35 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

'007 Magazine' #53 out now

plus: OO7 MAGAZINE ARCHIVE FILES –
Sean Connery as James Bond 007 – File #1

I was ordering issue #52 today and I noticed that #53 will be published next month.

[zencat]

Sweet! Looking forward to it.

[zencat]

OO7 Magazine #53 is available now. I'm excited about the FYEO coverage. Also love the cover.

http://www.007magazi...07_magazine.htm

[Righty007]

http://debrief.comma...07-magazine-53/

[zencat]

Ah, there it is. I knew there was a thread on this somewhere, couldn't find it. Merged.

[Mark_Hazard]

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/58612-007-magazine-53/

Don't know why - never do with computers - but the link keeps giving me an error message:

An Error Occurred
Sorry, an error occurred. If you are unsure on how to use a feature, or don't know why you got this error message, try looking through the help files for more information.

[#10343] We could not determine which topic you were attempting to view.

[zencat]

Because I merged the two topics.

If you're looking for the OO7 Mag order page, it's here: http://www.007magazi...07_magazine.htm

[Major Tallon]

I have ordered. These are always of a very high quality.

[Simon]

Thanks for the heads up.

Indeed a cracking cover, full of statement.

[Professor Dent]

Nice. Seems like I just got issue # 52 in the mail not all that long ago (or maybe I finally got around to reading it ). Love the cover.

[zencat]

'007 Magazine' #53 out now

plus: OO7 MAGAZINE ARCHIVE FILES –
Sean Connery as James Bond 007 – File #1

Yes, it's another OO7 Magazine publication within a week!

Celebrate Sir Sean’s 80th birthday on August 25th 2010, 007 MAGAZINE ARCHIVE FILES presents a unique look back at his 7-film career as James Bond with a 36-page special featuring some of the best, most unusual and rarest images from the 007 MAGAZINE ARCHIVE. Nobody did it better!

http://www.007magazine.co.uk/007_magazine.htm

[Simon]

This magazine has been duly bought and received.

A simply stunning cover with the, frankly, very bold shot and close up of the front of the DB5. It is even more beautiful in the flesh than in the above shots. The rear of the magazine is treated to a similarly shot rear of the car focusing on things 'left tail'. I must admit to always being sold on the simple, 'look what's inside' message-less covers that inspire rather than sell. Obviously by the time of handling, the magazine has already been bought so it makes sense that the cover can be used to 'please' rather than to 'sell'. Messages then being a redundant gesture.

I enjoyed the IWM Fleming retrospective and the piece on the up and coming DB5 auction. I must admit to finding the Bloodstone piece to be a little marketing lead and without merit, but in this it is perhaps because I am not a gamer.

The main reason for writing this quasi review though, is in respect of the puff piece that makes up the 'Moore's finest hour in FYEO'. Bearing in mind the audience for this magazine, I am at a complete loss as to, for or to whom this piece was written. For the most part it is little more than an in depth synopsis with interspersed commentary along the lines of, 'I thought this was good.' Perhaps a better indication of the question mark over the intended audience is exemplified by a summation of the helicopter chase which is as follows.

'In the faint chance you haven't seen this Bond movie, I won't tell you how it ends.'

The author's English aside, in a broad sweep of inconsistency he later then proceeds to drop the fact that the main villain turns out to be Kristatos; in itself the main 'twist' that was marketed at the time of this film's release and, if the precedent has been set to not provide spoilers, must certainly not be mentioned. That said though, at the end of the day I believe this magazine, and by association the article, is not aimed at 10 year old ignorami.

We are also treated to a 'fact' that at the time of Eyes' release, Roger Moore was 57. Research may have been considered in other areas of the article but it should be noted, not in this area it appears. Moore was 53. He was 57 at the close of his Bond tenure.

Along with the odd incorrect fact, this article is littered with typos, punctuation errors and the odd word that gets split into two (mur derers). This not usual for a Rye product and seems to be quite against the grain of the care apportioned to the rest of the magazine's construction. Even a basic editorial sweep up would have taken care of the linguistic likes of, 'Evading this attempt to do him in...'

Perhaps I am a curmudgeonly old croak, perhaps I was having a bad day and perhaps I should look upon this piece solely as an attempt for a young fellow to try his hand at writing. Half way through reading this piece, I therefore attempted to better frame the mind and attempt to look upon this work more favourably but then my eyes were accosted by, 'The keel-hauling sequence is the best scene in the movie and one that everyone seems to forget.' I, a paying customer, am being told that this scene is the best and that it is also forgotten by the wider world. Why is it the best? How can it be at one and the same time, the best and most forgotten? Why does this scene warrant further inspection to right the ways of the ignorant? I wanted answers and substantiated opinion, even if it happened to be in broken English and filled to the brim with bad punctuation.

Not two sentences later while providing further titillation as to the brilliance of this scene, I was asked, 'Do you know how difficult it is is to co-ordinate actors, boats, stuntmen, cameras etc.?' Well, no, I don't. But now the question has been asked, I find myself wanting to know this degree of difficulty and also how the obstacles were overcome. So tell me. Please.

Needless to say, I wasn't told and I once again found myself the curmudgeon. An article cannot entirely be filled with rhetorical questions and little substantiation for opininated 'facts', as its ultimate aim is to inform and to enlighten. Unfortunately all this article did was to frustrate and exasperate.

Hence the reason for this rambling reaction.

[zencat]

Hoping to get mine soon. Happy to hear there's something on Bloodstone in there. Did Project X make the issue? Guess I'll find out soon.

You know, Simon, you can always write your own article and submit to the magazine. That's what a fan mag is. I'm considering doing a major new article myself. Fan expertise combined with Graham's amazing archive and layout talents...that's what makes OO7. I haven't read the FYEO piece, but it's there because someone stepped up and did it and I'm happy to see FYEO celebrated. And if typos and mistakes trouble you, volunteer to proof the mag for Graham. OO7 has always represented the work and passion of the reining fandom. If you think it can and should be better, make it better!

[Simon]

Passionate words indeed. But, at the end of the day, everything submitted for public consumption is there for review and comment. Isn't that the whole premise behind freedom of speech. One can comment on another's product and subsequent perceived successes or failures without first submitting one's credentials for being able to do the same job.

In our little case, is that not what film makers and critcs are for? There is no doubt whatsoever that any critic would be able to perform even the most coffee making menial task on a film set, but they nonetheless review.

Perhaps in our more closed world of fan forums where everyone knows one's anonymous handle, even the most minimally negative review can be felt more keenly. Certainly. (And in this, I sometimes consider cases for double standards). But one can say amongst other things, reviews are there to improve and better focus the end product for everyone's benefit; the desire to occasionally grandstand notwithstanding.

I do not need to offer credentials to review in the same way that no one here needs to be an actor to comment on Craig's performances. One either likes or does not like, the substance of the review being in the explanation for why the reaction exists. But, since you have raised the topic, I have written an article. Indeed I have written two articles and both have been submitted with supporting imagery for inclusion or not, as Mr Rye sees fit. And if they are used in either an existing or edited fashion, or not at all, I leave entirely to his far more capable hands than mine.

And all of the above is said with the greatest of respect for both Mr Rye and you.

As for my proof reading, there is actually already one very recent case for a supremely well received product emanating from a person on these forums where this task Has been performed. I extend this offer to do the same for any future 007 magazines if Mr Rye thinks it is necessary. To date though, it really hasn't been necessary as his product has always been a technically perfect offering.

Cheers.

[zencat]

Oh, I'm not saying you can't criticize or comment or review. I'm just saying if it frustrates you as a fan, if you think OO7 can and should be better, you can get involved and make it better (as you've done, I'm happy to hear). It's open to all of us. Wouldn't it be nice if this were the case with the films?

[Simon]

I must admit to being a fully paid up member of the typo police - perhaps I am easily frustrated.

As for the films, I think, and have always thought, that fans being involved with the 'creation' and 'furtherment' of the canon, be it film or book, is an area to stay the hell away from. I believe for this creative area, one needs emotional distance. Fans always want to impress other fans with their 'knowledge'. Regurgitating existing knowledge is different from the ability to create anew.

Where I think the fan excels is in the review and research of existing products based on another's creative efforts. These review type products actually Need emotional attachment as the 'chap-on-a-paycheck' really will not have the same involvement to stay the distance.

I believe I might have said this elsewhere on these fora if people figure I am repeating myself (spamming).

To revisit the above review, it is for this reason I find myself more frustrated by this puff piece Eyes review. It is the mainstay of the pay-check reviewers or creators to peddle this very type of article. The fans will be able to go deeper and in a more focused and finite manner than others and, I believe, this site and Mr Rye's magazine are the platforms for such focus. If you see what I mean.

[zencat]

Yeah, I do see what you mean. Well put.

[Turn]

If I may throw in my views, I know exactly where Simon is coming from. I too am a writer and editor and can't help but subconsiously "proof" others' work. Normally, I don't have to in a publication like 007.

I was under the impression that the FYEO piece was to be some kind of either celebration retrospective or a behind the scenes type piece. Although it's one of my lesser liked films (so I automatically disagree it's Moore's finest hour), I am twice as disappointed that it's little more than one fan's view; and with Simon's description sounds like it will do little to change that view. I can read that here on CBn and one of many other places. I can't put it any better than Simon could, and admit I haven't read it yet, but I already feel like I know what to expect.

I always welcome views that may make me look at something in a different way, Zorin's admirable AVTAK apprecation thread in the Moore section is a good example.

I'd love to contribute something to 007 in the future if I had something substantial to say. That said, I still look forward to the new issue.

[David Schofield]

As someone who actually has the magazine, I have to sadly agree totally with Simon.

The article is juvenile and 'gee whiz' (unfortunately, unlike in previous issues, Graham gives no background to the author, 'Steve Cassidy'). While the strength of 007 Magazine since the Internet has been the superb quality of the photos (I have bought the Connery Special not because I want to learn new information about the appalling man, but because I know Graham will treat us to some classic, unseen shots), this article falls very disappointingly beneath the usual standards to be expected from the publication. Indeed, it is more suited to the youth-centric drivel that appears on CBN than the more classy stuff to be expected from 007 Magazine.

But the rest of the magazine is superb, so this article is even more disappointing.

[zencat]

Indeed, it is more suited to the youth-centric drivel that appears on CBN...

Is that a shot at our main page or forum members?

[stromberg]

Indeed, it is more suited to the youth-centric drivel that appears on CBN...

Is that a shot at our main page or forum members?

Yep, would be nice if you cared to elaborate.

[David Schofield]

Indeed, it is more suited to the youth-centric drivel that appears on CBN...

Is that a shot at our main page or forum members?

Yep, would be nice if you cared to elaborate.

As someone who has contributed to 007 Magazine, I think Zencat already knows what I mean.

007 Magazine is a quality product in which Graham and his contributors take a great deal of time over the quality of their contributions (with the aforementioned FYEO artilce being a rare exception). These would appear to be the work of Bond fans with considerable knowledge and appreciation of their subject.

CBN is more a source for the easily-sated Bond fan who knows the films but seem to have scant knowledge of Fleming (or the rest of the literary Bond). A quick look at the forum topics would only confirm there is a different depth to the two products.

And - as one who rarely posts here any longer - I think it is extremely evident CBN has lost a number of its more - er - 'mature' members in recent times.

[zencat]

So the comment was directed at the forums. I actually didn't know what you meant. I think the CBn main page is a pretty terrific source for Bond news and features. In fact, some of the articles from CBn have appeared in OO7. I actually wish Graham would use some more of our interviews, etc., because I think the scope of CBn is a bit broader than OO7 when it comes to Bond books, gaming, etc. In fact, I think OO7 has become pretty weak when it comes to the lit Bond (something I'd like to help change). But I understand why Graham wants original content. Why buy what you can get online for free?

[David Schofield]

In fact, some of the articles from CBn have appeared in OO7. ree?

Really?

That's the perils of folks hiding behind silly usernames on the 'Net and then being themselves in printed media, clearly.

[zencat]

Well, the articles I'm thinking of were written by me. My Goldfinger and Silver Beast articles appeared in OO7. No mystery as to who wrote those (or that they first appeared on CBn). My name is on both (in fact, all CBn main page stories use real names). Besides, who else would write an article about the Saab!

[David Schofield]

Well, the articles I'm thinking of were written by me. My Goldfinger and Silver Beast articles appeared in OO7. No mystery as to who wrote those (or that they first appeared on CBn). My name is on both (in fact, all CBn main page stories use real names). I mean, who else would write an article about the Saab!

Well, John - may I call you John? - as stated earlier, I knew you had contributed to 007.

And I have to say, your Saab article I thoroughly enjoyed. You and I are of a verrry similar vintage and I had a similar interest in Gardner and the Saab in the early 80s. I am old enough to know better now...

Your Goldfinger article left me disturbed, frankly.

I thought, however, you were suggesting Graham had published other CBNers.

[zencat]

Oh, I'm sure other CBners have been published in OO7.

Graham has been resistant, so far, to doing anything on Young Bond (even though OO7 covered James Bond Jr.). I'm hoping to change his mind by writing a very thorough insiders story of the entire series -- the history (and victory) of Young Bond. Think I could do a bang up job and I think something like this belongs in OO7 for the ages. We'll see.

I'd also love an Octopussy Archive File. Seriously, how much cool stuff must he have on the old girl?

[stromberg]

See where you're coming from, DS.

There's certainly a big difference between a website that mostly reports news and a print product the focus of which are more feature articles and reports. Having written for both CBn and the German fan club mag, I know both sides.

Pretty useless to go into "latest news" items for Mr Rye (apart from summaries, maybe), as his target audience has most likely read all about it on the interweb before. Also, a website (available for free to everyone with a remote interest on James Bond, be it comics, music, books, films, computer games, lifestyle, trivia or whatever) has a much wider audience range to appeal to than a fanzine which is usually bought by fans who know their stuff and want to go much more in-depth. CBn always has to adapt to the current news situation and report what's going on, which currently is more about gaming and Project X, and not so much movie related (and there isn't that much 'new news' on Fleming, as well). Mr Rye is in a position to maybe have a basic story 'in the drawer' (or has the time to work on it for quite some time), layout it and put it into 007 Magazine when he sees fit. Both ways have advantages and disadvantages, but comparing them is a bit like apples and oranges.

Have to admit that feature articles on our mainpage have become fewer in the recent past. But that doesn't mean that we can't do that sort of stuff. In fact, I'm just about to put final touches on something that very much dabbles into that field.

[Simon]

If I may throw in my views, I know exactly where Simon is coming from. I too am a writer and editor and can't help but subconsiously "proof" others' work. Normally, I don't have to in a publication like 007.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I am certainly not a writer, just more someone who is interested in words and literary accuracy; a reader of Eats Shoots and Leaves, if you will.

I find typos, even in emails and IM, tend to shout themselves out for unwarranted attention.

It is for this main reason I read articles here and remain loyal to this site as opposed to MI6. I find all of their work, while of good research quality, is poorly written up. I have offered odd corrections there too, but in the end have given up.

[zencat]

Got my issue yesterday. Terrific work as always. So much for me saying OO7 doesn't do as good a job with the lit Bond and gaming -- the articles on the Centenary exhibits and Blood Stone are excellent. In fact, there's a pretty major bit of info in Blood Stone piece; Michael Wilson's sons Gregg and David worked with Bruce Fierstein on the story. Training ground to one day take over the series maybe? The Aston Martin article is killer. Wonderful pics. I partially love the comparison/recreation shots of the DB5 outside the London Hilton. As to the FYEO article...okay, it's not written by a Bond scholar (well, maybe a scholar in training), but it's clearly written by someone who loves the film and I thought it was just fine. It's hard to write an article, it takes courage to put yourself out there, and I love listening to young(er) fans talk about their favorite film. It is a fan mag after all. I enjoyed it.

Good work all around.