tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post5272877546520955532..comments2012-01-28T04:49:38.823-08:00zencathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14014913614591869289noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-31558724009065227852012-01-28T04:49:38.823-08:002012-01-28T04:49:38.823-08:00My understanding has always been that Pan Books had a heap of the green YOLT books in stock (featuring the scorpion and pearl) when the film came out so they added the film tie-in dust jacket to help sell this older stock. I'm not sure if this is 100% correct but it sounds plausibleBazeer Flumorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09426580971005265911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-67830882039476582692012-01-22T13:00:09.555-08:002012-01-22T13:00:09.555-08:00Actually, I have one with the jacket and one without. I was wrong, the pic above is the regular one. My dust-jacketed version is wrapped around a YOLT Pan first edition. I don't know what the story is with these. Maybe Bazeer can tell us both?John Coxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04391313393222271260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-7979710331324216662012-01-19T20:32:09.861-08:002012-01-19T20:32:09.861-08:00YOLT paperback dust jacket? What's that? Mine doesn't have one! Uh-oh, John... Now I'm starting to hope you get a chance to edit this post sometime and add your usual wisdom... you know, IF you have the chance...Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03910873055922510145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-58220971362755498332012-01-14T17:58:58.242-08:002012-01-14T17:58:58.242-08:00Yep, that pic is a dust-jacketed version.John Coxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04391313393222271260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-88214124095138412952012-01-14T14:34:17.346-08:002012-01-14T14:34:17.346-08:00And the YOLT paperback dust-jacket!Bazeer Flumorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09426580971005265911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-30496764963349100662012-01-12T13:58:47.085-08:002012-01-12T13:58:47.085-08:00Oh, yeah, the Domino letter! Like I said, I just didn't have time to really write up as much as I did on the U.S. editions. But, of course, the Domino letter is terrific part of the UK tie-in story. Maybe it slipped my mind because I don't have one. :(John Coxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04391313393222271260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-84043213666213141322012-01-12T13:52:02.308-08:002012-01-12T13:52:02.308-08:00Wonderful post John. As I have stated before the Dr No tie-in was the first Bond book I read at the tender age of nine. A friends father gave it to me knowing I was mad on Bond. I remember trawling the second hand book shops trying to find all the film tie-ins. OHMSS was the latest then so that really dates me. I read it just after seeing the film. Thought both film and book wonderful. You didn't mention the famous Domino letter tucked into the Thunderball tie-in. I found one quite by chance at a London film jumble. The seller sold me the book for 50p most probably not knowing the letter was tucked inside. I moved away fairly sharpish from book sellers table. Once again thank you for stirring up such great memories.MarkAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-50684542763158161182012-01-12T09:43:58.263-08:002012-01-12T09:43:58.263-08:00I was just about to write that.YarnGuyhttp://www.yarnaudioworks.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-76616842454975326722012-01-11T07:32:13.236-08:002012-01-11T07:32:13.236-08:00Really? I'll be darned, I didn't know about that one! Thanks, Bazeer Flumore. Yes, I'd love a scan.John Coxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04391313393222271260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-21766032419995432962012-01-11T06:14:02.558-08:002012-01-11T06:14:02.558-08:00Great post again John. For the sake of completeness though there are actually two Goldeneye UK tie-ins. Both feature the same photo of Brosnan on the cover. The one shown in your post reads "Based on a screenplay by Michael France and Jeffrey Caine" at it's base, while the second reads "Based on a screenplay by Jeffrey Caine & Bruce Feirstein. Story by Michael France". Can send a scan of the cover if requiredBazeer Flumorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09426580971005265911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-61073524565176143212012-01-10T23:44:38.099-08:002012-01-10T23:44:38.099-08:00Yeah, that Octopussy's pretty hideous. But so is the FYEO. That Bond looks kind of like Roger Moore mashed together with Gene Barry. But I actually sort of secretly love its wretchedness, and I can't say the same for the bland Octopussy cover or its revolver-toting Bond.Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03910873055922510145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-72150739807886489832012-01-10T19:55:16.733-08:002012-01-10T19:55:16.733-08:00I covered those with the U.S. tie-in's. Where they also published in the UK?John Coxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04391313393222271260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-64626455730017977502012-01-10T19:36:15.818-08:002012-01-10T19:36:15.818-08:00Aren't the Find Your Fate books kind of a tie-in to AVTAK?Delmohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10156851971491531444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-45460924406003106962012-01-10T05:49:53.560-08:002012-01-10T05:49:53.560-08:00I always thought the 'Octopussy' 'almost a film tie-in cover' was a terrible illustration cheaply and stupidly referenced by a third-rate artist! The composition is appalling and an effeminate James Bond as the centrepiece is the ultimate insult! And what the hell is Richard Burton firing a machinegun from 'Where Eagles Dare' doing on there!?! Appalling! Appalling! Appalling!007 MAGAZINEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07537707106492686986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-84078306434783110352012-01-09T23:24:11.310-08:002012-01-09T23:24:11.310-08:00Another great post, John. Hm, I always just considered that Octopussy a movie tie-in because it matched the FYEO, and never really considered that it doesn't even mention the movie. Interesting observation. If you are going to count it without the mention, I think an argument could be made for counting EVERY edition of Quantum of Solace - or at least all the ones that came out at the time of the film. After all, like James Bond and Moonraker, James Bond, The Spy Who Loved Me, GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies et al, this book simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the movie...Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03910873055922510145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-39526268390554276752012-01-09T21:01:34.921-08:002012-01-09T21:01:34.921-08:00Have the Triad Granada FOR YOUR EYES ONLY shown, but never knew about the matching OCTOPUSSY. Nice post.Luke Freemannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-59634893200219254262012-01-09T12:53:15.658-08:002012-01-09T12:53:15.658-08:00Good stuff, John.Edhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10936818849749255253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2233203994322586500.post-43914917315029529742012-01-09T11:31:01.518-08:002012-01-09T11:31:01.518-08:00I think it would have been hilarious to see someone read the 60's Casino Royale novel and say, "But where's Mata and the flying saucer?...HEY, what's the deal with that carpet beater?" ;)Comicbookrehabhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09363501054869978524noreply@blogger.com