Never Say Never Again..."Yes, But My Martini's Still Dry"

13468919

Comments

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 126
    You guys think so, really? That's cool. I respect different opinions. You guys made some good points.

    I hate the Jill St. John character. I hate Williard whyte. I hate Blofeld. I cant stand the moon buggy scene. They had to do a reshoot to cover the famous "car up on two wheels goof." Connery didnt want to be there. Plus, he is wearing a PINK tie !!

    hey, Both movies were pretty crappy.
  • Posts: 1,146
    Murdock wrote:
    I think Never Say Never Again is Embarrassing to the Name James Bond.


    =D>

    As opposed to View to a Kill or Octopussy?

    Those movies were godawful.

    Bond tells a tiger to, "Sit!"

    UGH.

  • Murdock wrote:
    I think Never Say Never Again is Embarrassing to the Name James Bond.


    =D>

    As opposed to View to a Kill or Octopussy?

    Those movies were godawful.

    Bond tells a tiger to, "Sit!"

    UGH.

    Aside from the usual Moore era sight and sound gags, which I'm not a fan of by any means and think have no place in a Bond film, OP is an excellent installment with an awesome villain in Orlov, lots of Cold War tension, and yet another killer Barry soundtrack. All NSNA can field at best is two manic performances from Brandauer and Carrera, otherwise it's a second rate TB rehash designed to hurt EON. I'll always be very disappointed in Connery for allowing his enmity for Cubby to override good sense and his generally magnificent legacy by agreeing to take part in that abortion. Other than Moore being too old and Jones too ugly for words, although she's a very efficient killer, I don't mind AVTAK in comparison and I'll take both over NSNA- and probably my least favorite official Bond films (MR and DAD) too for that matter.

    I always support official films over non-official ones.

  • I don't see why NSNA doesn't count as a Bond film. IT IS!!! It's just not EON produced. Then people say it's the same as CR 67, that's just stupid, that was a parody and it was meant to be one, NSNA is a Bond film, just not EON produced.

    When you watch NSNA, it's best to just forget about Mcclory and all the legal crap, and just enjoy it. I think it's an enjoyable Bond film, it does a good job of showing an older Bond and is a much better send off for Connery than DAF.

    1983 gave us a great and a good Bond film, OP and NSNA. I count NSNA in my list, and I'll be watching it in my 2012 Bondathon.
  • Posts: 1,052
    Connery should have been bald in NSNA, that would have improved the film greatly!
  • Posts: 7,653
    It gave us a good Sean Connery in his last effort as 007 instead the pleasurable fat Uncle Jim with his pinkish tie in DAF.

    On the subject of Legrand, he has done far better work as this ost. But then again we were spoiled with Barry for all those years.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,494
    I don't see why NSNA doesn't count as a Bond film. IT IS!!! It's just not EON produced. Then people say it's the same as CR 67, that's just stupid, that was a parody and it was meant to be one, NSNA is a Bond film, just not EON produced.

    When you watch NSNA, it's best to just forget about Mcclory and all the legal crap, and just enjoy it. I think it's an enjoyable Bond film, it does a good job of showing an older Bond and is a much better send off for Connery than DAF.

    1983 gave us a great and a good Bond film, OP and NSNA. I count NSNA in my list, and I'll be watching it in my 2012 Bondathon.

    NO, NSNA is NOT a Bond film. Is the Gold Bond commercial a Bond commercial because the actor calls himself "Jimmy Bond"? I'm not going to argue this one any further. If EON didn't make it, it isn't recognized as an official Bond film. The same goes for CR54 and CR67. Have your opinions NSNA lovers, but they aren't the facts to anyone but you and just because you think it should be will never change that.

    Whether anyone wants to debate Connery in NSNA is better than his last official and real appearance as Bond in DAF is another story.

    NSNA is a Thunderball REMAKE. A second rate, piss poor version of the original which didn't need remaking.

  • Posts: 7,653
    NSNA is a James Bond movie simply because Ian Fleming, you know the creator of James Bond 007, forgot to do the right thing and did steal something.

    Sean Connery is James Bond.

    On the subject of TB needing a remake I agree it was not needed imho. However it did get made with an original Bond actor and the movie had some great sets and scenes so imho is well worth being accepted in the series.

    And EON bought the rights so it is EON owned property.
  • Posts: 1,052
    "And EON bought the rights so it is EON owned property"


    So i guess any money made from this film now goes to Eon?

    Ironic how things work out!
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Nice try, but no.

    FACT- Fleming did wrong, and the courts rectified it. McGlory got his due settlement and their joint venture was properly made. Attempting to rationalize his attempt to undermine EON by calling NSNA an official Bond film is laughable at best.
    FACT- Connery was not the official Bond of record in 1983. Moore was.
    FACT- EON didn't produce the movie. Who cares if they own it now? What counts is that at that time everyone with half a functioning brain knew that OP was the official EON release. EON doesn't recognize NSNA as official to this day. Is the movie in the Ultimate DVD set along with the official releases? Or the BOND50 Blu-Ray set? It would be if they agreed with this premise. Their opinion is the only correct one. Anyone arguing that their personal opinion counts over the people and family who have brought us now 23 movies and 50 years of general excellence, is an opinion both arrogant and unreasonable and not in keeping with the facts and common sense.

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    NSNA is enjoyable but would've been much better with an original story.

    @SirHenryLeeChaChing Is the Gold Bond commercial a Bond commercial because the actor calls himself "Jimmy Bond"

    This ties in with the CR 67 comparisons. NSNA is a film, that isn't a parody, with the character of James Bond, played by Sean Connery, with recurring Bond characters like M. It's a Bond film. It's just not EON produced. CR 54 came first, so by that logic, aren't none of the EON films "official"? Because they weren't made by whoever made CR 54?

    NSNA is a Thunderball REMAKE. A second rate, piss poor version of the original which didn't need remaking.

    Did TB need remaking? No. Is NSNA second rate compared to the original TB? Yes. Is it piss poor? No, I don't think it is.

    CR 54 stars Jimmy Bond, so it's not a Bond film. CR 67 is a parody, so it's not a Bond film. But NSNA, is a Bond film.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 1,082
    I always count NSNA as a Bond film. I'd even say it's a real Bond film, but never that it's official. The fact that NSNA isn't an official Bond film is...well...a fact. But it was intended to be a real Bond movie, with Connery, Q, Moneypenny and M for instance. CR67 on the other hand, I don't count as a real Bond film, because it's a parody and wasn't intended to be anything else. So while both are unofficial, I think NSNA is a real Bond movie, while CR67 is not. Still I think NSNA is an outsider and not one of the 22 official movies. They are in their own league and I see NSNA as more of a regular action movie, although quite Bondian and starring the main character Bond. And I don't think CR54 is a real Bond movie either, because it was a live play, not a film. And secondly, the main character is american agent Jimmy Bond, assisted by british agent Clarence Leiter. Perhaps you could call it a Bond film, but not James Bond, since he (007) wasn't even in the film!

    Just my opinion...
  • Posts: 1,146

    I always support official films over non-official ones.

    [/quote]

    Uhhh, I always support a good story over a bad one, and I think this film bothers many Moore fans because it is so clearly a better film than VTAK and OP.

    It certainly had a great Blofeld, I'll say that.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 3,494
    I always support official films over non-official ones.



    Uhhh, I always support a good story over a bad one, and I think this film bothers many Moore fans because it is so clearly a better film than VTAK and OP.

    It certainly had a great Blofeld, I'll say that.

    This film doesn't bother me because I'm a Moore fan, I'm not that big of one if you've ever read my posts. It bothers me more because I'm a Connery fan and we didn't need a piss poor TB ripoff. It bothers me because McClory, Connery, and the studio that financed and released that sorry excuse for a Bond movie conspired to take EON and Bond down out of personal spite. Supporting NSNA that summer, in my opinion, was tantamount to spitting in EON's face. My father and brother caught holy hell from me for that, and for good reason.

    If someone wants to like NSNA, that's their call what they do with their time. If someone wants to say NSNA is a Bond film, that's their opinion. But what NSNA is not is an official Bond film. If you say it is or count it as official, you're ignorant of the facts and need to get your head out of your arse. Done.

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I always support official films over non-official ones.



    Uhhh, I always support a good story over a bad one, and I think this film bothers many Moore fans because it is so clearly a better film than VTAK and OP.

    It certainly had a great Blofeld, I'll say that.

    This film doesn't bother me because I'm a Moore fan, I'm not that big of one if you've ever read my posts. It bothers me more because I'm a Connery fan and we didn't need a piss poor TB ripoff. It bothers me because McClory, Connery, and the studio that financed and released that sorry excuse for a Bond movie conspired to take EON and Bond down out of personal spite. Supporting NSNA that summer, in my opinion, was tantamount to spitting in EON's face. My father and brother caught holy hell from me for that, and for good reason.

    If someone wants to like NSNA, that's their call what they do with their time. If someone wants to say NSNA is a Bond film, that's their opinion. But what NSNA is not is an official Bond film. If you say it is or count it as official, you're ignorant of the facts and need to get your head out of your arse. Done.

    =D> Returning the favor Sir.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 1,082
    I think this film bothers many Moore fans because it is so clearly a better film than VTAK and OP.

    I'm a Moore fan and NSNA doesn't bother me (but to be fair, you said many Moore fans are bothered by it, not all). I'm just happy we got another Bond film, and I disagree that it's in any way better than OP & AVTAK. I think quality wise, OP destroyed NSNA. And I like AVTAK even more.
    If someone wants to like NSNA, that's their call what they do with their time. If someone wants to say NSNA is a Bond film, that's their opinion. But what NSNA is not is an official Bond film. If you say it is or count it as official, you're ignorant of the facts and need to get your head out of your arse. Done.

    True. NSNA will never be an official Bond film. I don't even compare it to the 22 others, nor can I place it in my Bond film rankings. I do, however, think that it is a Bond film. But I don't include it in my latest Bond marathons. I think it is better as an action film I watch randomly (which happens to be somewhat Bondian and with Bond in the lead role). As a Bond film I think it's lackluster and in a Bond marathon I find it to be dull and cheap.

  • Posts: 1,146
    There's action stuff in NSNA that Connery did that Moore would never do. The coolest gag that Roger did was the pushing of the car off the cliff in FYEO, and Connery easily projects a verility and confidence that Roger just never had, in my opinion.

    I'm not saying the film is perfect, but I enjoy it to this day.
  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    It bothers me because McClory, Connery, and the studio that financed and released that sorry excuse for a Bond movie conspired to take EON and Bond down out of personal spite.

    Just forget about that stuff when you're watching it and try not to compare it to the original TB (which is better, yeah). Just enjoy it.
    If you say it is or count it as official, you're ignorant of the facts and need to get your head out of your arse. Done.

    Maybe it's not "official", but I count it in my list because it is a Bond film, just not an official, EON produced one.

    And isn't it ass in America? ;)
  • Posts: 1,082
    There's action stuff in NSNA that Connery did that Moore would never do. The coolest gag that Roger did was the pushing of the car off the cliff in FYEO, and Connery easily projects a verility and confidence that Roger just never had, in my opinion.

    I'm not saying the film is perfect, but I enjoy it to this day.

    Ok, well I also think Connery seemed confident, but in my opinion the same applies to Moore. I think Moore was much better when it comes to coolness and elegance. In NSNA I think Connery did well with his laid-back, cool performance, which I rank as his best (in competition with DAF). He was perhaps the highlight of the movie, raising the quality by himself. But Moore's performance in OP was even better!

  • Posts: 1,146
    It's tough to raise the quality of a picture when you're in a clown suit. I know there's gonna be replies that it was part of the story, but you would NEVER get Connery or any other of the Bond actors to agree to do that. Ugh.

    Roger thought this SITUATION and CHARACTER was funny, and that's probably why I don't like his films.
  • yeah, The clown suit..at least Roger never wore a pink tie(DAF) or dreesed up in a lame japanese disguise(yolt)
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    NSNA- not Bondish to me at all. Opening titles? No. Music? No. Just didn't have the feel, felt more like an 80s cop show.
  • Posts: 7,653
    yeah, The clown suit..at least Roger never wore a pink tie(DAF) or dreesed up in a lame japanese disguise(yolt)

    I agree with the pink tie, there is no excuse for that I'd rather have an invisible car (no moaning about the colour possible :D ).

    However 007 dressing up in a Japanese diguise is pure Fleming as written in YOLT. So I will not ever complain about that. It is one of the parts that remeianed truthfull to the book as written by Fleming.

  • edited August 2012 Posts: 12,837
    It's tough to raise the quality of a picture when you're in a clown suit. I know there's gonna be replies that it was part of the story, but you would NEVER get Connery or any other of the Bond actors to agree to do that. Ugh.

    Roger thought this SITUATION and CHARACTER was funny, and that's probably why I don't like his films.

    Give Connery enough money and he would've done it. The only ones I could see actually refusing are Dalton and Craig.

    I have no problem with the clown suit, that scene is tense and great, and it does fit the story.
  • Posts: 1,082
    I have never seen Bond in gorilla/clown suit as comical. He did it to be able to do his job as a spy. In the gorilla suit he heard what time the bomb would go off and in the clown suit he god access to the bomb in the circus. Neither of these were as comical as the croc sub IMO (which I love).
  • @Saintark

    Well,The japanese disguise LOOKED sillier than the clown suit. Actually, Daf is sillier than the clown suit.
  • Posts: 1,146
    I guess what we're talking about is tone, and Connery's films, DAF nothwithstanding, went for a different tone. Craig's films as well, so far. ROger's films aways had that 'wink wink' quality to them that I simply didn't enjoy.


    There is, to me at least, a kind of classiness and style to NSNA that Moore's latter films lacked.
  • Posts: 5,634
    Never Say Never Again at least has a license to act the fool, as with Casino Royale, in that it simply isn't an official Bond release, Connery, (into his early 50s) was merely having a bit of fun in this spoof entry. That said, there are some decent action sequences, but other areas such as 'Game for Control of the World', don't seem to fit in or feel misplaced, or even dull. I'd only watch again only for Barbara Carrera. I would rather watch Connery in Goldfinger than this, tells you all you need to know maybe
  • Posts: 1,146
    I thought the motorcycle chase and the confrontation with the bad girl was pretty cool stuff.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    This DVD is not even kept near, let alone with, my other Bond DVDs. Says it all.
Sign In or Register to comment.