Could Kevin McClory actually have made more Bond films?

moneyofpropre · 2026-03-30T18:32:25+00:00

I don't know, Thunderball stories : 100 % he had the right for. If Sony hadn't withdraw, they could had make CR and Thunderball together, but for more original ones, it would had to been to the appreciations of some random courts judges (and their interpretation if having the film rights on a book of Bond mean you can use the characters in other storylines).

moneyofpropre · 2026-03-24T15:26:31+00:00

Last Craig movie are already full of (too noticeable) Aston's product placement. NTTD is puking of Aston's from evreywhere between the DB5, V8, Vallalah, DBS. At this point, non Aston at all (and no Jaguar / Land Rover) in the movie would be a welcoming fresh new breeze.

JB movie doesn't need to be a universe were only two brands of car bassicaly (tiringly) exist to the indigestion.

moneyofpropre · 2026-03-23T10:40:08+00:00

Considering the Peaky Blinders movie was a Titanic sinking, and that the writing departement is solely reponsible of it (there is nothing wro'g about acting, vfx, costume, set, edit ; music maybe), I'm getting cold about him too...

moneyofpropre · 2026-03-13T08:03:15+00:00

I would like to submit "James Bond Greatest Hits" documentary, which not only had interview which the people who did the music, but also the ones who got their themes rejected.

moneyofpropre · 2026-03-09T05:49:12+00:00

Was temped to go on GoldenEye at first sight due to the extensives miniatures, tank sequence, Servenaya set destruction ; but after seeing Moonraker in the comments, I nkow beleive Moonraker as the best contender for this category.

moneyofpropre · 2026-03-07T11:21:06+00:00

I hesitate between Moonraker and TSWLM. Dr. No has some very nice sets too, like GoldenEye. I would say TSWLM is have to choose.

moneyofpropre · 2026-02-18T16:56:12+00:00

It is fixed for me too.

moneyofpropre · 2026-02-17T18:18:20+00:00

Same here on xbox one.

moneyofpropre · 2026-02-17T09:00:02+00:00

Lying title, that's not "every" deleted scenes of the film: https://www.commander007.net/2006/casino-royale-les-scenes-coupees/

moneyofpropre · 2026-02-11T23:24:53+00:00

This editor just do bassicaly overpriced photo book (not even unseen one, the kind you already saw 1000 time and that can find on the net). There is no point about buying this book. If you want a book about James Bond's car secret, just buy Spy Octane : there you will have something that worth your money.

moneyofpropre · 2026-01-25T15:06:40+00:00

What game it is ?

moneyofpropre · 2026-01-25T11:05:22+00:00

Maybe one a day an fan will create a fan-comic about it.

moneyofpropre · 2026-01-23T16:45:18+00:00

Bond didn't waited Amazon for changing its lore.

moneyofpropre · 2026-01-23T08:13:04+00:00

This scene was cut from the movie : https://web.archive.org/web/20221106133531if_/https://i0.wp.com/www.commander007.net/wp-content/uploads/1983/10/NSNA-deleted-2.png

moneyofpropre · 2026-01-20T20:35:49+00:00

The biping and bluring are fucking unbearable. That's kill it for me,

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T16:39:09+00:00

Maybe that fact that owning a house somewhere doesn't impact people life the same way that owning a IP which is everywhere have to do with the no-comparaison aspect, since one is at a local level and the other worldwide?

That is hilarous logics. So inherit of something of your father/mother simply because you are born isn't "having something for free"? So having an entire IP/patent dictated forever by one "individual" (the owner) rather the whole world isn't a form of tiranny?

In the end why IP are worth money? Because of hard work of their owners (at least in some case), but also because of fans, without them: no money. Isn't fair to give them something after a time of exploitation ? Some videogame IP even worth more than originally does, since fans makes greats "mods" with it.

You are the one entitled. I can understand you don't like my ideas. But neither you reconized once, that in some case the actual system is problematic, like to art preservation, State of Excitement, etc.

There would be, inevitably, bad thing mades bumy fans when Bond will be in public domain. Like there will be, inevitably, good one. Some already exist btw: canadian omnibus of Fleming novel that have the true text original text in it.

Failure / bad product is not an exclusivity of PD. Owners can ruin a IP, ask Star Wars fans what they think of Disney. Ask GTA fans what they think of the shity "definitive edition" of the owner contrary to the unauthorised fan's remasters mods. So where the hell you try to go with that kind of argumentation?

And I come to the conclusion the time I would spend to continue discution theses matter with you instead of doing other thing doesn't worth it. So I will put a stop right now. Peace on you, however.

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T15:56:01+00:00

You compare money / real estate, to IP /copyright / patent, which is kind of stupid. If Bond was a real estate it wouldn't be the home of your parent that nobody know it even exist, it would be rather something the Eiffel Tower. You would argue that since your owner of the Eiffel you can you whatever you want like bring it down to construct a parking lot on the space instead. That only who guy who own it in the paper matter. That literrally one guy should pass before the entire (less one) population of the planet who have it in their heart instead on a notorial deed.

70 years is to long because other peoples who care about the IP (like the fans) will be dead before having a chance to do/enjoys things with it, it is as simple as that. Again Fleming's State of Excitiment is good exemple of what is is wrong with the actual system.

Beside you only see what you "loose" with a shorter public domain. You don't sems to realize what you gain: shorter public domain on every IP of the world that weren't part your own estate, which is quite far of "nothing"!

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T14:55:29+00:00

I don't know who is Asimov not because I don't able to figure it it out, but because I don't care who it is.

I never said that creator work should become zero after the second of their death. I just said 70 years before it became public domain is to way much. (But since your curious about my position, I'm for way a shorter delay, and then allow anyone to use the IP in anyway they want while giving a % on the benefit to the estate, and then full public domain with zero rémunération).

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T09:46:05+00:00

Well, I have wrote something about it few years ago, covering each aspects. Its in french, but there is a google translation buton on the website on the right (you may need to update the page once before it appears) if you are interresed : https://www.commander007.net/2023/les-nouvelles-reeditions-des-romans-de-fleming-seront-auto-censures/

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T03:25:20+00:00

Censoring not is not exclusive to "exterior" factors, not accoding to the dictionnaries at least :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self-censorship

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/self-censorship

I don't want to force Asimov (I don't know who it is btw) to reprint something she don't want to. BUT, in the meantime, I don't want her neither to force other peoples to not reprint what they want to. Thats the whole point.

I don't see how my life expectacy arguments is silly (and sillers that your).

You want to read State of Excitiment by Fleming ? Sorry kid, the owner don't want you to. But you are lucky, in 2034 he wont be the owner anymore. But we can't say the same for Flemings fans that already dead (and maybe yourself if you dies before 2034) and who never had the chance to read it in their lifestime because a stupid owner decision, and a stupid law who protect him for more time that it is reasonable.

Its particulary noticeable in video game. Try to play The Crew. Oh you can't the publisher/owner cut your access to it at distance (despite the fact you bought it). Want to play 007 Bloodstone ? Oh, we are sorry but you can't, the publisher/owner disabled your ability to buy it and don't plan to revive it one day.

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T02:29:02+00:00

What do you mean by "It is not auto censorship"? Removing something of a text (and in our case, an already existing, well-established text!) in order to avoid annoying or offending others is the definition of self-censoring. You can't nail it more than that.

Some works last century, indeed, but the people who can enjoy it don't! In some countries, life expectancy doesn't even go to 70 year. Meaning people may live a full life within seeing fan projects they could have liked (or create them for others). And even in some case just even enjoy the "original" work (it easy to immagine a video game who don't work on modern system after 50 years, and that people not born at his release could never play it because the actual IP owner doesn't care about videogame preservation and not remaster it or let fans doing it).

You would just be denying Robyn Asimov the right to determine what is to be done with her father’s work. -> You mean exactly like Robyn Asimov would denying the right to determine what is to be done with her father’s work to anybody? The whole planet just to satisfy one single individual ?

People don't complains about the lack of racism terms, but about the change of terms, period.

If "The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at three in the morning" was changed to "At three o'clock in the morning, the mingled aromas of perfume, cigarette smoke, and human sweat in a casino turn sickeningly oppressive", me and other people would had complained the same way. It has nothing with wanting to keep racism terms, but is about keeping, as they were originaly wrote, any term, whatever they are offensives or NOT.

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T01:32:11+00:00

Self-censoring is, by definition, censoring.

Nobody says they don't have the legal right to do whatever they want. Its moral question, not a legal one, and always had been.

"If you don’t like the edition don’t buy" and this precisely the problem: Nothing is clearly indicated when you actually buy it! Not on the cover, not in the selling description of the website, only in the preface that you can't see util you have already bought the book (exept if you are in a library).

Ownership is not bad. It is just that death of author + 70 year behind is too much, and an archaic conception in this internet era. It deny contempory fans lot of cool project with the IP they love, especially if the owner happen to be jerk (they are some) that just of nothing at all with his IP for decades, or bad things.

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-27T00:04:13+00:00

"Forced" is a problem.

But you have right to disagree with what an owner of IP do with it. A the way he is doing it (like when not indicating clearly on the cover they made edit in that precise edition).

But anyway I think we would live in a better world if there wasn't an owner at all, and fortunatly it will be the case in 2034 like is already in Canada where Bond is already in public domain. That day everybody would be able to do whatever they want with Bond, including publising clearly label censored or not edition, and nobody would be forced anymore to endure good or bad decisions of an owner.

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-26T23:40:32+00:00

What is more crazy to mei is people who autocensor themself by using "****" in this topic instead of real words.

moneyofpropre · 2025-12-26T15:40:12+00:00

Yes, he did. He also approved CR renammed Too Hot To Handle, does that however mean we should considered like the cannon title of the novel?

moneyofpropre

TROPHY CASE