128 replies to this topic

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

I have had a strange and very very curious feeling of Deja Vu over the past week. And not just in one way. We're talking Multi-media different ways of Deja Vu... all regarding The Mystery Of The Disappearing The Living Daylights.

It all started... please don't expect this to be a very interesting story because it ain't, it's mearly a strange observation... in the excellent Mail On Sunday supplement. In which, amongst the wonderful DAD articles, there was an advert for ALL of the DVD collection. It featured images of ALL of the WHOLE collection. Nope... wait... wait one minute.. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 Bond DVD's... "that's not right". No The Living Daylights... just license to kill! That's no way to advertise Bond.

Went to work on Tuesday to see a wonderful in our video/DVD department... any Bond DVD or video

[Xenobia]

It's revisionist history....perhaps they want to forget that movie happened. Among the fans, LTK takes a lot of blows, but maybe Eon really hated TLD. Who knows????

-- Xenobia

[Jeff007]

I bet that Bond Puriest is pissed off. And so am I. I'm glad I already have my copy from the original set. I don't think eon hates TLD but who knows?

[Colonel Mooney]

How the ******* did you manage to get all the DVDs for

[Evil Doctor Cheese]

Just plain ASDA mate. Some of the DVD's vary (PB's go for around

[Loomis]

[quote]Originally posted by Evil Doctor Cheese

Went to work on Tuesday to see a wonderful in our video/DVD department... any Bond DVD or video

[Xenobia]

Hey Doc:

If I had a word with the film library, two films not one, would be deleted. But thanks for asking!

-- Xen

[zencat]

This is very strange. What's going on with The Living Daylights?

I have a guess.

Could it be a wave of over-sensitivity about Afghanistan? After all, that is the movie where Bond teams up with Afghans who look a lot like those nasty fellows we bombed the heck out of a while back. I wouldn't a bit surprised if MGM decided to keep this movie under wraps for the time being. Just points out the danger of mixing current politics in your Bond movies.

[level007]

In France, we have the same promotion: You buy one, you get one free. I will see if TLD is still there...

[Double-0 Six]

Isn't TLD missing from the jamesbond.com DVD listing as well?

Since its one of the best Bond films, I can't understand why its being missed from every list I see. Is there some legality we're not aware of?

Or is it just another MGM ****-up (the more plausible explanation)?


edit - Zencat has a point. This wouldn't surprise me at all (but its a bit OTT in my opinion).

[zencat]

Originally posted by Double-0 Six
edit - Zencat has a point. This wouldn't surprise me at all (but its a bit OTT in my opinion).

Remember, we're talking MGM here. Nothing they do surprises me.

[rafterman]

Yeah I guess it could be because of the use of the rebels in the film, you know those rebels who eventually led the country, the government the US recently took out....hmmmmmm weird MGM sensitivity...trying to "protect" everyone....

[Jim]

So close to erasing Licence to Kill, so very close...

Damn...

When you want something done properly, you have to do it yourself.

[stromberg]

so close, and yet so far, Jim:p

But there must be something about it. I have a catalog of a German mailorder company where I ordered the DVD collection (wich I expect to arrive next monday).
The also have the DVD as single items, but in the description of TLD, they say: "Please note that this DVD is out of stock as a single item and will only be distributed as a part of the monsterbox edition."
Now what the....

[zencat]

Originally posted by zencat
This is very strange. What's going on with The Living Daylights?

I have a guess.

Could it be a wave of over-sensitivity about Afghanistan? After all, that is the movie where Bond teams up with Afghans who look a lot like those nasty fellows we bombed the heck out of a while back. I wouldn't a bit surprised if MGM decided to keep this movie under wraps for the time being. Just points out the danger of mixing current politics in your Bond movies.

Read my post above. I really think I've solved the mystery.

[level007]

hey you are all right.

Today i bought the french edition of "Premiere".
Inside there is a special 20 pages about 007. ANd after a description of all the bond movies, at the bottom of the page there this written:

James bond DVD box, 19 films, 299.99

[level007]

I have just checked on the online website www.fnac.com (which is very popular in France) if we can buy TLD but we can't. It's not available actualy.


there is something MGM is trying to hide......

[zencat]

Who am I, the Invisible Man? is no-one going to comment on my theory?

[Simon]

OK, although I think it would have been safer to let the theory die a natural death, I think it is derivative and overly thought.

Not a grain of worth there sir. It is just a mistake, shortly to be remedied.

No offence and all that.

[Loomis]

Oh, this is ridiculous.

It appears that it's not OK for people to buy THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Unless they pay a lot of money for the box set, in which case it is OK.

Why? zencat's theory aside, I haven't a clue. If zencat is correct, this is a case of clumsy and unnecessary self-censorship by MGM.

I notice that other companies aren't so over-sensitive. In my local supermarket I just spotted a recent re-issue of RAMBO III on display, another movie in which the hero buddies up with Afghans who might be mistaken for the embryonic Taliban, but one in which the term "Holy War" is actually used by the good guys. Anyone who lost loved ones in connection with the Taliban, the events of 11 September 2001, and the subsequent war on terror probably couldn't care less about a 1987 Bond film being withdrawn from sale for reasons of "sensitivity".

But as I have already written, this is ridiculous. I think MGM have some explaining to do.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Simon
Not a grain of worth there sir.  It is just a mistake, shortly to be remedied.

How do you know this?

[stromberg]

Originally posted by Loomis
Oh, this is ridiculous.

It appears that it's not OK for people to buy THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Unless they pay a lot of money for the box set, in which case it is OK.

Why? zencat's theory aside, I haven't a clue. If zencat is correct, this is a case of clumsy and unnecessary self-censorship by MGM.  

I notice that other companies aren't so over-sensitive. In my local supermarket I just spotted a recent re-issue of RAMBO III on display, another movie in which the hero buddies up with Afghans who might be mistaken for the embryonic Taliban, but one in which the term "Holy War" is actually used by the good guys. Anyone who lost loved ones in connection with the Taliban, the events of 11 September 2001, and the subsequent war on terror probably couldn't care less about a 1987 Bond film being withdrawn from sale for reasons of "sensitivity".

But as I have already written, this is ridiculous. I think MGM have some explaining to do.

Totally agreed, Loomis.

Hey zencat, which Invisible Manwould you like to be, Claude Rains or David McCallum? Or should it be 'Invisible Cat'??

[zencat]

Originally posted by Simon
OK, although I think it would have been safer to let the theory die a natural death, I think it is derivative and overly thought.

Not a grain of worth there sir.  It is just a mistake, shortly to be remedied.

No offence and all that.

Why do I even bother?

[Simon]

Originally posted by Loomis

How do you know this?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I look for shadows or gremlins in the cupboards. It is what it is.

There is invariably a simpler reason for most things than we dream up in these boards to satisfy anxieties, anger or deficiencies.

Zencat - as to why you bother, if indeed this wasn't sarcasm, you were asking for a definite response, over several posts, which could have gone either way from your audience.

Suffice it to say that if it does turn out to be an Afghan related reason, then I will be back holding both hands up saying, "I'm wrong."

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Simon
[B]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I look for shadows or gremlins in the cupboards.  It is what it is.

There is invariably a simpler reason for most things than we dream up in these boards to satisfy anxieties, anger or deficiencies.

B]

Yes, apologies if I seemed to be turning an inability to buy a DVD of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS into some sort of 9/11-related conspiracy theory back there. Must be all the anxieties, anger and deficiencies I need to work through.

I find your tone a little rude, Simon.

[zencat]

I remember when 3 of my favorite Bond websites all went down for

[Simon]

Originally posted by Loomis


Yes, apologies if I seemed to be turning an inability to buy a DVD of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS into some sort of 9/11-related conspiracy theory back there. Must be all the anxieties, anger and deficiencies I need to work through.  

I find your tone a little rude, Simon.

You just need to get to know me a little better.

As to your turning it into a conspiracy theory, re-reading your posts, I thought you also seemed a little non-plussed by this thought. You mentioned having seen other Afghan related films still out there - so answer your own point; Why should this theory hold any water?

[Loomis]

Er, no, Simon, you just need to be a little more polite.

Why should the theory hold water? Well, just because the distributors of RAMBO III don't have cold feet, it doesn't mean the distributors of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS think the same way.

Anyway, I'm not interested in promoting any particular "theory" or getting into a pointless argument with a total stranger. I'm just interested in finding out why I can't seem to buy THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS on DVD.

And the reason I asked you "How do you know this?" back there, Simon, was because you seemed very sure in what you were saying, i.e. that all this was just some mistake in advertising/distribution. I wondered whether you worked for MGM Home Entertainment or something.

[Simon]

Just to flesh out somewhat the "simpler reason" element, I find that message boards is too often a forum for people to apply knee jerk reactions to something with a subsequent pointing of hasty fingers denoting blame.

There are always two sides to every story, and in cases like the Bond arena, more often than not, four or five sides. Until we know a few more of the sides, and we will never know the full picture, I just find it redundant to go in with two big feet, stating categorically who is to blame. This isn't necessarily aimed at this thread but could be applied to the "Sticker on the CD" thread, which has been shortened and the whole MGM debacle, amongst others.

It is to this end that I will leave most things alone unless specifically asked for a reaction or at least until there have been enough ideas strewn around that I could comment upon - these comments being only opinions and as stated above, if I'm wrong, I would be only to happy to admit it.

However, if I'm right............

[Simon]

[quote]Originally posted by zencat
So it does tick me off a bit when I