›

Never Say Never Again - A Bond Film ?

24

Comments

  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    slight off topic but what was the feeling in 1983, was NSNA expected to wipe fhe floor with Octopussy?
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    well i tend to believe that Never Say Never Agian is offical- i mean it could be set between For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy...because of Berneard Lee's M being absent and that the replacement was Edward Fox (the worst M of the series) and that Bond's Retirement is short lived- he returns...

    i mean i count Everything or Nothing canon and John Cleese stated that it indeed was canon
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    I recognise all the films in the entire series box set as bond. NSNA is not in that box set. The movie itself is ok, mainly down to connery being in it. The director of NSNA has a mixed bag of movie's that he made Empire strike's back, Robocop 2, Never say never again amongst them.
  • LeChiffreLeChiffre
    Posts: 1,548
    NSNA does not feel like a proper Bond film despite the presence of Connery IMO. The lack of the signature tune and drink de preference ie VM due to legal restrictions do not help. I prefer Octopussy as a film (despite the clown scene!)
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    well NSNA is like Casino Royale it lacks a bond gunbarrel, the bond theme (atleast till the end of CR) and well yeah
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    Volante wrote:
    I've often wondered why Sean Connery did NSNA when Thunderball was supposed to have been his favourite appearance as Bond.

    It was to boost his, at the time, failing career. He needed a hit and this film was it.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    Really pressed for time today but whether I mentioned it previous or otherwise, NSNA for me is as far away from actual Bond movies and Pluto is to the Sun, it's not an official release anyway, it's worse than CR 1967 in so many ways, Connery here is more of an embarrassment here than he was for his Diamonds swansong.

    sure it's fun and entertaining sometimes and has a young Kim Basinger but is that really enough. There are only a handful of scenes that are worthwhile and it all gets a bit dull towards the end. If I wanted to watch it again it would be mainly to see Carrera and Basinger again, the former arguably the best non official Bond girl
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,341
    Bond wrote:
    It's Bond 23 of the official EON series. These are the films that have been airing since 1962 through the MGM film production company. <i>Never Say Never Again</i> wasn't one of these, it actually competed with Roger Moore's <i>Octopussy</i> from the official series.

    You are so right. We "count" NSNA and CR as "Bond films" but we do not add them to the EON count, so yes, Skyfall is officially Bond 23. IMO [img][/img]
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    I often read will craig match rogers 7 movie's, though never hear matching sean's 7. do people just count sean as having only done 6 bond films? i think i do myself then belated remind myself sean did NSNA. NSNA again is always an after thought for me.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    fire_and_ice wrote:
    I often read will craig match rogers 7 movie's, though never hear matching sean's 7. do people just count sean as having only done 6 bond films? i think i do myself then belated remind myself sean did NSNA. NSNA again is always an after thought for me.

    When you watch all the films in order, rank the series, or discuss any film on the board, Never Say Never Again never comes up, rightfully, because it isn't a part of the series, just some one-off film that only has to weight to it due to Connery. It can happily sit alongside Casino Royale '67 in my opinion. Indeed Connery did six films.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    edited January 2012 Posts: 2,341
    So out of the 22 official films, Moore and Connery have done 13 (or 14) between them?
    Depends on how we count the films. I would count NSNA before CR (1967) now that is rarely ever mentioned and should be forgotten.
    NSNA does contain some of the elements of Bond films:
    diabolical plot
    larger than life villians
    hot women
    briefing from M
    scenes with Q
    These elements make it a James Bond movie.
    Casino Royale 67 does not contain the formaliac elements and we should not count it. But it should be okay to count NSNA though most of the time we choose to leave it out.

    BTW how many brands of Sherlock Holmes have been done since the 1920's? and do they all count as Sherlock Holmes films? Same can be said for Tarzan, Frankenstein, Robin Hood and any other fictional hero or monster. Universal's Frankenstein in 1931 counts as a frankenstein film so does hammer's Horror of Frankenstein in the 1950's. Different studios and crews but same character (Frankenstein).
    So I guess this should apply to NSNA as well.
    What say you ?
  • BritishChap007BritishChap007
    Posts: 555
    The mass public tends to be very accepting of NSNA. They always say "then they brough Connery back"
  • Char35tChar35t
    edited January 2012 Posts: 289
    NSNA is a Bond the spoofs are not.....Jimmy Bond and NSNA are alt-time lines reboots before there were reboots...it actually got Blofeld right....
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    Char35t wrote:
    NSNA is a Bond the spoofs are not.....Jimmy Bond and NSNA are alt-time lines reboots before there were reboots...it actually got Blofeld right....

    Could you please use punctuations, @Char35t? It makes reading your posts a lot easier for the lot of us. Thank you.

  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    It's a Bond film but it's not official so it doesnt count - Skyfall is BOND 23 .
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    CR 67 having 5 directors or 5 writers... forget which, did not help. though i like CR 67 in the same way i like what's new pussy cat. they are both overblown 60s psychedelic comedys.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    I hate that film....
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    Posts: 11,189
    Before I saw the film I remember seeing a fan review of CR67 saying "it's so shit it's beautiful".

    Pretty much sums it up.

    Anyway NSNA, cheap dud.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Well if people who watch that rubbish think shit is beautiful then it sums them and the film up in one go haha
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    Connerys wig in this one is truly abysmal, i'm pretty sure the budget for this was bigger than the other 1980's Bond films, a decent rug surely could have been aforded?
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2012 Posts: 11,189
    barryt007 wrote:
    Well if people who watch that rubbish think shit is beautiful then it sums them and the film up in one go haha

    It is a funny review though. I probably would have hated the film much more if I hadnt seen the revie b4 hand.



    Here's the NSNA one too:
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited January 2012 Posts: 19,339
    identigraph wrote:
    slight off topic but what was the feeling in 1983, was NSNA expected to wipe fhe floor with Octopussy?

    I remember it all very well.Connery's camp were indeed thinking that they would beat OP due to Connery being the original Bond,especially as Moore had all but retired from the role.
    However,EON,realising that a new actor might make it more difficult for OP to beat NSNA,talked Moore round and brought him back for a 'battle of the Bonds' as they called it.
    I only watched OP as it was the official one ( i was 13 at the time) and OP beat NSNA finishing off any attempts to scupple OP at the box office by Connery,McClory and the other cronies involved in the spoof.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    identigraph wrote:
    slight off topic but what was the feeling in 1983, was NSNA expected to wipe fhe floor with Octopussy?

    I believe it was expected to be at least as successful if not more so. Simply because Connery was back and the media was always pro Connery and anti-Moore. How could it be any other way?

    When OP was more successful I think the hacks simply disappeared under a stone somewhere
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I remember that it was a good year for a 007 fan, the two great actors in the 007 franchise each with a movie. Christmas came indeed twice that year and both times I sat in the cinema.
  • fire_and_icefire_and_ice
    Posts: 6,432
    I watched OP in the cinema, don't recall when i watched NSNA for the first time. i remember watching return of the jedi at the cinema around the time OP was released. being a kid at the time it was pretty awesome.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    NSNA is a Bond film BUT? not in the best traditional sense! As there were 3 classic elements missing! 1) The Walther PPK! 2) The Aston Martin! 3) The James Bond theme music!

    I did enjoy the film though!
  • samainsysamainsy Suspended
    Posts: 199
    its not a film its just a crappy remake of thunderball i mean thunderball was bad and this was worse only cos his name was james bond in it you could call anyone that so no its not official neither is CR67 never seen that one so i'm guessing its crap too
  • thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
    edited April 2013 Posts: 12,837
    I count it. I enjoy it too. It has alot going for it, I think it does a good job of showing an older Bond and it's a better send off for Connery than DAF.

    TB is a better film and NSNA has an awful score but I enjoy it and rank above some of the EON movies.

    When you watch NSNA, forget TB and forget all the legal issues. It makes it more enjoyable.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    samainsy wrote:
    its not a film its just a crappy remake of thunderball i mean thunderball was bad

    Blasphemy! TB is a classic, superbly made.
    samainsy wrote:
    and this was worse only cos his name was james bond in it you could call anyone that so no its not official neither is CR67 never seen that one so i'm guessing its crap too

    It's not just the name James Bond. It's Sean Connery as James Bond. The difference is huge!

    Also, perhaps you should watch CR67 before knocking it down so ruthlessly. ;-)

  • samainsysamainsy Suspended
    Posts: 199
    DarthDimi wrote:
    samainsy wrote:
    its not a film its just a crappy remake of thunderball i mean thunderball was bad

    Blasphemy! TB is a classic, superbly made.
    samainsy wrote:
    and this was worse only cos his name was james bond in it you could call anyone that so no its not official neither is CR67 never seen that one so i'm guessing its crap too

    It's not just the name James Bond. It's Sean Connery as James Bond. The difference is huge!

    Also, perhaps you should watch CR67 before knocking it down so ruthlessly. ;-)
    where can i buy it cos i bought 3 james bond films the other day for £2.99

Sign In or Register to comment.