It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Yes, that's a scene where I too can't see Connery playing that scene as vulnerable and fearful as Moore plays it. Connery's Bond was too untouchable and super-assured for it to be very easy to imagine. He can karate-chop his way out of a crashing plane without messing up his tie.
Your point about RM007's revulsion at Orlov's plan is a good one too; and I'd say there's a real sense that he properly hates Zorin in the next film too; there's probably even shades of that in the way he treats Scaramanga too. SC007 is more likely to find a baddie slightly amusing, someone to spar with. I can't think of that sense of hatred apart from early on with FRWL. He's supposed to be obsessed with finding Blofeld, but it doesn't feel like anything other than a professional gripe because nothing really ever phases him- he's too indestructible for that. Lazenby actually played Bond as hating Blofeld more.
Likewise there's a surprising warmth between him and Octopussy herself on a level that I'm not sure the SC Bond showed with a partner. There's certainly no sense that him and Domino are great loves. Would he have walked hand in hand with Lisl on that beach on the morning after? Even with Stacey (who I don't think any of us would count as one of Bond's prospective life partners!) he's cooking her dinner, tucking her in; being protective and caring.
OP and the clown climax are my go-to party topics for my Bond fandom to casual people often, because of the complexity of Moore's portrayal, the cultural significance, the meta of the franchise laughing at itself at its most climatic moment!, the politics, the art! To me it captures the spirit of the Bond phenomenon as good as any other standout scene.
That's a great way to put it :-bd
Yes, as you said it's there as well even earlier than TSWLM with Bond and Scaramanga's conversation.
I think it points to a relatively organic progression of the writing, as well as the filmmakers playing to Moore's strengths. But definitely, there are certain things I can't imagine Connery's Bond doing that we see from Moore's Bond. Like I said before though, it doesn't make either less great.
I'm certainly not saying Connery was bad: he's clearly absolutely superb! But it's just interesting to note the changes to the character over the years to suit the audience's changing expectations. I'd have loved to have seen Connery play the more modern version of Bond in NSNA as I think it could have been fascinating to see him give it a little more depth, but it was more designed as a return to the 60s superspy Bond with one-liners and smooth effortless escapes.
Wait, Connery looked like a "real person", and Moore "was a superhero"?
Where was Moore's cape? Hiding under the clown suit (that he was sweating through while he was trying to diffuse a bomb)?
Or, in the end, what is your definition of a superhero, @DEKE_RIVERS ?
Over the top stunts.
Connery's Bond is more like Indiana Jones. Fights, punches, etc. He did not fly without gadgets.
You keep repeating that Moore was a superhero, but I'm not seeing it. He's Bond, isn't he? Serious when it matters, a bit lighter in other moments.
'Grounded,' you say. When thugs are essentially defeated with urine, when sharks attack high-pitch sounds, when pens fire missiles, when lasers from watches cut through steel chains, when horses jump off cliffs, when a villain keeps the location of his precious bombs engraved on a jewel worn by a romantically suspicious mistress, ... ? I'm not complaining -- such is the cocktail of many a Bond film. I just don't see what makes NSNA more grounded than OP.
Sean didnt fly in NSNA (but had a jet pack in TB), but had a super bike, right??
And isn’t OTT stunts kinda the deal with Bond @DEKE_RIVERS ?
Again, what’s your definition of superhero?
Octopussy was a lot dafter than Never Say Never Again. It had more silly moments that were played just for laughs. Even Raymond Benson mentioned this in his Bedside Companion.
I mean, imagine Connery swinging through the jungle doing a Tarzan yell in NSNA. It wasn't that type of film. It was fantastical, but it wasn't slapstick.
How have you determined a change in audience expectations?
Tossing pee into an opponent’s face isn’t slapstick?
🤷♂️… ok….
NSNA is more grounded.
Nobody cares about this anymore because we love over the top stunts.
Connery did not need to act soft because he had the whole script for himself. It's not all about the stunts.
There’s absolutely no argument that could be made for NSNA being a more grounded film than any of Roger’s movies. Any argument that you could potentially make goes out the window the minute the “urine” moment is mentioned.
But by all means OP/Moore are way more campier…
You’re putting words in my mouth.
I never called Connery soft.
I didn’t say it was all about the stunts.
You keep saying that NSNA is more grounded than OP, but offer no examples or comparisons.
You called Moore a superhero, and I did ask what you meant by “superhero “, yet you didn’t answer.
You said Connery didn’t fly with gadgets, and I said, but he had a tricked out bike.
So @DEKE_RIVERS , you keep repeating the same thing, you’re not answering questions or avoiding comparisons, and now you’re putting words in my mouth…
How is NSNA more grounded than OP?
And what is your definition of superhero?
THE OVER THE TOP STUNTS.
And what stunts in OP are deemed too over the top, @DEKE_RIVERS ?
Nobody cares about this, I know. We love the stunts.
Slightly odd question. I would say that blockbusters and action films have changed over the years to give slightly deeper characterisation- Bond being a pretty straightforward control experiment on that front as it's the same series running for a very long time. That audiences have stayed watching these films and responded well to them, I'd say that's a pretty good sign of changing expectations. Do you disagree?
NSNA also has remote-controlled sharks. Plus man-sized hovering jet rocket things and a mad woman wanting James Bond to sign a document saying she was his greatest ever lay. And, y'know, Rowan Atkinson not exactly giving his most subtle performance.
I really wouldn't bother, Peter.
Agreed, 😂… oh well….
We could spend all day saying "but this happened in such-and-such", but I'd be very surprised if the average person considered Octopussy as the more 'grounded' of the two.
I don't know really; it wears the clothes of a gritty spy thriller in quite a few places with all the Russian, nuclear, train, twins in the woods, smuggling stuff; Orlov dying on the tracks and all that. I think although it's much bigger and has more stuff packed into it, a punter coming out of the cinema might be left with the impression OP is a touch more serious than NSNA is- it's all to do with tone, and OP has more in the way of darker moments for my money. And I'd never underestimate the power of John Barry to make something silly feel deadly serious. But then of course OP does have Q in his hot air balloon near the end too! :)
The last time I went though the Bond films I included NSNA in the watchlist, having it back to back with OP. I hadn’t given it a watch for maybe a decade, so I thought maybe revisiting it with fresher eyes might make for a more entertaining viewing.
Nope. The reason NSNA doesn’t pass the sniff test is because it’s just flat out dull all across. The only thing that kind of elevates above the material is Klaus Maria Brandauer‘s performance. He’s actually pretty menacing. And Bernie Casey is actually a charismatic Leiter, which is always a bonus.
Is OCTOPUSSY more over the top, and less grounded than NSNA? Yes, but that’s not to the detriment of the film. In fact, the reason I’ll take OP over NSNA is because it’s just flat out more entertaining, and it’s no surprise that’s why that ended up topping Connery’s film at the box office.
Again, Craig's Bond seems to me to be the most innately dangerous after Connery's, but in Dan's case that does seem to be down to the brilliance of his acting - Rachel Weisz famously saying that Dan wasn't a tough guy at all, he was just really good at playing one. Bottom line: had any other Bond actor but Connery been the first screen Bond, we might well not be on here today.
Re-reading the posts to try and make sense of some of this, I think deke was calling Roger soft. I think, but I’m still not sure.
Connery certainly wasn’t soft, but his toupee and makeup were terrible. Otherwise, he moved really nicely and his usual charisma was beaming as bright as it ever did.
But I’m of the mind that OP was not only the better film (story and execution of story to film), it was more grounded compared to NSNA. As mtm pointed out: it’s the Cold War stuff that plays louder to me than a one second Tarzan yell; it was the brutal assassination of 009, the US airbase and the ticking time bomb (literally), the death of Orlov… All of this was wrapped up with some very nice suspense and tension— two things that NSNA doesn’t have in abundance, but OP does, and I think it’s what further grounds the EoN picture…..
That's right.
I re-watched OP only last week, and I found it very watchable, and yes, it's probably more entertaining than NSNA.
In my ideal world, I'd trim five or six things from OP just to make it less juvenile.
Of course, Connery is the only Bond to break the 'fourth wall' in NSNA, (unless you count Laz's "other fellow" comment).
This.
As a kid, I found the video game scene awesome! But oh boy, that hasn't aged well. In fact, a problem I have with NSNA that I haven't with any other Bond film is that it has visibly aged so poorly. The sound, music, effects, photography, and so on, all have sunken to depths a Bond film normally doesn't reach, no matter how old. GF and TB feel like more modern Bond films to me than NSNA. And ageless too.
That's the problem. Kirsch, Slocombe, Semple Jr., Legrand and most of the cast have done great things in many other projects. How this film could ever end up looking and sounding like a made-for-TV adventure like Reb Brown's Captain America is incomprehensible. It's as if a really good Bond film was made and then got destroyed, leaving the whole team a mere three weeks to come up with something for a cost of 200k dollars. I have never understood this. This was supposed to be McClory's big revenge film. I mean... I don't think Cubby was shivering.