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
Moving on, lets do this one next, somewhat of a fantasy question since neither actor's Bond has been digitalized in a modern game:
Would you rather play a video game based on Live and Let Die starring Roger Moore's James Bond or a video game based on Licence to Kill by Timothy Dalton's James Bond?
I chose these movies for game adaption since both feature a drug plot and drug kingpin!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_Let_Die_(video_game)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/007:_Licence_to_Kill
Both were released by Domark in the late 80's. LTK faired better for it's gameplay, but by todays standards, they were both pretty crap.
If someone were too do an updated version of either, I think I'd opt for LTK.
So many of the action sequences in the film, would translate well too a video game. The pts, stalking the Wavekrest, the scene in Krests warehouse, underwater action and waterskiing behind the plane, the tanker chase, the options are almost limitless.
However as @QBranch mentioned, a LALD game could also be awesome.
Imagine:
- the plane stunt in the PTS
- several stealth levels (warehouse, Leiter's house, Wavekrest, casino)
- underwater action + waterplane stunt
- sniper scene
- ninja action
- big explosive climax in the meditation centre and down the mountain roads with the tankers
While they're at it, please also make TLD :p
LALD for me felt a bit slow with too many chases, and there's actually a video game already about LALD that featured the boat chase, and it's repetitive and kinda boring when I've seen it, bus chase wasn't that amazing for a video game either.
LTK, on the other hand, had more action and it's very bloody, and not just full of action, but it also had a straightforward story that could also be more applicable for a game too.
It's action filled but not boring sort of thing.
So, I'd go with LTK.
007 Legends was pretty decent, I think, I haven't played it, but watching some of the gameplays, it's decent, I think the most interesting level in that was OHMSS (with the ski chases and the physical fight with Blofeld) and maybe Moonraker.
I'll take the LALD game. Nice variety of both locations (NYC, Louisiana, Bahamas) and mission styles (stealth, chase, fighting, shooting). Also, after all the games devoted to Brosnan, Craig, and Connery, it'd be nice to play as Roger's Bond for once.
Why they made a game based on a 1973 Bond film in 1988 is beyond me, but here we are.
Plus it has a good variety of action scenes which would translate well into a game.
LALD on the other hand... if they did it semi-open world, for example San Monique as an island was fully explorable, Far Cry style, that would be fun. Same with the New York and the Bayou as well.
Funnily enough, I ended up buying the LALD game for Spectrum - uninfluenced by this thread, but while searching for the role-playing game.
Lets move on to discuss this one a battle of the un-official Bond films! I have my suspicions about this one, but lets see how the community decides what film they'd rather watch!
Would you rather watch CR '67 or NSNA?
I'll be amazed if anyone thinks different.
Since I watched CR '67 maybe twice in the last few decades, and NSNA at least four or five times (most of those before I even saw TB!), the answer is clear. CR'67 can be fun if you can take it, but though I like some more outrageous stuff (say Monty Python, say Dr. Strangelove, say Ealing comedies), this is not really my type of comedy or satire.
While the jokes are hit and miss, CR'67 has one of my favorite musical scores, and I enjoy the 60's mod style of it.
I shall let miss Goodthighs answer the question for me.
Meanwhile, I understand that there are things we can say to support McClory and excuse the awful ugliness of NSNA -- fellow members have been trying to get me on his side for years -- but the fact remains that he was a vindictive bastard who all but carried Fleming to his grave, kept suing EON (though his beef was with Fleming, not with EON), constantly threatened to take Bond in a different direction, away from the regular series, and then, after all those years of big words, silly lawsuits and constant threats... delivered a film that looks like a television production from the early '70s, sounds like it too, and couldn't even clear enough budget to make the stunts work. Seriously, NSNA is to Bond what Roger Corman's Battle Beyond The Stars is to Star Wars. Rather than spend his entire bloody life obsessing over some ideas that Fleming may have walked away with after a night of boozing and laughing, he should've learned how to make a good film first and then go out there actually making good films.
And with that, my monthly anti-McClory rant is over. I'll happily return to '67 now for some firewords at Casino Royale.
I won't let you get away with those defamatory words about NSNA. Ms. Goodthighs? Yes, sure, lovely, but what about Ms. Goodthighs-Goodcalves-Goodearlobes-Goodeverythingelse?
Seems she's in the mood for revenge.
So CR67 for the win.
Plus: Bernard Cribbins.
As for CR67, it has an amazing soundtrack, it has giallo legend Barbara Bouchet and Joanna Pettet in an excellent turn as Mata Bond.
I'm also a huge fan of David Niven, he was in my first avatar back when I joined KTBEU, in 2009 I think it was. And if I may say so, he might not be our typical Bond film protagonist, but he manages to keep his dignity throughout the narrative mess that is CR67.
As for NSNA, I think it manages to be different enough from TB despite not having the same source material. I like how it globetrots a bit more, especially the French Riviera give me some 80's summer vibes.
I also think the cast is amazing, with Connery back in the role, with European cinema giants Brandauer and von Sydow and with an excellent Barbara Carrera. NSNA though for me is that Bond film with the best ever Felix: Bernie Casey.
They are obviously pretty flawed too, the both of them, though for me there's enough to like in either.
NSNA on the other hand, still felt like a proper EON Bond film (sure it doesn't have the gunbarrel, the PTS, the title Sequence and a nice song), but the film itself still felt like a proper Bond film, not a parody or a caricature.
And sometimes, I'm finding myself coming back to it than the OG Thunderball because NSNA never bored me, it's action filled (my favorite part is the chase between Bond in his motorcycle and Fatima in her red car), it's fun, compared to Thunderball which full of dark and silent moments and that underwater scenes.
I even regarded the campy Moore film like Octopussy or The Man With The Golden Gun in higher quality compared to CR 67.
CR 67 was very cartoonish with zero quality, the only decent thing in it was the score, but aside from it, I just can't bring myself to watch the movie.
I don't mind Kevin McClory, sure the history behind NSNA was horrible, but what I'm talking here is the quality and CR 67 was still not on par with even a film like NSNA, again in terms of quality.
It's just a messed up film from the start till the end.
NSNA was poor, but CR 67 was a straight up trash.
I would take NSNA by a mile!
That's a different take 😅
What made the film depressing to you? 😅 Just curious.
I find the film to be a huge missed opportunity in so many aspects. McClory and Co were so busy trying to compete with EON that they didn’t realize that they had a rare opportunity to tell a story that never Broccoli and EON never could. I know people will say that McClory only had the rights to Thunderball, and so he couldn’t tell any other story beyond that, but considering how loosely adapted CR67 was, and how that film went without any sort of retaliation from EON (such as a lawsuit), I’m not sure how confined to the novel McClory had to be, especially when you read some of the details on the abandoned Warhead script. I already think EON’s Thunderball is a somewhat middling film in the context of the series, but NSNA just bores me so much. Plus I have to agree with @DarthDimi , I can’t throw my support behind this movie in any sort of way because of the cynical nature of its production. It’s a film made out of spite by people who had issues with either Fleming or EON, and it shows.
Plus I hate to say it, but Connery got knocked down a couple spots in my Bond actor rankings because of this film (as well as YOLT/DAF.) I think it’s a blight on his association with the character.
But that’s just my opinion 😅
Oh, I understand that
Yes, and if my memory serves, they've tried to do it again in the late 90's with Dalton and in 2000's with Brosnan or is it Liam Neeson (?) (with Connery being cited coming back as the villain), I mean, that's how frustrated was McClory to get the film properly made.
Only his death stopped him from doing that further.
Yes CR '67 had more creative license because they owned the rights outright. TB had a very specific clause that the film could be re-made but needed to follow the plot of the TB novel and not deviate to something else entirely. So while they could change certain aspects of the characters, etc. they couldn't suddenly have the villain be attempting world domination through another means. I think they did the best they could given the parameters.
So it's NSNA for me. For all its faults I really enjoy it. Connery is great, as are all the cast. Some outstanding moments in this. Let down by the drab photography, crap score and a lifeless climax.
Oh, I don't think the people parodying Bond needed any help from this one! By 1967 we already had Get Smart, Our Man Flint, Arabesque...personally I blame Goldfinger.
CR67 also gave us this tie-in book cover, which must have been baffling for anyone who picked up the book after watching the film.