Nudity in The Living Daylights

168101112

Comments

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Jarrod wrote:
    Seven posts don't make you an observer on the "sidelines" it makes you a participant. Maybe this is a 25 year old daydream to you, so what if it is? With the amount of nonsense I see discussed on this forum, I don't see you rallying to shut down "Anybody here wished they could play a Bond villain?" or any other fantasy based threads. Who are you to dictate what has run it's course? Especially when you consistently participate. If I'm stuck in a 25 year fantasy, why do you care so much? But your laughing faces are real cute, but also a dead giveaway that you shouldn't be taken too serious anyways

    I am not trying to be taken seriously, since this isn't a place for serious discussion anyway, as you have managed to prove. If I was a participant I would actually be debating this issue, but I see no logic in it as the majority of my fellow members agree, so I just wait with them for a mod to close this and until then we get to sit and enjoy your gradual loss of sense as the final hour approaches.

    Now I really have to go. Bigfoot and Nessie just rang me and are begging to play our weekly game of Texas Hold 'Em. I will make a bet with them when exactly this thread will close, and get back to you.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    edited May 2013 Posts: 16,333
    For the OP.

    Go Here. http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1503559

    Scroll down some and You'll find a link to a screen cap what you wanted.

    Why do I even bother sometimes?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    This issue has been resolved. =D>
  • Posts: 366
    Murdock wrote:
    For the OP.

    Go Here. http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1503559

    Scroll down some and You'll find a link to a screen cap what you wanted.

    Why do I even bother sometimes?

    I don't think that's enough evidence to please some people on here!
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    More boobiegate shenanigans!!

    I just watched FYEO on bluray for the first time and I swear that theres a bit of nippleage I've never noticed before.

    As Bond is sneaking through Gonzalez's grounds theres a shot of one of his 'hostesses' making out with a guy who looks like Murray from Flight Of The Conchords.

    On 00.20.28 is that a nipple, only clear as day because of bluray? Or is it just a shadow?

    If proven this would surely make FYEO the most nipple heavy Bond film, given the well known Cassandra Harris nipslip later on.

    How many more hidden nips are out there in Bond waiting to be uncovered by us intrepid nudity Indys?
    Not a nipple, but bum-crack maybe. I did notice on my initial blu-ray viewing of OP, that suddenly the long range shot of Maud Adams (or body double's) nude form emerging from the OP island pool, is suddenly in much sharper focus. The exposed bare posterior is in much sharper focus. :)

  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    I simply cannot believe that we have an 8 page thread dedicated to the subject of whether you can see a brief glimpse of a woman's breasts in a Bond film.
    This is the sort of thing you might discuss with your friends if you were 10 - and probably only in the time before the Internet provided so much, ah, content.

    I'm not locking this, but I genuinely wonder if this is the sort of thing grown ups should be debating.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    I'm not locking this, but I genuinely wonder if this is the sort of thing grown ups should be debating.

    To be fair, it started out as a sort of censorship discussion.
    But the last couple pages have devolved....
  • Posts: 4,813
    Murdock wrote:
    For the OP.

    Go Here. http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1503559

    Scroll down some and You'll find a link to a screen cap what you wanted.

    Why do I even bother sometimes?
    I think he's aware of it-- he's a member!
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 388
    I simply cannot believe that we have an 8 page thread dedicated to the subject of whether you can see a brief glimpse of a woman's breasts in a Bond film.
    This is the sort of thing you might discuss with your friends if you were 10 - and probably only in the time before the Internet provided so much, ah, content.

    Whilst I think the thread's come to a natural conclusion now, as it's come down to @Jarrod stubbornly arguing a point in spite of all evidence pointing to the contrary, some of the earlier posts on the nature of false memories and the unreliability of witness testimony were really very interesting.
    I'm not locking this, but I genuinely wonder if this is the sort of thing grown ups should be debating.

    As we're on a forum dedicated to a film series featuring characters called Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Holly Goodhead, and such zingers as "Keeping the British end up," "I think he's attempting re-entry, sir" and "Something big's come up", it's a probably a little incongruous to be overly-embarrassed about the maturity of a discussion about nudity.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691

    As we're on a forum dedicated to a film series featuring characters called Pussy Galore, Xenia Onatopp and Holly Goodhead, and such zingers as "Keeping the British end up," "I think he's attempting re-entry, sir" and "Something big's come up", it's a probably a little incongruous to be overly-embarrassed about a nudity discussion.
    I can find no error in that reasoning.
    :))
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I simply cannot believe that we have an 8 page thread dedicated to the subject of whether you can see a brief glimpse of a woman's breasts in a Bond film.
    This is the sort of thing you might discuss with your friends if you were 10 - and probably only in the time before the Internet provided so much, ah, content.

    I'm not locking this, but I genuinely wonder if this is the sort of thing grown ups should be debating.

    On the contrary this has to go down as one of the all time great threads.

    8 pages - I'm sure Ms Hey would be tickled pink at the furore her mammaries (or lack thereof) have produced 25 years on!
  • MrcogginsMrcoggins Following in the footsteps of Quentin Quigley.
    Posts: 3,144
    Oh come on now 8 pages of weather or not there was a breast on show! have you got nothing better to do I will have the pleasure of meeting miss Hay shortly and you can bet your life that I will not be so crass as to let this topic anywhere near our conversation .
    And while I'm about it might I take the opportunity to remind you chaps that we do have lady members on this site so how about a little respect for the feelings of the fair sex Thanks Coggins.
  • Posts: 14,842
    Jarrod wrote:
    And by the way, the bigfoot analogy is Ludovico's, not mine. I'm merely responding to the allegory suggested.

    And you very much demonstrated my allegory's validity: to the conspirationist, the cryptozoologist, the ufologist, an absence of evidence is considered evidence.
  • Posts: 232
    Honestly I really wanted to take a break from this thread until at least I receive both the U.S. VHS and Laserdisc to compare. I guess I should apologize for defending (for what appears to be merely) a 25 year old memory. Maybe it's become laughable to all of you. If one does look at the original post that I made, I did make it abundantly clear that this has always been based on a memory. Now I myself may be overly convinced that this is how I viewed it, and you may try to disprove me in every which way. But it's a strong enough memory for me, that I intend to research it until I'm satisfied that I've done all I can to solve the answer for myself. Now Sir_James_Moloney is satisfied (as well as a lot of you) on the answers that the editor Grover has given, but I'm not. Stubbornness can be frustrating quality to a lot of people, but I also see it as determination. Misguided or not, I intend to find the answer that satisfies me. There's nothing wrong with me pursuing every avenue to answer satisfactorily a question that I want closure to. It's what any great researcher or scholar would do. Now maybe the scene is a silly one, or exploitative, or maybe it's of little consequence to the majority at large. So be it. If one wants to use the Bigfoot analogy, well maybe it's more applicable then I want to admit. In the case of Bigfoot you have some questionable clues, eyewitness testimony, (some possibly man made) foot print and a dodgy photo from a homemade film. Nevertheless, the debate and examination continues. Why? Because not everyone is satisfied with the answers given. Now the scene that I claim to have seen has been carried around in my head for 25 years, but it's one that has constantly been looking for an answer to. Again, when I first saw the VHS version I was shocked by the cut I saw, and when I saw the Laserdisc I had the same nagging feeling for this scene, and this has continued with every release of every format for which I have owned. Now a 25 year nagging memory cannot be so easily dismissed on my end, with some quick forum response. I need harder proof, just as you do accept my claim. I'm very convinced that my memory is solid on this, but again you don't have to take my word on it, and most of you don't. I've really exhausted the defense of my memory on this, so you can all have a field day keeping up with the jokes. Though my research on this scene continues all the same. Whether you believe my claim or not, to suggest that this is an overly sexist or misogynistic thread is a bit ridiculous, because after all we are discussing a series and a figure who has been labeled a "sexist and misogynist dinosaur." This series, though family friendly, has on time and time again used exploitative bits of titillation in creating the ultimate male fantasy figure. I could seriously run down a list of these scenes, but this would be redundant. I can't watch anyone Bond film without my wife seriously laughing her head off at every credit sequence of naked women twirling around phallic like guns. Now I'm sure I can sit back and watch as everyone tears this post apart and turn me into a laughing stock. Oh well.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited May 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Jarrod wrote:
    Honestly I really wanted to take a break from this thread until at least I receive both the U.S. VHS and Laserdisc to compare. I guess I should apologize for defending (for what appears to be merely) a 25 year old memory. Maybe it's become laughable to all of you. If one does look at the original post that I made, I did make it abundantly clear that this has always been based on a memory. Now I myself may be overly convinced that this is how I viewed it, and you may try to disprove me in every which way. But it's a strong enough memory for me, that I intend to research it until I'm satisfied that I've done all I can to solve the answer for myself. Now Sir_James_Moloney is satisfied (as well as a lot of you) on the answers that the editor Grover has given, but I'm not. Stubbornness can be frustrating quality to a lot of people, but I also see it as determination. Misguided or not, I intend to find the answer that satisfies me. There's nothing wrong with me pursuing every avenue to answer satisfactorily a question that I want closure to. It's what any great researcher or scholar would do. Now maybe the scene is a silly one, or exploitative, or maybe it's of little consequence to the majority at large. So be it. If one wants to use the Bigfoot analogy, well maybe it's more applicable then I want to admit. In the case of Bigfoot you have some questionable clues, eyewitness testimony, (some possibly man made) foot print and a dodgy photo from a homemade film. Nevertheless, the debate and examination continues. Why? Because not everyone is satisfied with the answers given. Now the scene that I claim to have seen has been carried around in my head for 25 years, but it's one that has constantly been looking for an answer to. Again, when I first saw the VHS version I was shocked by the cut I saw, and when I saw the Laserdisc I had the same nagging feeling for this scene, and this has continued with every release of every format for which I have owned. Now a 25 year nagging memory cannot be so easily dismissed on my end, with some quick forum response. I need harder proof, just as you do accept my claim. I'm very convinced that my memory is solid on this, but again you don't have to take my word on it, and most of you don't. I've really exhausted the defense of my memory on this, so you can all have a field day keeping up with the jokes. Though my research on this scene continues all the same. Whether you believe my claim or not, to suggest that this is an overly sexist or misogynistic thread is a bit ridiculous, because after all we are discussing a series and a figure who has been labeled a "sexist and misogynist dinosaur." This series, though family friendly, has on time and time again used exploitative bits of titillation in creating the ultimate male fantasy figure. I could seriously run down a list of these scenes, but this would be redundant. I can't watch anyone Bond film without my wife seriously laughing her head off at every credit sequence of naked women twirling around phallic like guns. Now I'm sure I can sit back and watch as everyone tears this post apart and turn me into a laughing stock. Oh well.

    Very sound post Sir. Particularly about the validity of the thread. The fact its about breasts is fairly irrelevant. Its the arguments about censorship and memory that have been of interest not the boobies. Also thanks for the TLD clippings early on in the thread which are of great historical interest.

    I guess the only way for both you to be satisfied and the rest of us to believe you is if you can unearth the holy grail - either a still or clip of the scene. Good luck with your search.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    Jarrod wrote:
    Now I'm sure I can sit back and watch as everyone tears this post apart and turn me into a laughing stock. Oh well.
    Not at all Jarrod!
    I had this memory of a cartoon movie I saw when I was seven of a monkey that flew, and got imprisoned in a mountain. I could never discover the title or who made it or anything, and it bugged me for decades until one day when I was working at a video store when I was 33, and I SAW IT ON THE SHELF!
    "Alakazam"!
    That was my little holy quest, so I can relate to yours.
    ;)
  • Posts: 4,813
    OK all joking aside, here's MY view on the matter. There's no arguing the fact that the movie comes to a complete stop on this frame :

    Hey+Rubavitch.jpg

    It's just a second, but it does stand out, and it's reasonable to assume that they had indeed filmed 'more' and then either got cold feet before releasing- or as Jarrod suggests, a fuller version is out there somewhere.
    I believe that there is something on the cutting room floor somewhere, but I'm not as sure that it was ever released at the cinemas. I mean, if so- we'd have seen it by now, right?
    chrisisall wrote:
    Jarrod wrote:
    Now I'm sure I can sit back and watch as everyone tears this post apart and turn me into a laughing stock. Oh well.
    Not at all Jarrod!
    I had this memory of a cartoon movie I saw when I was seven of a monkey that flew, and got imprisoned in a mountain. I could never discover the title or who made it or anything, and it bugged me for decades until one day when I was working at a video store when I was 33, and I SAW IT ON THE SHELF!
    "Alakazam"!
    That was my little holy quest, so I can relate to yours.
    ;)
    I had a similar quest which was also recently resolved @chrisisall! A forum just like this helped me figure out what it was! As a toddler I used to watch this TV show when I spent the weekend at my grandmas. All I could remember was that it was in Hawaii, and starred a guy who was a ninja-- but sometimes he was also more of a commando-type action hero. He had long wavy black hair and had a comic relief fat friend, lol

    When one of the forum members finally offered:
    "could it have been 'Raven'?"

    raven-show.jpg

    I was ecstatic! That feeling of a 20+ year old mystery finally getting solved- just indescribable!
    The best part is, the whole show is on youtube! \m/
  • The complete stop is not at the frame you show (you can see her breathing in the actual shot), the complete stop is just a split second stop on the guard's reaction just before. You can see it on Youtube with Bond vs Puhskin clip.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    I simply cannot believe that we have an 8 page thread dedicated to the subject of whether you can see a brief glimpse of a woman's breasts in a Bond film.
    This is the sort of thing you might discuss with your friends if you were 10 - and probably only in the time before the Internet provided so much, ah, content.

    I'm not locking this, but I genuinely wonder if this is the sort of thing grown ups should be debating.
    Well, when you've seen these movies about a 100 times each, it seems there really is nothing too trivial to discuss. ;) but point taken.
    @Jarrod. I just re-read your original post. So you have a memory, but one that no-one else seems to have. I saw TLD in original release, sometime in its opening week, and have no such memory, but you have me intrigued at least regarding the presentation of the scene in various formats.
    I do have a first-release vhs copy of the film, plus Special Edtion dvd (no ultimte edition dvd) and blu-ray. I am going to compare the three versions, but I suspect they might all be identical.
    For your memory to be true and not false, it would require that a few rogue prints of the full-frontal, briefly found their way into some theatres, HOWEVER, no-one else that also saw the film in first release, has the same memory.
    Isn't that rather odd. There is absolutely nothing else supporting your memory. No-one else can share the experience.

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    timmer wrote:
    For your memory to be true and not false, it would require that a few rogue prints of the full-frontal, briefly found their way into some theatres, HOWEVER, no-one else that also saw the film in first release, has the same memory.
    Isn't that rather odd. There is absolutely nothing else supporting your memory. No-one else can share the experience.


    Not to mention the cover up by EON he now alleges which includes John Grover being told to lie to us!!

    But youre wasting your breath. Even if he tracks down every print in existence it wont be enough.
  • Posts: 232
    @TheWizardOfIce
    I'm sorta confused, I kinda got the view that you maybe understood my point a little, but maybe not. Ok, the reason I have faith in my memory is because I feel I'm very acute on edits. For example, my family got a VCR probably around 1983, and from this point on I was recording Bond films off of TV, or buying the tapes. "Diamonds Are Forever" was the 1st I recorded from TV, and I sat there with a pause button with a cord that attached to the VCR (yeah, this is before remote controls) and I would nearly seamlessly edit out the all commercials. Through this process I could seriously tell you every single edit that the TV station made to that film:

    1. In the teaser, they edited the woman getting strangled slightly.
    2. In the teaser, when Connery throws the knives at the henchmen they cut out 1 throw, to lessen the violence.
    3. After Wint & Kidd blow up the helicopter, the TV station cuts before they hold hands.
    Etc... etc.... etc...

    They'd pretty much erased any idea that Wint and Kidd were homosexual, and tamed down the violence considerably. They also edited Connery muttering "bitch." In any case, this is from a memory from exactly 30 years ago, and I was only 11. I think I have pretty good memory skills.

    Ok so everyone wants some proof with my claim. Well today I received the Laserdisc of The Living Daylights. And I think I found another clue that has me still convinced that we are seeing a truncated version of that scene. If you watch the scene, you will think you're actually seeing a more fluid version, compared to the DVD and Bluray stall. Instead what I noticed by comparing the DVD cut that is offered already on youtube under Bond Vs Pushkin, is that the henchman opens his mouth just slightly more than the version from Laserdisc. Also, you will notice that when it cuts to Virginia Hey's close-up, large film grain appears. If one knows about Laserdiscs, is that they usually do not have large film grain appearing, because it was the first high quality that was offered on the video market. But when one zooms in a scene, it automatically enlarges the film grain. In 1992, when the laserdisc was made, the couldn't just simply clean up a shot digitally as they can now. So the film grain was left, because I seriously believe the shot was zoomed.



    It will be much more visible if you enlarge the picture, as I could see it best on a TV, but here is a slower version of the grain:




    Now I know this isn't the "holy grail" of my defense, but it's a bit of detective work on my part that has me still convinced.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Question: If this scene was ever part of the finished cut why has it not been restored along with Krests full head explosion, Xenias headbutt, Bond kicking the guards head in TND etc?

    The bluray box set is a 15 and now has all those trimmed scenes restored so why not this one if it existed in some prints?

    At best it maybe exists as a cut scene.
  • Posts: 232
    Well, I think it's obvious that violence is far more accepted in edits, than nudity. But to quote Robert Palmer, "I'm just looking for clues."
  • Posts: 232
    At 0.16 of the full scene, it looks like 2 pen marks marking a cut?
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Still the question remains, nobody else on the face of the earth has the same memory of seeing a Virginia Hey, fully exposed double-bazooka shot, in cinema. Only you. I know that I have no such memory, and there was no such discussion anywhere in 1987 among others I knew at the time, who also saw the film in theatre. People would remember such a thing, as Bond films were known for not having nudity, even in the '80s when virtually every adultish film had the obligatory token female nude or semi-nude shot.
    Your whole recollection hinges on a "nude" print actually finding its ways into theatres, but no-one else in the world has any recollection of such a thing happening.
    What you need to support your theory is other eyewitness testimony.
    Your arguments in support of your memory are red herrings. Of course you remember painstakingly doing VCR edits. You were engrossed in the process.
    That's much different than thinking you saw something in a flickering moment on the big screen. The 15 year-old mind in particular would be very susceptible to such suggestive imagery. ie that you were also seeing what the henchman was seeing.

    It does seem that you think you saw something that actually wasn't there.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited May 2013 Posts: 17,691
    timmer wrote:
    The 15 year-old mind in particular would be very susceptible to such suggestive imagery. ie that you were also seeing what the henchman was seeing.
    Heh, it worked in MY case.
    I'll admit to hormones though.
  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    chrisisall wrote:
    timmer wrote:
    The 15 year-old mind in particular would be very susceptible to such suggestive imagery. ie that you were also seeing what the henchman was seeing.
    Heh, it worked in MY case.
    I'll admit to hormones though.
    Did you see a fully exposed bazooka shot too!? Maybe he's on to something. It was a subliminal trick that teenage boys were particularly susceptible to. :x @-)



  • Posts: 232
    @timmer That' not true. Five or more people have come on this thread to say they have seen the scene.

    In case you care here is the VHS version of the scene. This one here is missing the black speckles on Virginia Hey, but they seem to appear on the henchman this time. I don't think it's crazy to assume that these both have different/ strange edits.



    Here is a slow motion comparison of the two slightly different cuts:



  • edited May 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Jarrod wrote:
    @timmer That' not true. Five or more people have come on this thread to say they have seen the scene.
    If 5 or more people on this thread actually do remember seeing full breast exposure in cinema, then you're memory is likely real. However if they also all say that on further review they do not trust that memory,than you probably shouldn't trust yours either.
    How many of the five actually swear to having seen the shot, no hesitation. I guess I could review the thread, but you seem to be on top of it.
    Again, I saw the film in its first week of release and know for certain, that there was no full exposure shot. I definitely would have taken notice. So I would think likewise, that anyone that actually saw such a shot, as you describe, would also have no doubts about what they saw.

    Those videos don't help btw. My untrained eye continues to see what I have always seen in that scene, but thanks anyway. ie henchman opens door and we the viewer get a shot of Hey, from upper-chest up and no more.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,691
    timmer wrote:
    Did you see a fully exposed bazooka shot too!?
    No, but all this brewhaha made me question if I remembered it. The sustained sideboobage was pretty new for me in a Bond movie at that time, I'll tell ya.
This discussion has been closed.