levy@princeton.UUCP (06/14/83)
I have a beautiful young lady here at my side who strongly disagrees with the soapbox's reviews. In her own words: "I think this Bond movie was most degrading to women. The characters these women portray have less than the usual rhyme or reason. There was some suggestion that Octopussy had a semblance of intelligence. On the whole I enjoy James Bond when he confines himself to one woman. I think it is rather refreshing to have him interact on more than just a superficial level. I once saw a James Bond movie where James actually got married. Unfortunately his bride died on the drive away from the reception, just after the wedding. She was assassinated by bullets meant for James. It was one of the best Bond movies simply because there was depth to their relationship."
spaf@gatech.UUCP (06/14/83)
I wasn't claiming that Octopussy was a great movie on any global
scale. I just said that if you like James Bond movies, this was
very probably the best of the lot.
As to exploiting women -- maybe. The movie showed a whole
island full of women who could manage quite well in virtually
any situation, including smuggling. Maybe they were exploiting
007?
It's fantasy and not intended to be any reflection of reality.
I mean, there were no women in the movie who *weren't*
beautiful. We assumed that there is a company out there somewhere
that manuactures them for James Bond flicks, because we haven't
ever seen any like that around here!
I'm all for caring, responsible relationships, but those just
aren't part of a Bond movie (other than his long-standing
relationships with Q and Moneypenny).
There's a little wishful thinking of being Bond in all of us.
I'd love to have an amphibious Lotus, although I could never
afford the insurance and I don't know where I'd use it. It
would be great fun to travel around the world and always
be in control of the situation, rather than caught in a cab
with a driver who speaks no English and who decides to take the
scenic route and run up the fare while you die of dysentary
in the back. I'd love to be able to find a beautiful, exciting
woman and sweep her off her feet...but I wouldn't toss her
away afterwards, that's for sure! That's the stuff of which
escapism is made. If I wanted romance, I'd read a Harlequin
paperback. If I wanted to deal with people in a more-or-less
responsible manner (women *and* men) then I'd simply go
about my everyday routine. But if I want to enjoy
some mindless excitement and escapism, I'll go see a
James Bond flick. Or a Star Wars movie.
Not afraid to say I'll argue anything,
--
"The soapbox of Gene Spafford"
Spaf @ GATech (CS Net)
Spaf.GATech @ UDel-Relay (ARPA) School of ICS
...!{sb1, allegra}!gatech!spaf (uucp) Georgia Tech
...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!spaf Atlanta, GA 30332sch@ikonas.UUCP (06/16/83)
The plane in question in Octopussy is indeed a BD-5J,
developed by Jim Bede and company. Believe it or not, but
the scene in the movie where Bond runs out of fuel, lands
on the highway, and cruises up to the gas pump really has
happened! This fact was mentioned in the issue of Flying
magazine that reviewed the BD-5J (a long time ago).
The BD-5J is a souped up version (read jet) of a pusher
prop kit that Bede used to sell. The original prop version
had the interesting feature that the engine was started via
a pull cord, like on a lawnmower. The pull cord was on the
OUTSIDE of the plane, out of reach from the cockpit. Just
pray the engine doesn't stall.
Steve Holzworth
Adage, Inc.(formerly Ikonas)
mcnc!ikonas!sch
P.S.
I haven't seen the movie yet; I saw the jet scene
on a preview.citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (06/16/83)
Just saw "Octopussy" today. In general, it was an enjoyable film, with more intelligent humor than has been seen in some recent Bond films. This humor is probably traceable to the primary screenwriter, George MacDonald Fraser, author of the hilarious "Flashman" novels and screenwriter for "Royal Flash" and "The Three/Four Musketeers". The plot was slightly muddled, although it is easily sorted out, and the suspense is maintained until the end. One highlight of the film: a Russian general played in a manner reminiscent of George C. Scott's Gen. Buck Turgidson in "Dr. Strangelove." One observation is that the Cold War suits Bond well. During Detente, the Russians were not suitable villains; instead, new super-villains had to be created and new ways of threatening the world devised. As a result, we got poor Bond films which hit bottom with "Moonraker." Now that the Cold War has returned, the Russians have also returned, and we have had better Bond films: "For Your Eyes Only" (the best Bond film in a long time) and "Octopussy," not as good as its predecessor, but still better than the detente films. Although I enjoyed the film, I was disturbed afterwards by the realization that the Bond films have become parodies of themselves. It is true that Bond films are predictable, but it is amazing how rigid the Bond formula has become since "The Man with the Golden Gun." In the current film, the self- parody is even more obvious; in one scene, a street musician (actually, a snake charmer) plays the Bond theme on his instrument as Bond passes by. Bond remarks that it is a "catchy tune." This self parody is a discouraging developement since in "For Your Eyes Only," there seemed to be a move away from gadgets toward simpler, less ambitious films and a more three-dimensional Bond reminiscent of "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" and "From Russia with Love." This new film is a retreat to gadgets and shallow characterizations. In all, Bond fans should enjoy the film. It delivers what it promises, and the viewer gets what he expects. Wayne Citrin (ucbvax!citrin) P.S. Until recently, Octopussy was to be the last Bond film, since the producers had run out of titles, and the agreement with the Fleming estate prohibited the creation of new ones. The plan was to make an extremely expensive film and kill Bond off at the end. However, the Fleming estate has agreed to the creation of new titles, and Bond should be with us for many more years. Sometimes, though, I wonder if he would be better off retired.
levy@princeton.UUCP (06/18/83)
I don't agree that the self-parody element (certainly present in Octopussy)
is a bad development. In fact, I think I enjoy Bond movies much more now,
when there is no pretence of seriousness and *all* the sequences are
outrageously unbelievable, than before. A bit of self-parody (indeed most
self-reference) adds spice and interest.
All in all I liked the movie quite a bit.
-- Silvio Levyrh@mit-eddi.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (06/24/83)
I just saw it too, and there are a lot of 'nice touches,' by either the director or the editor. In one scene, Bond almost runs into a tiger. Later, he's lying on the floor, and he looks to his side and raises an eyebrow at the tiger rug next to him. Little things like that that make you giggle. I'll agree with Gene that this is the best of the Bond flicks as far as judged on the basis of the art of film making. It was also entertaining, and I've never seen Maud Adams look as stunningly beautiful as she did for this picture. --Randy
gps@ihu1e.UUCP (06/29/83)
I just saw Octopussy last night and I thought it was the best Bond movie yet. Also some comments were made earlier on the net about the 007 tune being played by the snake charmer. Did anyone catch the humor when Bond addressed this fellow? "Charming tune." Greg Stephens Bell Labs IW