Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
David N. Brown
Mesa Arizona

In article <523a5359-8b81-4624-894a-96f389f2cf1cn@googlegroups.com>,
David Brown <davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond
>movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of
>that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending
>toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's
>my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I
>don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into
>the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never
>Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own
>nominations or further thoughts?
>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
>David N. Brown
>Mesa Arizona

I don't remember a lot of SF in the books at all. Even the book _Moonraker_
was more about missles than any kind of space travel. (In fact the
book was so far from the movie that they released a novelization of the
script with the movie rather than reprinting the Fleming book.)

As for the movie itself, I really liked it the first two times I saw it,
and not so much the third, when it seemed much too long, and I knew all
the bits. I always did like "Jaws" as the over-the-top menace, and
really liked for some reason the happy resolution of his arc.

I wonder how many people get the QE3 joke now?
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html

The /films/ were, but the /books/ weren't. The films almost all tended
to be ... larger ... than the books.

Thus, the book /Moonraker/ is very strange at first: Bond is seconded
to MI-5 to help their agent in Drax's operation, which is in England
and dedicated to building an ICBM (called "Moonraker") for the UK.
Everything is very very unexciting for the first half of the book --
at which point someone drops a ton of chalk on Bond and the MI5 agent
and things pick up!

Oh, and that "death trap" is right from the book. But nobody goes into
space; the target for the Moonraker is a bit closer to home.

The humor, present in all the pre-reboot Bonds, is what makes them
/entertaining/. The action makes them /exciting/.

I rather like /Never Say Never Again/, as it is interesting in seeing
the same actor play the same role in the same story so many years
apart. I just wish the DVD had the entire film on it; there is a very
clumsy scene in Palmyra that was a bit longer and less clumsy in the
theater. And the VHS tape, IIRC.

IMHO, /The Spy Who Loved Me/ is the absolute nadir of the pre-reboot
Bonds. This is because:

a) except for Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, the only thing it has in
common with the book is the title [1]

b) the ludicrous "code name" of the Russian agent (it's less ludicrous
in the film /xXx/, where it at least has a reason for being used)

c) it introduces the Head of the KGB, who plays a small part in the
next few films as well

d) the main redeeming feature is the introduction of Jaws -- although
here he is just a bully with steel dentures

/Moonraker/ is on a higher level because, as you note, it is, in a
sense, about Jaws. The following films, based on short stories but
greatly extended, are even better.

[1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
/are/ the book, especially the first. The main differences tend to
involve the size of the Evil Lair and the grandious nature of the Evil
Plan. But the villain and the general plot usually (but not always)
follow the book.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 17/06/2022 12.00, Paul S Person wrote:

> [1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
> book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
> Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
> /are/ the book, especially the first.

Actually, the movie _From Russia with Love_ has one significant
difference from the book. In the book, it's strictly a SMERSH
operation. In the movie, it's SPECTRE playing off the East and the
West against each other, as symbolized by the fighting fish.

Off-hand, I can't think of any other change from a novel to its film
that I thought was an improvement.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:00:22 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
><davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
>
>The /films/ were, but the /books/ weren't. The films almost all tended
>to be ... larger ... than the books.
>
>Thus, the book /Moonraker/ is very strange at first: Bond is seconded
>to MI-5 to help their agent in Drax's operation, which is in England
>and dedicated to building an ICBM (called "Moonraker") for the UK.
>Everything is very very unexciting for the first half of the book --
>at which point someone drops a ton of chalk on Bond and the MI5 agent
>and things pick up!
>
>Oh, and that "death trap" is right from the book. But nobody goes into
>space; the target for the Moonraker is a bit closer to home.
>
>The humor, present in all the pre-reboot Bonds, is what makes them
>/entertaining/. The action makes them /exciting/.
>
>I rather like /Never Say Never Again/, as it is interesting in seeing
>the same actor play the same role in the same story so many years
>apart. I just wish the DVD had the entire film on it; there is a very
>clumsy scene in Palmyra that was a bit longer and less clumsy in the
>theater. And the VHS tape, IIRC.
>
>IMHO, /The Spy Who Loved Me/ is the absolute nadir of the pre-reboot
>Bonds. This is because:
>
>a) except for Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, the only thing it has in
>common with the book is the title [1]
>
>b) the ludicrous "code name" of the Russian agent (it's less ludicrous
>in the film /xXx/, where it at least has a reason for being used)
>
>c) it introduces the Head of the KGB, who plays a small part in the
>next few films as well
>
>d) the main redeeming feature is the introduction of Jaws -- although
>here he is just a bully with steel dentures

Not necessarily dentures. Might have been crowns. Professor Stefan
Drobot at OSU was a graduate of the Gulag. Nicest fellow you've ever
care to meet, but the first time he smiled at you it was absolutely
terrifying--all his visible teeth had stainless steel crowns.

>/Moonraker/ is on a higher level because, as you note, it is, in a
>sense, about Jaws. The following films, based on short stories but
>greatly extended, are even better.
>
>[1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
>book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
>Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
>/are/ the book, especially the first. The main differences tend to
>involve the size of the Evil Lair and the grandious nature of the Evil
>Plan. But the villain and the general plot usually (but not always)
>follow the book.

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:43:01 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 17/06/2022 12.00, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> [1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
>> book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
>> Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
>> /are/ the book, especially the first.
>
>Actually, the movie _From Russia with Love_ has one significant
>difference from the book. In the book, it's strictly a SMERSH
>operation. In the movie, it's SPECTRE playing off the East and the
>West against each other, as symbolized by the fighting fish.

This is part of the expanded ending -- which does /not/ involve Bond
being stabbed by venom-tipped knitting needles and dying.

Only to be brought back, af fan insistance, in /Dr No/.

>Off-hand, I can't think of any other change from a novel to its film
>that I thought was an improvement.

I'm not really sure why it is an /improvement/. Except for the boat
chase at the end, it makes almost no difference at all.

This happened, of course, because the films introduced SPECTRE in /Dr
No/, although it didn't come along in the books until /Thunderball/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:20:58 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 10:00:22 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>><davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>>>https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
>>
>>The /films/ were, but the /books/ weren't. The films almost all tended
>>to be ... larger ... than the books.
>>
>>Thus, the book /Moonraker/ is very strange at first: Bond is seconded
>>to MI-5 to help their agent in Drax's operation, which is in England
>>and dedicated to building an ICBM (called "Moonraker") for the UK.
>>Everything is very very unexciting for the first half of the book --
>>at which point someone drops a ton of chalk on Bond and the MI5 agent
>>and things pick up!
>>
>>Oh, and that "death trap" is right from the book. But nobody goes into
>>space; the target for the Moonraker is a bit closer to home.
>>
>>The humor, present in all the pre-reboot Bonds, is what makes them
>>/entertaining/. The action makes them /exciting/.
>>
>>I rather like /Never Say Never Again/, as it is interesting in seeing
>>the same actor play the same role in the same story so many years
>>apart. I just wish the DVD had the entire film on it; there is a very
>>clumsy scene in Palmyra that was a bit longer and less clumsy in the
>>theater. And the VHS tape, IIRC.
>>
>>IMHO, /The Spy Who Loved Me/ is the absolute nadir of the pre-reboot
>>Bonds. This is because:
>>
>>a) except for Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, the only thing it has in
>>common with the book is the title [1]
>>
>>b) the ludicrous "code name" of the Russian agent (it's less ludicrous
>>in the film /xXx/, where it at least has a reason for being used)
>>
>>c) it introduces the Head of the KGB, who plays a small part in the
>>next few films as well
>>
>>d) the main redeeming feature is the introduction of Jaws -- although
>>here he is just a bully with steel dentures
>
>Not necessarily dentures. Might have been crowns. Professor Stefan
>Drobot at OSU was a graduate of the Gulag. Nicest fellow you've ever
>care to meet, but the first time he smiled at you it was absolutely
>terrifying--all his visible teeth had stainless steel crowns.

You are correct. Crowns might actually work better, if they were
anchored properly in the bone.

>>/Moonraker/ is on a higher level because, as you note, it is, in a
>>sense, about Jaws. The following films, based on short stories but
>>greatly extended, are even better.
>>
>>[1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
>>book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
>>Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
>>/are/ the book, especially the first. The main differences tend to
>>involve the size of the Evil Lair and the grandious nature of the Evil
>>Plan. But the villain and the general plot usually (but not always)
>>follow the book.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 18/06/2022 10.33, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 13:43:01 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
> <michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 17/06/2022 12.00, Paul S Person wrote:

>>> [1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
>>> book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
>>> Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
>>> /are/ the book, especially the first.
>>
>> Actually, the movie _From Russia with Love_ has one significant
>> difference from the book. In the book, it's strictly a SMERSH
>> operation. In the movie, it's SPECTRE playing off the East and the
>> West against each other, as symbolized by the fighting fish.
>
> This is part of the expanded ending -- which does /not/ involve Bond
> being stabbed by venom-tipped knitting needles and dying.

In my copy, which I'll admit is MMPB rather than hardback,
the knitting needles don't do the trick; it's the poisoned
blade in Klebb's boot-toe.

>> Off-hand, I can't think of any other change from a novel to its film
>> that I thought was an improvement.
>
> I'm not really sure why it is an /improvement/. Except for the boat
> chase at the end, it makes almost no difference at all.

Well, obviously these things are matters of taste. From my
point of view, having things be more devious is, if handled
properly, a better story.

In the beginning of both, "M" and Bond agree that it is an
obvious trap. However, in the film, there's a trap in a trap,
since the trap that they see isn't the real one.

Having SPECTRE play off SMERSH against MI6 added a level of
cool. Grant running around in the background in Turkey, first
fanning the flames, then acting as Bond's unseen protector,
made it all the more Byzantine, and thus more intriguing.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 12:00:27 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
> The /films/ were, but the /books/ weren't. The films almost all tended
> to be ... larger ... than the books.
>
> Thus, the book /Moonraker/ is very strange at first: Bond is seconded
> to MI-5 to help their agent in Drax's operation, which is in England
> and dedicated to building an ICBM (called "Moonraker") for the UK.
> Everything is very very unexciting for the first half of the book --
> at which point someone drops a ton of chalk on Bond and the MI5 agent
> and things pick up!
>
> Oh, and that "death trap" is right from the book. But nobody goes into
> space; the target for the Moonraker is a bit closer to home.
>
> The humor, present in all the pre-reboot Bonds, is what makes them
> /entertaining/. The action makes them /exciting/.
>
> I rather like /Never Say Never Again/, as it is interesting in seeing
> the same actor play the same role in the same story so many years
> apart. I just wish the DVD had the entire film on it; there is a very
> clumsy scene in Palmyra that was a bit longer and less clumsy in the
> theater. And the VHS tape, IIRC.
>
> IMHO, /The Spy Who Loved Me/ is the absolute nadir of the pre-reboot
> Bonds. This is because:
>
> a) except for Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, the only thing it has in
> common with the book is the title [1]
>
> b) the ludicrous "code name" of the Russian agent (it's less ludicrous
> in the film /xXx/, where it at least has a reason for being used)
>
> c) it introduces the Head of the KGB, who plays a small part in the
> next few films as well
>
> d) the main redeeming feature is the introduction of Jaws -- although
> here he is just a bully with steel dentures
>
> /Moonraker/ is on a higher level because, as you note, it is, in a
> sense, about Jaws. The following films, based on short stories but
> greatly extended, are even better.
>
> [1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
> book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
> Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
> /are/ the book, especially the first. The main differences tend to
> involve the size of the Evil Lair and the grandious nature of the Evil
> Plan. But the villain and the general plot usually (but not always)
> follow the book.
> --
In the novel _The Spy Who Loved Me_ one of the henchmen had steel teeth.
These were not used as weapons, just a background detail and consistent
with dental practice in Eastern Europe at the time. This was the only thing
from the book used in the movie.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:00:27 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
> The /films/ were, but the /books/ weren't. The films almost all tended
> to be ... larger ... than the books.
>
> Thus, the book /Moonraker/ is very strange at first: Bond is seconded
> to MI-5 to help their agent in Drax's operation, which is in England
> and dedicated to building an ICBM (called "Moonraker") for the UK.
> Everything is very very unexciting for the first half of the book --
> at which point someone drops a ton of chalk on Bond and the MI5 agent
> and things pick up!
>
> Oh, and that "death trap" is right from the book. But nobody goes into
> space; the target for the Moonraker is a bit closer to home.
>
> The humor, present in all the pre-reboot Bonds, is what makes them
> /entertaining/. The action makes them /exciting/.
>
> I rather like /Never Say Never Again/, as it is interesting in seeing
> the same actor play the same role in the same story so many years
> apart. I just wish the DVD had the entire film on it; there is a very
> clumsy scene in Palmyra that was a bit longer and less clumsy in the
> theater. And the VHS tape, IIRC.
>
> IMHO, /The Spy Who Loved Me/ is the absolute nadir of the pre-reboot
> Bonds. This is because:
>
> a) except for Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, the only thing it has in
> common with the book is the title [1]
>
> b) the ludicrous "code name" of the Russian agent (it's less ludicrous
> in the film /xXx/, where it at least has a reason for being used)
>
> c) it introduces the Head of the KGB, who plays a small part in the
> next few films as well
>
> d) the main redeeming feature is the introduction of Jaws -- although
> here he is just a bully with steel dentures
>
> /Moonraker/ is on a higher level because, as you note, it is, in a
> sense, about Jaws. The following films, based on short stories but
> greatly extended, are even better.
>
> [1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
> book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
> Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
> /are/ the book, especially the first. The main differences tend to
> involve the size of the Evil Lair and the grandious nature of the Evil
> Plan. But the villain and the general plot usually (but not always)
> follow the book.
> --
> "I begin to envy Petronius."
> "I have envied him long since."
I found it interesting/ amusing that you mention From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which have long been named as best and worst in the franchise. I'd say Secret Service is pretty science fictional, at least in terms of the stakes presented by Blofeld's apocalyptic bioweapon. Of course, I looked into that one as soon as I considered worst Bond movies. It definitely didn't deserve the reputation it got, but it is very odd, in some ways far ahead of its time, in others just slow and stilted. I'm looking into Spy Who Loved Me now, it wasn't on my radar but I might get back to it.

On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 12:38:49 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
<davidnbrown80@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 10:00:27 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2022 16:34:53 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>> <davidn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Here's another review that's a bit different, I finally reviewed a Bond movie with Moonraker. The review covers the science fiction elements of that film. My further thought has been that the franchise was tending toward sci fi quite a bit earlier, at least by You Only Live Twice. It's my further impression that the books went into SF even sooner, but I don't have first hand experience. One more thing, I'm still looking into the "worst" Bond movie, though my choice all along was Never Say Never Again, the one people often don't count. Anyone have their own nominations or further thoughts?
>> >https://trendytroodon.blogspot.com/2022/06/really-good-movies-one-with-james-bond.html
>> The /films/ were, but the /books/ weren't. The films almost all tended
>> to be ... larger ... than the books.
>>
>> Thus, the book /Moonraker/ is very strange at first: Bond is seconded
>> to MI-5 to help their agent in Drax's operation, which is in England
>> and dedicated to building an ICBM (called "Moonraker") for the UK.
>> Everything is very very unexciting for the first half of the book --
>> at which point someone drops a ton of chalk on Bond and the MI5 agent
>> and things pick up!
>>
>> Oh, and that "death trap" is right from the book. But nobody goes into
>> space; the target for the Moonraker is a bit closer to home.
>>
>> The humor, present in all the pre-reboot Bonds, is what makes them
>> /entertaining/. The action makes them /exciting/.
>>
>> I rather like /Never Say Never Again/, as it is interesting in seeing
>> the same actor play the same role in the same story so many years
>> apart. I just wish the DVD had the entire film on it; there is a very
>> clumsy scene in Palmyra that was a bit longer and less clumsy in the
>> theater. And the VHS tape, IIRC.
>>
>> IMHO, /The Spy Who Loved Me/ is the absolute nadir of the pre-reboot
>> Bonds. This is because:
>>
>> a) except for Bond, M, Q, and Moneypenny, the only thing it has in
>> common with the book is the title [1]
>>
>> b) the ludicrous "code name" of the Russian agent (it's less ludicrous
>> in the film /xXx/, where it at least has a reason for being used)
>>
>> c) it introduces the Head of the KGB, who plays a small part in the
>> next few films as well
>>
>> d) the main redeeming feature is the introduction of Jaws -- although
>> here he is just a bully with steel dentures
>>
>> /Moonraker/ is on a higher level because, as you note, it is, in a
>> sense, about Jaws. The following films, based on short stories but
>> greatly extended, are even better.
>>
>> [1] You are going to say that that is normal for a movie based on a
>> book, but not for the early Bond films. Indeed, two of them, /From
>> Russia With Love/ and /On Her Majesty's Secret Service/ essentially
>> /are/ the book, especially the first. The main differences tend to
>> involve the size of the Evil Lair and the grandious nature of the Evil
>> Plan. But the villain and the general plot usually (but not always)
>> follow the book.
>> --
>> "I begin to envy Petronius."
>> "I have envied him long since."
>I found it interesting/ amusing that you mention From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which have long been named as best and worst in the franchise. I'd say Secret Service is pretty science fictional, at least in terms of the stakes presented by Blofeld's apocalyptic bioweapon. Of course, I looked into that one as soon as I considered worst Bond movies. It definitely didn't deserve the reputation it got, but it is very odd, in some ways far ahead of its time, in others just slow and stilted. I'm looking into Spy Who Loved Me now, it wasn't on my radar but I might get back to it.

OHMSS certainly has its problems: a different guy playing Bond, some
/really/ bad dialogue (some of which suggests someone watched /way/
too many Westerns as a kid), and, of course, the tragic ending.

But the story arc (Bond meets Tracy, daughter of a top gangster,
impersonates an emissary from the College of Arms, rescues Tracy,
marries Tracy, Tracy dies) is the book's story arc. Including the
ending.

So, to some extent, we have a film that is disliked because it
/actually follows/ the book.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sunday, June 19, 2022 at 10:33:03 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:

> So, to some extent, we have a film that is disliked because it
> /actually follows/ the book.

Fortunately, a lawsuit from the Fleming estate spared us that happening
in the case of "The Spy Who Loved Me".

John Savard

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 12:38:49 -0700 (PDT), David Brown

>>I found it interesting/ amusing that you mention From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which have long been named as best and worst in the franchise. I'd say Secret Service is pretty science fictional, at least in terms of the stakes presented by Blofeld's apocalyptic bioweapon. Of course, I looked into that one as soon as I considered worst Bond movies. It definitely didn't deserve the reputation it got, but it is very odd, in some ways far ahead of its time, in others just slow and stilted. I'm looking into Spy Who Loved Me now, it wasn't on my radar but I might get back to it.
>
>OHMSS certainly has its problems: a different guy playing Bond, some
>/really/ bad dialogue (some of which suggests someone watched /way/
>too many Westerns as a kid), and, of course, the tragic ending.

I have always considered OHMSS as the best of the Bond novels.

I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).

>
>But the story arc (Bond meets Tracy, daughter of a top gangster,
>impersonates an emissary from the College of Arms, rescues Tracy,
>marries Tracy, Tracy dies) is the book's story arc. Including the
>ending.
>
>So, to some extent, we have a film that is disliked because it
>/actually follows/ the book.

You dislike it. It was still one of the highest grossing films in 1969.

"Film critic James Berardinelli summed this up in his review of the
movie: "with the exception of one production aspect, [it] is by far
the best entry of the long-running James Bond series. The film contains
some of the most exhilarating action sequences ever to reach the screen,
a touching love story, and a nice subplot that has agent 007 crossing
(and even threatening to resign from) Her Majesty's Secret Service."
Julia Sirmons, writing in CrimeReads, also regarded it as the best Bond film,
highlighting its mix of romance, the strong Bond girl, its cheekiness and Lazenby."

"The filmmaker Steven Soderbergh writes that "For me there's no question
that cinematically On Her Majesty's Secret Service is the best Bond
film and the only one worth watching repeatedly for reasons other than
pure entertainment ... Shot to shot, this movie is beautiful in a way none
of the other Bond films are".

The director Christopher Nolan also stated that On Her Majesty's Secret
Service was his favourite Bond film; in describing its influence on his own
film, Inception (2010), Nolan said, "What I liked about it that we've tried
to emulate in this film is there's a tremendous balance in that movie of
action and scale and romanticism and tragedy and emotion."

On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 12:38:49 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>
>>>I found it interesting/ amusing that you mention From Russia With Love and On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which have long been named as best and worst in the franchise. I'd say Secret Service is pretty science fictional, at least in terms of the stakes presented by Blofeld's apocalyptic bioweapon. Of course, I looked into that one as soon as I considered worst Bond movies. It definitely didn't deserve the reputation it got, but it is very odd, in some ways far ahead of its time, in others just slow and stilted. I'm looking into Spy Who Loved Me now, it wasn't on my radar but I might get back to it.
>>
>>OHMSS certainly has its problems: a different guy playing Bond, some
>>/really/ bad dialogue (some of which suggests someone watched /way/
>>too many Westerns as a kid), and, of course, the tragic ending.
>
>I have always considered OHMSS as the best of the Bond novels.
>
>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).

Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
in the official series, at least.

And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
and then moved on to Moore.

>>But the story arc (Bond meets Tracy, daughter of a top gangster,
>>impersonates an emissary from the College of Arms, rescues Tracy,
>>marries Tracy, Tracy dies) is the book's story arc. Including the
>>ending.
>>
>>So, to some extent, we have a film that is disliked because it
>>/actually follows/ the book.
>
>You dislike it. It was still one of the highest grossing films in 1969.

I don't dislike it, but have read the complaint about the ending from
others.

Having read the book, I was /hoping/ for it. As opposed to the usual
"Hollywood ending". Even though Fleming's sequel (/You Only Live
Twice/ had been ... repurposed).

It's hard to pick a favorite but, if we exclude the reboot Bonds and
the "cookie-cutter" Bonds (noting that some are better than others), I
think /Licence to Kill/ would be my choice for "best".

For one thing, we /finally/ got the "he disagreed with something that
ate him" bit from the novel /Live and Let Die/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:

>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
>
>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
>in the official series, at least.
>
>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
>and then moved on to Moore.

They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond again.

Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby claimed
the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it off to appear
like Bond, but by then he had already decided not to make another
Bond film and rejected the idea.

Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
film edition of the book

In article <s6r3bh9uafnip5i15ujk1e2sos75oiuc38@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>It's hard to pick a favorite but, if we exclude the reboot Bonds and
>the "cookie-cutter" Bonds (noting that some are better than others), I
>think /Licence to Kill/ would be my choice for "best".
>
>For one thing, we /finally/ got the "he disagreed with something that
>ate him" bit from the novel /Live and Let Die/.
>--

Have we ever gotten the "An ill woodwind that nobody blows good" bit?
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i.14825@fx18.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>
>>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
>>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
>>
>>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
>>in the official series, at least.
>>
>>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
>>and then moved on to Moore.
>
>They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond again.
>
>
> Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
> un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby claimed
> the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it off to appear
> like Bond, but by then he had already decided not to make another
> Bond film and rejected the idea.
>
> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
> Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
> lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
> were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
> film edition of the book

I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
big part of the franchaise?

Also "film edition of the book" sounds like... the movie :-)
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

In article <s6r3bh9uafnip5i15ujk1e2sos75oiuc38@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 12:38:49 -0700 (PDT), David Brown
>>
>>>>I found it interesting/ amusing that you mention From Russia With Love and
>On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which have long been named as best and worst
>in the franchise. I'd say Secret Service is pretty science fictional, at least
>in terms of the stakes presented by Blofeld's apocalyptic bioweapon. Of
>course, I looked into that one as soon as I considered worst Bond movies. It
>definitely didn't deserve the reputation it got, but it is very odd, in some
>ways far ahead of its time, in others just slow and stilted. I'm looking into
>Spy Who Loved Me now, it wasn't on my radar but I might get back to it.
>>>
>>>OHMSS certainly has its problems: a different guy playing Bond, some
>>>/really/ bad dialogue (some of which suggests someone watched /way/
>>>too many Westerns as a kid), and, of course, the tragic ending.
>>
>>I have always considered OHMSS as the best of the Bond novels.
>>
>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
>
>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
>in the official series, at least.
>
>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
>and then moved on to Moore.

Mainly because Lazenby was a pain in the ass to work with, having been
convinced the path to success depended on being a Prima Dona.

I don't think anyone watching early Keanu Reaves movies would have
expected his current status but he has a quality that lets him keep
throwing darts at his professional dartboard: he's courteous, punctual,
and goes out of his way to be kind and gracious even to people who
won't do much for his career. Having worked with him, people generally
want to work with him again. Lazenby on the other hand was a PITA
and didn't get many second chances.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

In article <jhea71FkneuU2@mid.individual.net>,
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i.14825@fx18.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
>>>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
>>>
>>>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
>>>in the official series, at least.
>>>
>>>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
>>>and then moved on to Moore.
>>
>>They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond again.
>>
>>
>> Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
>> un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby claimed
>> the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it off to appear
>> like Bond, but by then he had already decided not to make another
>> Bond film and rejected the idea.
>>
>> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
>> Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
>> lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
>> were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
>> film edition of the book
>
>I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
>big part of the franchaise?

When I was a kid, I had a Bond lunch box _and_ a briefcase with a hidden gun
that could shoot plastic bullets through a hole in the side. That was for,
hmmm, You Only Live Twice, I think.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in
news:jhea71FkneuU2@mid.individual.net:

> In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i.14825@fx18.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>>>Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there
>>>>haven't been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as
>>>>the Doctor, yet).
>>>
>>>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point.
>>>Well, in the official series, at least.
>>>
>>>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next
>>>one ... and then moved on to Moore.
>>
>>They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond
>>again.
>>
>>
>> Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
>> un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby
>> claimed the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it
>> off to appear like Bond, but by then he had already decided
>> not to make another Bond film and rejected the idea.
>>
>> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her
>> Majesty's Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond
>> and because of the lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film,
>> few items of merchandise were produced for the film, apart
>> from the soundtrack album and a film edition of the book
>
> I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is
> that a big part of the franchaise?
>
https://usa.007store.com/

In particular, check the "Collectibles" category.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 12:37:31 PM UTC-4, James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <jhea71...@mid.individual.net>,
> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
> >In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i....@fx18.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> >>>wrote:
> >>
> >>>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
> >>>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
> >>>
> >>>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
> >>>in the official series, at least.
> >>>
> >>>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
> >>>and then moved on to Moore.
> >>
> >>They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond again.
> >>
> >>
> >> Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
> >> un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby claimed
> >> the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it off to appear
> >> like Bond, but by then he had already decided not to make another
> >> Bond film and rejected the idea.
> >>
> >> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
> >> Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
> >> lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
> >> were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
> >> film edition of the book
> >
> >I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
> >big part of the franchaise?
> When I was a kid, I had a Bond lunch box _and_ a briefcase with a hidden gun
> that could shoot plastic bullets through a hole in the side. That was for,
> hmmm, You Only Live Twice, I think.

OTOH, you can get real one if you want:

https://armourersbench.com/2018/10/26/heckler-kock-mp5k-briefcase-gun/

pt

James Nicoll wrote:
> In article <jhea71...@mid.individual.net>,
> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
> >In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i....@fx18.iad>,
> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
> >> Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
> >> lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
> >> were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
> >> film edition of the book
> >
> >I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
> >big part of the franchaise?

> When I was a kid, I had a Bond lunch box _and_ a briefcase with a hidden gun
> that could shoot plastic bullets through a hole in the side. That was for,
> hmmm, You Only Live Twice, I think.

More upscale, BMW got a car used by Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" and made a two-purpose commercial for both.
(Not the first time he's strayed from Aston Martin, there was a Lotus in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "For Your Eyes Only".)

--
-Jack

On Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 5:33:42 PM UTC+1, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
> In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i....@fx18.iad>,
> Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
> >>On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 15:43:30 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>>I also quite like the film version; it's not like there haven't
> >>>been a number of actors playing Bond (not as many as the Doctor, yet).
> >>
> >>Not at the time it came out. Connery was Bond up to that point. Well,
> >>in the official series, at least.
> >>
> >>And it worked so well they brought Connery back for the next one ...
> >>and then moved on to Moore.
> >
> >They brought Connery back because Lazenby refused to play bond again.
> >
> >
> > Lazenby appeared at the premiere with a beard, looking "very
> > un-Bond-like", according to the Daily Mirror. Lazenby claimed
> > the producers had tried to persuade him to shave it off to appear
> > like Bond, but by then he had already decided not to make another
> > Bond film and rejected the idea.
> >
> > Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
> > Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
> > lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
> > were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
> > film edition of the book
> I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
> big part of the franchaise?
>
> Also "film edition of the book" sounds like... the movie :-)
> --
> columbiaclosings.com
> What's not in Columbia anymore..
At one point I had a quartz watch whose alarm tone was the Bond theme tune. It may still be around somewhere, but I do not know where.

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6c96753c-f4ee-4c68-8eb8-d6a3a1d5a7een@googlegroups.com:

> James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <jhea71...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>> >In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i....@fx18.iad>,
>> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her
>> >> Majesty's Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond
>> >> and because of the lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film,
>> >> few items of merchandise were produced for the film, apart
>> >> from the soundtrack album and a film edition of the book
>> >
>> >I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is
>> >that a big part of the franchaise?
>
>> When I was a kid, I had a Bond lunch box _and_ a briefcase with
>> a hidden gun that could shoot plastic bullets through a hole in
>> the side. That was for, hmmm, You Only Live Twice, I think.
>
> More upscale, BMW got a car used by Bond in "Tomorrow Never
> Dies" and made a two-purpose commercial for both. (Not the first
> time he's strayed from Aston Martin, there was a Lotus in "The
> Spy Who Loved Me" and "For Your Eyes Only".)
>
And many other cars in different movies, from a Rolls Royce Silver
Cloud to a Tuk Tuk taxi. Various Astin Martins are, of course, the
most common brand.

https://manofmany.com/rides/cars/james-bond-cars-complete-list

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> writes:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <jhea71...@mid.individual.net>,
>> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>> >In article <JjmsK.154732$X_i....@fx18.iad>,
>> >Scott Lurndal <sl...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Because Lazenby had informed the producers that On Her Majesty's
>> >> Secret Service was to be his only outing as Bond and because of the
>> >> lack of gadgets used by Bond in the film, few items of merchandise
>> >> were produced for the film, apart from the soundtrack album and a
>> >> film edition of the book
>> >
>> >I'm not sure I've seen "merchandise" from any of the films. Is that a
>> >big part of the franchaise?
>
>> When I was a kid, I had a Bond lunch box _and_ a briefcase with a hidden gun
>> that could shoot plastic bullets through a hole in the side. That was for,
>> hmmm, You Only Live Twice, I think.
>
>More upscale, BMW got a car used by Bond in "Tomorrow Never Dies" and made a two-purpose commercial for both.
>(Not the first time he's strayed from Aston Martin, there was a Lotus in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and "For Your Eyes Only".)

Friend of mine bought one of those (750 IL) after the movie came out.

It was a money pit squared.