179 replies to this topic

[Simon]

I popped Red Box films a mail a week or so ago asking about the DVD release and they replied that it is in the hands of Sony. They had no idea.

I also mentioned that it was currently on youtube and that this probably wasn't doing them any favours but I guess there's only so much you can do.

To be honest, I am still awaiting the proper QoS release... (unless the blu ray has the commentary...?)

[S K Y F A L L]

I was moved more by this then I was SF, I was completely blown away about how personal it got and how it never felt redundant. Would make a great dvd to add to our collections.

[marktmurphy]

Just watched it- mixed feelings, really. Some great stories in there and fascinating to hear more about Harry and Cubbys' relationship etc. but it did seem a bit reluctant to actually talk about James Bond itself. The qualities of individual movies, or even the films in general wasn't really something the documentary was interested in, which made it a slightly strange-feeling experience. A bit like that anecdote where Barbara said that when she was growing up she thought James Bond was a real person as everyone was always talking about him and she thought he'd walk in the door; in the same way this film talks about Bond and the films and their effects but doesn't really deal with them or why they had the effects they do. You feel like Bond is just outside the room, waiting to be addressed.
Plus I found the style slightly irritating: a sentence from one person, then another from someone else, then someone else again... I was yearning for a narrator to make it a less frenetic and hyperactive experience and just anchor it a bit. Together with a slightly over-literal approach to using the clips (someone says making a movie is like a circus setting up their tent so we get... a clip of the Octopussy circus etc.) I began to find it a bit grating. Plus there's so much to cram in that most of it has to be skimmed: one sentence from John Barry; poor old Roger is the longest-serving Bond and he barely gets a mention!

I dunno; some good stuff in there but I wouldn't call it definitive. Maybe it should just have focused on Cubby and Harry; it felt like it wanted to.

[I never miss]

I loved it but I know what you mean Mark - I suppose only a three hour doc would do the subject justice. Having said that, Lourent Bouzareau regularly tops three hours with his docs about films, albeit not docs that have theatrical releases.

I guess at the end of the day most of us here know the stories behind the individual films through DVD docs and hundreds of books. What more could they tell us but delve deeper into the Cubby/Harry relationship than anyone has before?

[Simon]

It'll be interesting to see how the DVD is put together to give it a wider sales release.

Will they offer a longer version, will they include the complete interviews?

The HBO Band of Brothers always started each episode with a snippet of interview with one of the old boys from the squad. The DVD included the full interviews which were truly humbling to watch.

Anyway, hoping they don't just slap the film on to a DVD and call it a done job as it does need a wider audience, relative merits notwithstanding.

[Gt Munn]

I've seen it about six times now. Evidently, I very much enjoyed it. Yes, there should have been much more. However, this was shown in theaters. For such a medium the length is perfect as is. I'd like to see more from this director.

I was surprised as to how there seemed little mention of Desmond Llewelyn, Bernard Lee, and Lois Maxwell. I know that the supporting characters were not the focus at all. The documentary seemed to be a celebration of the Bond family, and not having them there made it seem as though something was missing.

[marktmurphy]

In terms of a celebration of Bond, I've got to say that the Top Gear special made me happier. EoN is, ultimately, a tale of ridiculously super-rich people not being very nice to each other in an attempt to make even more money for themselves.

[Simon]

Ooh dear, when you put it like that, it doesn't sound very appetising.

I know what you mean when in reference to the Connery tale, but there were also some nice stories about Cubby giving the crew a bunch of chips for the gaming tables and the like. Comparative pittances I know, but heart warming nonetheless.

Maybe I will have to watch it again when they release it.

And yes, the Top Gear programme was a complete joy; an absolute celebration. But EoN wasn't necessarily selling itself as a celebration (was it?) in the same way the Battle for Bond wasn't 'celebrating' Thunderball but as a thorough account of the flm's myriad avenues towards the screen.

[marktmurphy]

Ooh dear, when you put it like that, it doesn't sound very appetising.

I know what you mean when in reference to the Connery tale, but there were also some nice stories about Cubby giving the crew a bunch of chips for the gaming tables and the like. Comparative pittances I know, but heart warming nonetheless.

Yeah, but then there's also McClory trying to stiff everyone over, Fleming dying because of a court case over money, Saltzman having to sell up, Brosnan getting stiffed (twice), Lazenby's tale...

For something that's called the 'story of 007' there's practically no celebration of the many different types of art and talent that went into Bond over the years. I know a documentary maker wants a bit of drama, but there's more to the story of 007 than this dirty laundry.

And yes, the Top Gear programme was a complete joy; an absolute celebration. But EoN wasn't necessarily selling itself as a celebration (was it?)

You're right it wasn't, no; but I think the 'story of 007' is more than a load of millionaires squabbling. And I think that when I watch a 50th Anniversary documentary (which this was commissioned as) I'd prefer to be entertained and made happy.

[Simon]

Fair points all, particularly the retinue of acts starting with 'Yeah, but then....'

But marketing puff pieces is what we get everytime a movie opens and that wouldn't have sold - not that this release was wide enough or long enough to test that particular water.

I figured it was going to be something along the lines of Senna. Did you happen to see this? Lots of squabbles between teams and managers, and then the poor chap goes and dies. I think the celebration is inherent but the words 'true story' or in this case 'Untold story' have got to be backed up with a struggle or conflict, and they will sell more than a back slapping exercise.

But yeah, I didn't come away feeling happy either. Indeed a bit saddened but that will be why I remember this more than the next Bond press conference.

[marktmurphy]

Senna is rather manufactured, though. Don't go believing its portrayal of Prost, nor Senna's feelings towards him. About as accurate as EoN's version of Brosnan being first choice for Bond #4 (he wasn't).

I dunno; it's a very incomplete film. Brushes on a few subjects as if it wants to address all of Bond (Ken Adam, Maud Adams etc.) but doesn't, and is lop-sided as a result. And with a very irritating (for me) style of no narrator and with over-literal clips from the Bond films illustrating the story having the effect of making the anecdotes seem rather trivial and comedic.
And it has the effect of making the whole Bond experience look rather hollow, but without really exposing anything.

[THX-007]

I felt that the documentary was overly harsh on the 1954 Casino Royale. They play up this feeling (from a British perspective) of betrayal, "How dare they make Bond American!" Without a narrator explaining that the background of the film and the fact that Barry Nelson had to play Bond from scratch, the audience who hadn't seen the 1954 CR probably already have a dislike for it merely going by the reactions of the interviewees. Also they ignore the fact that Cubby and Harry were on the verge of casting John Gavin before UA wrote a huge check for Connery. Another problem with all these documentaries they always portray Cubby Broccoli as a saint although I'm surprised they keep in the story of Connery's feud with Broccoli.

[S K Y F A L L]

Intersting John Gavin never heard of him, had to look him up, he has the Connery build to him.

They do always treat Cubby as a saint don't they? Even though I believe it was Peter Hunt who said Harry and Cubby were the 2 most ruthless guys he know.

Well I really enjoyed this film and also I really enjoyed the Top Gear special. I suppose that is it for 50th Anniversary documentaries and specials?.....

[Simon]

Senna is rather manufactured, though. Don't go believing its portrayal of Prost, nor Senna's feelings towards him.

Oh dear. Ok.

I really don't know the first thing about F1 so I probably would have just blindy believed it. Not because of gullibility, but just a finite level of interest.

Cheers.

[marktmurphy]

Intersting John Gavin never heard of him, had to look him up, he has the Connery build to him.

They do always treat Cubby as a saint don't they? Even though I believe it was Peter Hunt who said Harry and Cubby were the 2 most ruthless guys he know.

The UA guy in the doc said that Harry and Cubby renegotiated their deal with the studio many times but never changed their deal with Sean- he thought that was wrong.

[doublenoughtspy]

I was slightly disappointed by it, and I concur that after watching it I did not stand up and triumphantly scream "This is why I love Bond!" but I understand that was not the purpose.

If each of us were the director we would focus on different things - and in condensing 50 years of history, something has to be left out or get short shrift.

I was shocked that CR 67 wasn't even mentioned.

I concur that shoving in the Bond clips to illustrate narrative was idiotic - the part where they were talking about Fleming's 30 Assault Unit showed the assault on the monastery from FYEO - yet they used plenty of WWII clips in other parts.

I don't agree that the Top Gear special was great - Lazenby and Dalton and their Astons didn't even get a mention much less be shown or driven - but ooh I've built an underwater car and a lorry with big LCD on the side! HOW CLEVER. Not.

Although it is probably at the bottom of most people's lists, I really like Happy Anniversary 007. Although it is a puff piece, a glorified clip show, I remember practically wearing out my VHS tape of it.

[THX-007]

I don't agree that the Top Gear special was great - Lazenby and Dalton and their Astons didn't even get a mention much less be shown or driven - but ooh I've built an underwater car and a lorry with big LCD on the side! HOW CLEVER. Not.

Dalton's Aston gets a mention but Lazenby's Aston isn't mentioned nor he is mentioned. They go from YOLT straight to DAF.

[marktmurphy]

I don't agree that the Top Gear special was great - Lazenby and Dalton and their Astons didn't even get a mention much less be shown or driven

Dalton's did.

[Ernst Stavro Blofeld Jr.]

Well, Lazenby's Aston wasn't really on screen much, nor did it have any gadgets. It would have been nice to be mentioned but was hardly necessary.

[plankattack]

Neither the film nor the Top Gear Special were perfect, but I agree with those that say they had a more sentimental/emotional reaction to the Top Gear show. Maybe it's a male thing but there is that whole cars as toys, toy car etc thing that makes you feel, how should I put it, nostalgically youthful!

I thought that Everything Or Nothing was fascinating, but thanks to all those DVD docs it didn't feel entirely fresh. The squabbling was unseemingly for everyone, considering how much money was being made, and, I hope this doesn't sound as it probably comes across, but there's an undercurrent that borders on deification of Cubby that always goes a little over the top for me. I always feel that somehow I'm supposed to be grateful to Cubby for all the fun I've had being a James Bond fan over the years, but I don't see it that way (in fact I'm the opposite, I get a little mad at Cubby for when the series stagnated IMHO).

a/ - did that sound bitchy?
or b/ - am I the only one who feels that way?

[Simon]

But if we were put on the spot and have to proffer thanks, if not deification, to someone, then if not Cubby - Who?

I believe it really does begin and end with the producer who is ultimately responsible for hiring the necessary talent to be thus empowered and to deliver.

When people, including me, complain about TWINE's shortcomings, it is not ultimately Apted I blame, but those responsible for the misplaced hiring. This is to say, I feel Apted was out of his depth, but those hiring should have figured this out. In this case, Wilson and Barbs.

[plankattack]

But if we were put on the spot and have to proffer thanks, if not deification, to someone, then if not Cubby - Who?

I believe it really does begin and end with the producer who is ultimately responsible for hiring the necessary talent to be thus empowered and to deliver.

When people, including me, complain about TWINE's shortcomings, it is not ultimately Apted I blame, but those responsible for the misplaced hiring. This is to say, I feel Apted was out of his depth, but those hiring should have figured this out. In this case, Wilson and Barbs.

If I was put on the spot - it would be Cubby and Harry. Obviously it's personal preference but the films with both their names on the marque I like a lot. Once Cubby was on his own, it too often seemed that EON existed to keep the same group of people in business doing the same old thing. Which I enjoyed, don't get me wrong, but too often I felt it was "safe" film-making.

To contrast with that, I have absolutely no problem giving great credit to Babs and Mike for the last three films. I do feel that 95-02 was a trial and error period for them (see your comments about Apted), but the decision to end that run, and then start over with CR, plus go with a lead actor who was not the "popular" choice.

It is a producers medium of couse - I do feel that Cubby and Harry built something, and Cubby kept it going, without really improving it or leaving his own mark. Part of my issue with Everything or Nothing is the "short-changing" of some other people who did as much as to create a huge and iconic film franchise, at the expense of the general "Cubby puts it all up on-screen" subtext that does seem to dominate analysis.

[scissorpuppy007]

Sorry if any of this has been covered already, but here are some of my thoughts.

I recommend this to any fan of Bond or the series, nothing really earth shattering as far as revelations but it's interesting to hear the stories from the actual actors/filmmakers.

This doc could have easily been 3 hours or more, due to the time length most of the film is about the beginning of the series, By the time they get to the Dalton years they really flash by everything.

A couple of things I wonder about...

1. For years when asked what EON stood for it was claimed it didn't stand for anything, it was just a name that Chubby and Saltzman came up with. Now EON are saying it actually stands for the (often rumored) Everything or Nothing.

2. Connery seems like a grudge holding asshat, but with reason. It plays out like he was (even though highly paid) being taken for a ride in comparison to the success of the series. After Thunderball if EON would have offered Connery a good deal, he probably would have stuck around into the 70's. One could argue after Connery left in YOLT, it took 10 years before the series was back on a steady track.
Which if things had worked out, it around the time Connery would have probably left the role.

3. The Lazenby Story is now more clear, with him showing remorse for the way he acted. But I can see his point of view, the times were changing and there really wasn't a guarantee that Bond was going to last. But everyone needs to get their story straight. Did he quit or was he not asked back? Or did Lazenby claim for years he quit just to make himself look more in charge or the situation?

4. Brosnan getting the role in 1987, According to Brosnan he was on his way to a press junket the day Steele was brought back? He was actually going to be officially announced that day? I always heard he was at his pool. No a big deal, but there are many different stories on how this went down. Also, We know a screen test exist, but Brosnan claims he had already done promo pics posing as bond with the gun and the suit. Having access to the archives, why does the filmmaker use clips/pics of Remington Steele instead of the actual Bond images/film of Brosnan from 1986? Also, never is the "Dalton was asked first, he couldn't do it, so we went with Brosnan" story mentioned. So we know Dalton was talked to several times in the Moore era, but was him being the first choice for TLD revisionist "press" to help sell Dalton at the time. (After the bad press in The Brosnan casting.)

5. The Dalton era, being more honest about how the public didn't catch on. Briefly mentioning the 3rd film. They really need to go in deeper with just what was planned to happen in 91/92, I don't think they realize how interested fans are of this project. Other than some press at the time of the films release, Dalton hasn't really spoke of Bond as much as Moore or Brosnan. It was nice to see him do an interview, he really had a love and care for the character. His take required some fresh blood all the way around, the producers/series wasn't ready for his kind of take.

6. I never really considered how 9/11 effected the end of the Brosnan era. It seems looking back that EON decided to take the series into a more escapist tone with DAD because they were unsure what the public wanted after the attacks. Looking back, DAD is nothing more than a greatest hits package featuring the Bond of record at the time. It's not much different than they Happy 25th tv special with Roger Moore, except instead of hosting the recap show, Brosnan is starring in recreating them. Interesting that Brosnan himself claims to only remembering specifics about Goldeneye and that he always mixs up the making of TND and TWINE.

Edited by scissorpuppy007, 28 November 2012 - 05:17 PM.

[triviachamp]

EoN is, ultimately, a tale of ridiculously super-rich people not being very nice to each other in an attempt to make even more money for themselves.

Well that's the truth isn't it? Otherwise people would be complaining about it being some self-congratulatory SkyFall promoting fluff.

1. For years when asked what EON stood for it was claimed it didn't stand for anything, it was just a name that Chubby and Saltzman came up with. Now EON are saying it actually stands for the (often rumored) Everything or Nothing.

I suppose this is like KFC and MTV where the names no longer stand for anything. In EON's case the corporate name was always EON, not Everything or Nothing, though the letters came from that phrase.

[marktmurphy]

EoN is, ultimately, a tale of ridiculously super-rich people not being very nice to each other in an attempt to make even more money for themselves.

Well that's the truth isn't it? Otherwise people would be complaining about it being some self-congratulatory SkyFall promoting fluff.

Yes, but it makes for a pretty navel-gazing experience. And misses the whole magic of Bond and why people like it.

4. Brosnan getting the role in 1987, According to Brosnan he was on his way to a press junket the day Steele was brought back? He was actually going to be officially announced that day? I always heard he was at his pool. No a big deal, but there are many different stories on how this went down. Also, We know a screen test exist, but Brosnan claims he had already done promo pics posing as bond with the gun and the suit. Having access to the archives, why does the filmmaker use clips/pics of Remington Steele instead of the actual Bond images/film of Brosnan from 1986? Also, never is the "Dalton was asked first, he couldn't do it, so we went with Brosnan" story mentioned. So we know Dalton was talked to several times in the Moore era, but was him being the first choice for TLD revisionist "press" to help sell Dalton at the time. (After the bad press in The Brosnan casting.)

Yeah it was odd to simplify that in that way. I tend to think that the story that Dalton was first choice was real: all that stuff about the other movie making him unavailable would be hard to lie about, surely?

[graric]

Sorry if any of this has been covered already, but here are some of my thoughts.

I recommend this to any fan of Bond or the series, nothing really earth shattering as far as revelations but it's interesting to hear the stories from the actual actors/filmmakers.

This doc could have easily been 3 hours or more, due to the time length most of the film is about the beginning of the series, By the time they get to the Dalton years they really flash by everything.

A couple of things I wonder about...

1. For years when asked what EON stood for it was claimed it didn't stand for anything, it was just a name that Chubby and Saltzman came up with. Now EON are saying it actually stands for the (often rumored) Everything or Nothing.

2. Connery seems like a grudge holding asshat, but with reason. It plays out like he was (even though highly paid) being taken for a ride in comparison to the success of the series. After Thunderball if EON would have offered Connery a good deal, he probably would have stuck around into the 70's. One could argue after Connery left in YOLT, it took 10 years before the series was back on a steady track.
Which if things had worked out, it around the time Connery would have probably left the role.

3. The Lazenby Story is now more clear, with him showing remorse for the way he acted. But I can see his point of view, the times were changing and there really wasn't a guarantee that Bond was going to last. But everyone needs to get their story straight. Did he quit or was he not asked back? Or did Lazenby claim for years he quit just to make himself look more in charge or the situation?

4. Brosnan getting the role in 1987, According to Brosnan he was on his way to a press junket the day Steele was brought back? He was actually going to be officially announced that day? I always heard he was at his pool. No a big deal, but there are many different stories on how this went down. Also, We know a screen test exist, but Brosnan claims he had already done promo pics posing as bond with the gun and the suit. Having access to the archives, why does the filmmaker use clips/pics of Remington Steele instead of the actual Bond images/film of Brosnan from 1986? Also, never is the "Dalton was asked first, he couldn't do it, so we went with Brosnan" story mentioned. So we know Dalton was talked to several times in the Moore era, but was him being the first choice for TLD revisionist "press" to help sell Dalton at the time. (After the bad press in The Brosnan casting.)

5. The Dalton era, being more honest about how the public didn't catch on. Briefly mentioning the 3rd film. They really need to go in deeper with just what was planned to happen in 91/92, I don't think they realize how interested fans are of this project. Other than some press at the time of the films release, Dalton hasn't really spoke of Bond as much as Moore or Brosnan. It was nice to see him do an interview, he really had a love and care for the character. His take required some fresh blood all the way around, the producers/series wasn't ready for his kind of take.

6. I never really considered how 9/11 effected the end of the Brosnan era. It seems looking back that EON decided to take the series into a more escapist tone with DAD because they were unsure what the public wanted after the attacks. Looking back, DAD is nothing more than a greatest hits package featuring the Bond of record at the time. It's not much different than they Happy 25th tv special with Roger Moore, except instead of hosting the recap show, Brosnan is starring in recreating them. Interesting that Brosnan himself claims to only remembering specifics about Goldeneye and that he always mixs up the making of TND and TWINE.

I'd be shocked if the Dalton story was not true, he says he was approached for the role and turned it down and Cubby seemed to try and get him for the role every new film since OHMSS so I would be surprised if this wasn't the case in 87, from memory Brosnan was the preferred choice of Wilson and the studio who Cubby accepted when Dalton appeared unavailable.

I don't think Die Another Day could be seen as a reaction to 9/11, the script was almost entirely in place at that point and from memory the writers said the only changes they made were too the number of deaths in the climax scene. Instead the suggestion is that having seen the critical response to Die Another Day, coupled with the more gritty action films coming out, the producers realized that the 'over the top' direction was not the right direction to go into given the current global context (an indirect result of 9/11 rather than a direct response.)

As for Connery the grudge he held against the series has been overplayed, he seems to have moved passed it since the 80's: going by how more open in interviews he got, Never Say Never Again, From Russia With Love the video game and taking roles like the one in The Rock that were clearly inspired by Bond.
Even his feud with the Producer's was over by the 90's (Barbara tells us he and Cubby made their peace, and Dana told us Connery called the day after Cubby died to offer his condolence's) he even visited the set of TWINE and had a talk with Pierce Brosnan, not the sign of a man holding the grudge!

His lack of participation in this documentary would likely have more to do with the fact that he has retired from all public appearances and it is very possible his agent wouldn't have even passed on the message to Connery about the request for an interview, instead simply turning down the request outright as they would have likely been instructed to do over any offers received.

[Solex Agitator]

So a DVD has been announced on Amazon.co.uk....

 

So where is the Blu Ray?  

 

And a U.S. release date?

[doublenoughtspy]

1. For years when asked what EON stood for it was claimed it didn't stand for anything, it was just a name that Chubby and Saltzman came up with. Now EON are saying it actually stands for the (often rumored) Everything or Nothing.

 

> Broccoli doesn't come out and say it.  They cut to her saying "Everything or Nothing" - but she never states that the name is an acronym.  It may be that over time it has become an acronym (Like Federal Express changing their company name to FedEx because that is what everyone calls them), because the story I've always heard was that it was a shelf company purchased by the production team.  Just like Fleming and Glidrose.  That had no meaning, no Bond connotation - it was a shelf company to hold rights.  I believe back then in Britain it was much cheaper to buy a dormant existing company than to create a new one.

3. The Lazenby Story is now more clear, with him showing remorse for the way he acted. But I can see his point of view, the times were changing and there really wasn't a guarantee that Bond was going to last. But everyone needs to get their story straight. Did he quit or was he not asked back? Or did Lazenby claim for years he quit just to make himself look more in charge or the situation?

 

> Try reading The Making of On Her Majesty's Secret Service.  Exact details of Lazenby's resignation, date it hit the press, etc.  Peter Hunt confirmed to me that Lazenby resigned before filming ended.

4. Brosnan getting the role in 1987, According to Brosnan he was on his way to a press junket the day Steele was brought back? He was actually going to be officially announced that day? I always heard he was at his pool. No a big deal, but there are many different stories on how this went down. Also, We know a screen test exist, but Brosnan claims he had already done promo pics posing as bond with the gun and the suit. Having access to the archives, why does the filmmaker use clips/pics of Remington Steele instead of the actual Bond images/film of Brosnan from 1986? Also, never is the "Dalton was asked first, he couldn't do it, so we went with Brosnan" story mentioned. So we know Dalton was talked to several times in the Moore era, but was him being the first choice for TLD revisionist "press" to help sell Dalton at the time. (After the bad press in The Brosnan casting.)

 

> I can't answer why they chose the clips they did.  But I don't understand why there couldn't be a screen test and some promo shots done.  He gets discussed, does a screen test, gets the job, they do some promo shots (Him with Cubby & the Rolls, him with Glen & the clapperboard, him in the tux, etc.)  Remington gets renewed, he gets fired.  They go back to Dalton, who they approached originally but he was busy with stage & another film but now he is free, test him, and hire him.  To read a much more in depth version, including the Australian they almost hired and the other close candidates, read The Making of The Living Daylights.

5. The Dalton era, being more honest about how the public didn't catch on. Briefly mentioning the 3rd film. They really need to go in deeper with just what was planned to happen in 91/92, I don't think they realize how interested fans are of this project. Other than some press at the time of the films release, Dalton hasn't really spoke of Bond as much as Moore or Brosnan. It was nice to see him do an interview, he really had a love and care for the character. His take required some fresh blood all the way around, the producers/series wasn't ready for his kind of take.

 

> More on Bond 17 in, you guessed it,  The Making of The Living Daylights.  While I somewhat agree with you, I think you have highly unrealistic expectations of what a 2 hour documentary on a film series that has spanned 50 years can cover.
 

[triviachamp]

Seems like Broccoli and Saltzman chose the name EON because those letters form an acronym for "Everything or Nothing" but the name itself is not an acronym. The company name appears to have always been just plain EON. For example the credits to Doctor No refer to EON Productions not Everything or Nothing Productions. Sort of like how the name Danjaq was chosen from the names of their wives but the name itself has no meaning. This is as supposed to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer which is usually refered to by the acronym MGM.

[Guy Haines]

Released 28th January, eh? If so, that's my birthday present sorted, and on my birthday too! Looking forward to seeing it. (Wouldn't mind getting that "Living Daylights" book as well!)