentary-free versions that are much less desirable.

[scaramunga]

After hearing them I really understand why they were banned. That being said they were very informative and great to listen to. I really like who they had doing the commentaries as well.

Very recommended listening for Bond fans of those first 3 Connery films.

[Dell Deaton]

I believe the story is told in the American fan club newsletter Bondage quarterly....

Thanks. Any idea which? (See further my next remarks.)

After hearing them I really understand why they were banned....

Unfortunately, I don't; however, I'd like to.

At the risk of hijacking this Thread, how would you all feel about delineating these so-called objectionable aspects? In other words, comment by comment, "here's what was said, by whom, and why it had to be censored (in the opinion of such-and-so)." I'm not so naive as to insist that "all truth is good," nor that some things not said aren't worth saying.

But, my goodness: Think about the "Why?" question here. I'd really like to understand that. Maybe some of the remarks are "always wrong," eg, piercing some mythos regarding who invented what; maybe some are less important, eg, whether or not Connery was as reluctant to do much stunt work as I seem to recall someone having said.

As a starting point let me say that I listened to all three, entirely. Nothing struck me as anything that wouldn't have been appropriate in a current DVD nor that would have toppled some must-be-accepted truth.

Thanks for considering this request here.

[doublenoughtspy]

At the risk of hijacking this Thread, how would you all feel about delineating these so-called objectionable aspects? In other words, comment by comment, "here's what was said, by whom, and why it had to be censored (in the opinion of such-and-so)." I'm not so naive as to insist that "all truth is good," nor that some things not said aren't worth saying.

Who are you asking? Me?

But, my goodness: Think about the "Why?" question here. I'd really like to understand that. Maybe some of the remarks are "always wrong," eg, piercing some mythos regarding who invented what; maybe some are less important, eg, whether or not Connery was as reluctant to do much stunt work as I seem to recall someone having said.

As a starting point let me say that I listened to all three, entirely. Nothing struck me as anything that wouldn't have been appropriate in a current DVD nor that would have toppled some must-be-accepted truth.

Thanks for considering this request here.

I'm not sure anyone other than Cubby Broccoli could provide what you are asking. My understanding is that Eon's lawyer's provided a list of over 26 (the number might have been higher I can't remember) things that they objected to. I haven't read the list, I don't have the list.

But come on - Young talking about people throwing money around like drunken Indians? Talking about Lotte Lenya "screwing like mad" through her old age? You don't see how Eon didn't want to be associated with those comments?

If you want to transcribe all 3 commentaries - I'll throw in my two cents, but I'm not going to do the transcription work for you.

[Dell Deaton]

At the risk of hijacking this Thread, how would you all feel about delineating these so-called objectionable aspects? In other words, comment by comment, "here's what was said, by whom, and why it had to be censored (in the opinion of such-and-so)." I'm not so naive as to insist that "all truth is good," nor that some things not said aren't worth saying.

Who are you asking? Me?

But, my goodness: Think about the "Why?" question here. I'd really like to understand that. Maybe some of the remarks are "always wrong," eg, piercing some mythos regarding who invented what; maybe some are less important, eg, whether or not Connery was as reluctant to do much stunt work as I seem to recall someone having said.

As a starting point let me say that I listened to all three, entirely. Nothing struck me as anything that wouldn't have been appropriate in a current DVD nor that would have toppled some must-be-accepted truth.

Thanks for considering this request here.

I'm not sure anyone other than Cubby Broccoli could provide what you are asking. My understanding is that Eon's lawyer's provided a list of over 26 (the number might have been higher I can't remember) things that they objected to. I haven't read the list, I don't have the list.

But come on - Young talking about people throwing money around like drunken Indians? Talking about Lotte Lenya "screwing like mad" through her old age? You don't see how Eon didn't want to be associated with those comments?

If you want to transcribe all 3 commentaries - I'll throw in my two cents, but I'm not going to do the transcription work for you.

Take a deep breath, my friend.

I'm neither suggesting the task fall to your shoulders, nor that there be a full transcript. Most things start more modestly, and are quite successful in what's found by going little further.

In your own answer here you've provided a reasonable start.

Do I see the Young remarks as objectionable? Nope. Not now, nor in the context of their period. I think there was a certain, um, "colorfulness" that, for whatever reason, he felt necessary to enhance his stories. Stories, by the way, which had a frustrating habit of changing over time; in the end, making it difficult to put as much credibility in them as we might have (if interested as historians).

That's all.

[doublenoughtspy]

In your own answer here you've provided a reasonable start.

Do I see the Young remarks as objectionable? Nope. Not now, nor in the context of their period. I think there was a certain, um, "colorfulness" that, for whatever reason, he felt necessary to enhance his stories. Stories, by the way, which had a frustrating habit of changing over time; in the end, making it difficult to put as much credibility in them as we might have (if interested as historians).

That's all.

Well, the key isn't whether you or I found them objectionable - but if Broccoli/Eon did.

What you see as 'colorfulness', Eon might see it as offensive to Native Americans, libelous, etc.

As for Young, I agree that his reliability as a source is suspect at best.

[Dell Deaton]

... Do I see the Young remarks as objectionable? Nope....

Well, the key isn't whether you or I found them objectionable - but if Broccoli/Eon did.

What you see as 'colorfulness', Eon might see it as offensive to Native Americans, libelous, etc.

As for Young, I agree that his reliability as a source is suspect at best.

Point taken; agreed (and, I felt, the implied substance of what I was saying, but am fine with having it further clarified).

[scaramunga]

It would be nice to see these eventually included on blu ray. They won't though.

One cool thing was hearing the audio of the old United Artists logos at the beginning. Man I miss those!!!

As far as the Criterion laserdiscs did they have any other features or extras not included on the MGM DVD versions?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Came across an article about Criterions Laser Commentaries - "Whatever happended to Criterion Laserdisc Extra's".
The links to the site where the excellent Bond commentaries could be listened to now seems defunct, so it would be nice to think Criterion could reissue them. However, considering the Eon/Broccoli objections at the time they were originally released I guess it's extremely doubtful.

[jrcjohnny99]

I think I have MP3 copies of these commentaries if anyone needs em