Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Never Say Never Again: Looking back 30 years on
After re-watching Octopussy a few weeks back I thought it was high time that I revisited Never Say Never Again.
Here are my thoughts on OP I posted in the 30th anniversary thread and some interesting videos I found that discussed the much hyped 'Battle of the Bonds' back from 1983:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7040/octopussy-30-yr-anniversary/p5#Item_144
The videos and other articles that I came across made me very curious about that time in history for Bond fans as things must have been very exciting. Usually the process was that every two years you would get the next Bond offering. But that year was different, not only would there be two Bond flicks but one would star the original Bond himself. What a great year to be a Bond fan. Well was it really? OP has its merits but its an inherently silly film and NSNA is less the joyous return to form it was billed as and much more of a disappointing flat endeavour.
The big issue that NSNA suffers from is it's uninspiring and very familiar story, this was always going to be an issue for the filmmakers as all the legal complications meant they were confined to the strict limits of re-adapting Ian Fleming's Thunderball. Irvin Kerchner and his writers never really made a compelling case with NSNA for re-telling the TB story, there is no new angle here to be identified, no new way in for the audience to rediscover the story. Instead we go through the motions and the film never really recovers in some respects. The real problem is that the film never feels like anything less than a financial exercise; whatever creativity that the filmmakers could have bestowed upon us is stifled by the legal complications. Instead we get served a rather dry remake of TB that is less respectful to the Bond heritage and more interested in producing a profit. You can't help but feel that throughout NSNA that the film was really being made by the accountants (I think it's no surprise than that the producer Jack Schwartzman had never produced a big film before and was an attorney by trade). It does make you wonder why someone as accomplished Irvin Kershner was wasting his time here.
The film's lacks a certain 'something', possibly the absense of Cubby Broccoli is the main reason for this. There are some moments in the film that seem silly and off-kilter and possibly elements that may not have passed the scrutiny of Mr. Broccoli. There is a certain magic missing, when Broccoli made a Bond movie all doors where opened to allow him to do what he pleased. Here, it seems that the filmmakers where presented with numerous problems at every avenue.
So while it's great to see Connery back being Bond, the story he is offered here is not really worthy of his return or the fanfare that preceded the film's release. In the first few seconds of Connery's return in NSNA you immediately see Bond in a great fistfight and are reminded of how great Connery was as Bond but the film never really presents a compelling enough case for really brining him back or existing at all.
Connery though is in fine shape. Roger Ebert in his review for the film stated that while we may never have got a Beatles reunion we did get to see Connery back as 007 one more time. So it is great to see his Bond back at it again. He brings a great physicality to the part and he embodies the more roguish elements of the Bond character with ease. It's also evident that Connery is a much more skilled actor than some of the other Bonds and there are a few moments where he gets to play some quieter subtle scenes, though they are few.
The film is in actual fact quite similar to OP in one regard; both have a very thinly scripted plot. Here the bombs are stolen by SPECTRE and Bond is dispatched to investigate Largo. It's very clear early on that Largo is the man Bond is after. In the TB novel, Bond spends a good portion believing that he has been given the short end of the stick by M and that he is chasing a dead-end with Largo. In NSNA we simply go through the motions after Bond gets out to the Bahamas and the film quickly becomes a slightly by-numbers, unrememberable affair.
This is particularly disappointing as the first act of the movie is actually very well done. While OP is an example of a purely formula-driven Bond movie, what makes NSNA superior is that the film is subversive and plays on people's preconceptions. This is perfectly summed up in the film's opening gambit, here we see a seasoned 007 on a training mission which results in his 'death'. When he arrives back to Mi6, we meet the new M who is now a younger man and something of a stuffy bureaucrat. The smartest thing this film did was to let Connery play his age, here he is a man essentially forced into retirement with the 00 branch having been shut down. When Bond insists that the training exercises are no comparison to the field, M openly admits he fears whatever edge 007 once had is now gone.
One element that Fleming's original novel did well and is adopted in this film is 007's spell at Shrublands. Here Bond is send away and told to curb his vices. When he meets and flirts with the nurse he later goes to her room...but it's only for a massage. It all plays-up very well to Connery's grand return 12 years after Diamonds Are Forever, NSNA may then be better viewed as a spin-off from the main series (a sort of 'what if' type situation). The formula isn't slavish adhered to and Kerchner has a little fun deconstructing James Bond - something not to dissimilar to what Mendes did more artfully with SF.
The best scene in the movie is the moment with Alegy, here we see the golden days are long past and the new Q has been thrown into a cold basement and has seen his Government budget cut. I enjoy the idea that Q would be bored and excited at the opportunity of 007 returning to work. There is a genuine moment of excitement after the bombs are stolen and M is told to reactive the 00-section and Moneypenny happily tells Bond that the world is in crisis and needs him again. The stakes are really staked high here, however Bond moves at such a leisurely pace any kind of jeopardy the plot had is jettisoned quite quickly. Bond has literally no business going to the Bahamas, the segment doesn't move the plot forward; all that happens is he meets Small-Fawcett who tells him he should actually be going to the South of France. The Bahamas segment is a pure piece of travelogue fluff that is more reminiscent of the Moore era than the Connery years this film was supposed to hark back to.
Another surprising aspect of the film is quite how well sketched the characters are. While OP is a great fun action-flick the characters are badly served throughout the film, however this is not the case with NSNA. Here we get some very interesting presences, aside from the more seasoned 007. Klaus Maria Brandauer is a very memorable villain and it's a shame his performance had to be in this unofficial Bond film as it seems like history has deliberately ignored his efforts. He's a flamboyant, childish and pathetic man who is desperate to keep a hold and possess Domino, essentially holding her prisioner. To top it off he's psychotic and has an obsession with gaining power. His tete-on-tete with Bond over the video-game could have been stupid but because Connery and Brandauer play it so straight it's actually a great scene with both giving great performances. He's excellent in the scene with Domino in his West African villa, and his rape kiss is appropriately disturbing and certainly surprising.
Barbara Carrera is also great in the film, even if her role is slightly cartoonish and at times a little more cringeworthy than anything else (that awful corny sex scene on the boat and all her moments in the casino). However, her character does have some very interesting shades to her. I liked her sadomasochistic side; for instance even after she viciously beats Jack Petachi she gives him a loving kiss when he does as she says. It's a nice touch as it gives her character a very unsettling edge. I really found these small character details to be far more accomplished than you see in many Bond movies. It even extends to some of the smaller players in the play, like Jack Petachi himself, who's heroin addiction seems to be the main motivation behind his decision to help SPECTRE.
Kim Sasinger is rather bad as Domino but she is still provided with motivation for her involvement in the plot. However, I can never quite shake the memory of Claudine Auger from my mind when i think of that character regardless who played Dominio in this remake. Max Von Syndow is also perfectly casting as Blofeld but is criminally underused, but i feel his lack of presence had more to do legal constraints than any creative failures (Blofeld only appears in a very small capacity in the TB novel).
The action in the film is also far from rememberable, aside from the exciting motorcycle chase which ends disappointedly with the rather contrived death of Fatima Blush. The shark scene is also rather exciting but dosen't really serve a purpose and the finale is a little dry and uneventful (also it feels like it's been ripped straight from Raiders of the Lost Ark). The production values aren't as grand as one would expect, with it often being rather obvious when some ADR looping has been going on. Moreover, the sets aren't particularly impressive and nor is shoddy score. The script is actually rather witty and well done if not slightly dry and overlong. The CGI effects are (to my eye) rather impressive for 1983, aside from the dodgy horse jumping over the cliff moment. The best moments of the film do happen rather early on in Schrublands with the particular highlight being Bond's fight with Lippe.
Aside from the bitter reasons why this film got made it's far from a complete failure. However, the dry and familiar story were definitely not worth they hype or the attention of its lead star. Despite this NSNA does make something of a nice companion piece to the official series and OP in particular. With the official 1983 Bond film we got a much more formula-driven affair, whilst the unofficial film was more subversive and creative in many regards. However, OP's action is more impressive while NSNA has more interesting and rounded characters. So it really depends on your tastes which you prefer, it would seem than that a more perfect Bond film exists somewhere in the middle of these two.
I do feel that the lawsuits surrounding NSNA (apparently EON where heavily on Schwartzman's back throughout the process, making sure he didn't veer to far from the TB novel) meant that the filmmakers had a hard time trying to put their own stamp on the film. With this in mind, maybe NSNA turned out as good as it could possibly have been by introducing a subversive edge. But if such restrictive creative issues existed from the outset why bother making the film at all?
Here are my thoughts on OP I posted in the 30th anniversary thread and some interesting videos I found that discussed the much hyped 'Battle of the Bonds' back from 1983:
http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7040/octopussy-30-yr-anniversary/p5#Item_144
The videos and other articles that I came across made me very curious about that time in history for Bond fans as things must have been very exciting. Usually the process was that every two years you would get the next Bond offering. But that year was different, not only would there be two Bond flicks but one would star the original Bond himself. What a great year to be a Bond fan. Well was it really? OP has its merits but its an inherently silly film and NSNA is less the joyous return to form it was billed as and much more of a disappointing flat endeavour.
The big issue that NSNA suffers from is it's uninspiring and very familiar story, this was always going to be an issue for the filmmakers as all the legal complications meant they were confined to the strict limits of re-adapting Ian Fleming's Thunderball. Irvin Kerchner and his writers never really made a compelling case with NSNA for re-telling the TB story, there is no new angle here to be identified, no new way in for the audience to rediscover the story. Instead we go through the motions and the film never really recovers in some respects. The real problem is that the film never feels like anything less than a financial exercise; whatever creativity that the filmmakers could have bestowed upon us is stifled by the legal complications. Instead we get served a rather dry remake of TB that is less respectful to the Bond heritage and more interested in producing a profit. You can't help but feel that throughout NSNA that the film was really being made by the accountants (I think it's no surprise than that the producer Jack Schwartzman had never produced a big film before and was an attorney by trade). It does make you wonder why someone as accomplished Irvin Kershner was wasting his time here.
The film's lacks a certain 'something', possibly the absense of Cubby Broccoli is the main reason for this. There are some moments in the film that seem silly and off-kilter and possibly elements that may not have passed the scrutiny of Mr. Broccoli. There is a certain magic missing, when Broccoli made a Bond movie all doors where opened to allow him to do what he pleased. Here, it seems that the filmmakers where presented with numerous problems at every avenue.
So while it's great to see Connery back being Bond, the story he is offered here is not really worthy of his return or the fanfare that preceded the film's release. In the first few seconds of Connery's return in NSNA you immediately see Bond in a great fistfight and are reminded of how great Connery was as Bond but the film never really presents a compelling enough case for really brining him back or existing at all.
Connery though is in fine shape. Roger Ebert in his review for the film stated that while we may never have got a Beatles reunion we did get to see Connery back as 007 one more time. So it is great to see his Bond back at it again. He brings a great physicality to the part and he embodies the more roguish elements of the Bond character with ease. It's also evident that Connery is a much more skilled actor than some of the other Bonds and there are a few moments where he gets to play some quieter subtle scenes, though they are few.
The film is in actual fact quite similar to OP in one regard; both have a very thinly scripted plot. Here the bombs are stolen by SPECTRE and Bond is dispatched to investigate Largo. It's very clear early on that Largo is the man Bond is after. In the TB novel, Bond spends a good portion believing that he has been given the short end of the stick by M and that he is chasing a dead-end with Largo. In NSNA we simply go through the motions after Bond gets out to the Bahamas and the film quickly becomes a slightly by-numbers, unrememberable affair.
This is particularly disappointing as the first act of the movie is actually very well done. While OP is an example of a purely formula-driven Bond movie, what makes NSNA superior is that the film is subversive and plays on people's preconceptions. This is perfectly summed up in the film's opening gambit, here we see a seasoned 007 on a training mission which results in his 'death'. When he arrives back to Mi6, we meet the new M who is now a younger man and something of a stuffy bureaucrat. The smartest thing this film did was to let Connery play his age, here he is a man essentially forced into retirement with the 00 branch having been shut down. When Bond insists that the training exercises are no comparison to the field, M openly admits he fears whatever edge 007 once had is now gone.
One element that Fleming's original novel did well and is adopted in this film is 007's spell at Shrublands. Here Bond is send away and told to curb his vices. When he meets and flirts with the nurse he later goes to her room...but it's only for a massage. It all plays-up very well to Connery's grand return 12 years after Diamonds Are Forever, NSNA may then be better viewed as a spin-off from the main series (a sort of 'what if' type situation). The formula isn't slavish adhered to and Kerchner has a little fun deconstructing James Bond - something not to dissimilar to what Mendes did more artfully with SF.
The best scene in the movie is the moment with Alegy, here we see the golden days are long past and the new Q has been thrown into a cold basement and has seen his Government budget cut. I enjoy the idea that Q would be bored and excited at the opportunity of 007 returning to work. There is a genuine moment of excitement after the bombs are stolen and M is told to reactive the 00-section and Moneypenny happily tells Bond that the world is in crisis and needs him again. The stakes are really staked high here, however Bond moves at such a leisurely pace any kind of jeopardy the plot had is jettisoned quite quickly. Bond has literally no business going to the Bahamas, the segment doesn't move the plot forward; all that happens is he meets Small-Fawcett who tells him he should actually be going to the South of France. The Bahamas segment is a pure piece of travelogue fluff that is more reminiscent of the Moore era than the Connery years this film was supposed to hark back to.
Another surprising aspect of the film is quite how well sketched the characters are. While OP is a great fun action-flick the characters are badly served throughout the film, however this is not the case with NSNA. Here we get some very interesting presences, aside from the more seasoned 007. Klaus Maria Brandauer is a very memorable villain and it's a shame his performance had to be in this unofficial Bond film as it seems like history has deliberately ignored his efforts. He's a flamboyant, childish and pathetic man who is desperate to keep a hold and possess Domino, essentially holding her prisioner. To top it off he's psychotic and has an obsession with gaining power. His tete-on-tete with Bond over the video-game could have been stupid but because Connery and Brandauer play it so straight it's actually a great scene with both giving great performances. He's excellent in the scene with Domino in his West African villa, and his rape kiss is appropriately disturbing and certainly surprising.
Barbara Carrera is also great in the film, even if her role is slightly cartoonish and at times a little more cringeworthy than anything else (that awful corny sex scene on the boat and all her moments in the casino). However, her character does have some very interesting shades to her. I liked her sadomasochistic side; for instance even after she viciously beats Jack Petachi she gives him a loving kiss when he does as she says. It's a nice touch as it gives her character a very unsettling edge. I really found these small character details to be far more accomplished than you see in many Bond movies. It even extends to some of the smaller players in the play, like Jack Petachi himself, who's heroin addiction seems to be the main motivation behind his decision to help SPECTRE.
Kim Sasinger is rather bad as Domino but she is still provided with motivation for her involvement in the plot. However, I can never quite shake the memory of Claudine Auger from my mind when i think of that character regardless who played Dominio in this remake. Max Von Syndow is also perfectly casting as Blofeld but is criminally underused, but i feel his lack of presence had more to do legal constraints than any creative failures (Blofeld only appears in a very small capacity in the TB novel).
The action in the film is also far from rememberable, aside from the exciting motorcycle chase which ends disappointedly with the rather contrived death of Fatima Blush. The shark scene is also rather exciting but dosen't really serve a purpose and the finale is a little dry and uneventful (also it feels like it's been ripped straight from Raiders of the Lost Ark). The production values aren't as grand as one would expect, with it often being rather obvious when some ADR looping has been going on. Moreover, the sets aren't particularly impressive and nor is shoddy score. The script is actually rather witty and well done if not slightly dry and overlong. The CGI effects are (to my eye) rather impressive for 1983, aside from the dodgy horse jumping over the cliff moment. The best moments of the film do happen rather early on in Schrublands with the particular highlight being Bond's fight with Lippe.
Aside from the bitter reasons why this film got made it's far from a complete failure. However, the dry and familiar story were definitely not worth they hype or the attention of its lead star. Despite this NSNA does make something of a nice companion piece to the official series and OP in particular. With the official 1983 Bond film we got a much more formula-driven affair, whilst the unofficial film was more subversive and creative in many regards. However, OP's action is more impressive while NSNA has more interesting and rounded characters. So it really depends on your tastes which you prefer, it would seem than that a more perfect Bond film exists somewhere in the middle of these two.
I do feel that the lawsuits surrounding NSNA (apparently EON where heavily on Schwartzman's back throughout the process, making sure he didn't veer to far from the TB novel) meant that the filmmakers had a hard time trying to put their own stamp on the film. With this in mind, maybe NSNA turned out as good as it could possibly have been by introducing a subversive edge. But if such restrictive creative issues existed from the outset why bother making the film at all?
^ 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
I really like the idea of an older Bond on his last mission. The film doesn't execute the idea brilliantly but there are some moments that do the idea justice. Largo is a fantastic villain and there are some cool action scenes (I think the stand outs are the jungle opening and the fight at the clinic).
The film also gives us a very interesting take on Q. I the like the idea that Q would get bored without Bond. Plus, Bond is on a motorbike for the first time. And I Connery gives a good performance, not on par with his earlier films but miles better than the phoned in performances he gave towards the end of his original run.
I do think it's a fun Bond film that gives Connery a good send off (if he'd gone out with Diamonds as his last film I'd have been disappointed). A gunbarrel and a John Barry score/theme could've worked wonders for it though. Look at this extremely well done video
Look at how much better the intro is now with a gunbarrel and without that horrible theme song.
What an amazing transformation - incredible the value John Barry could add.
That's not to say those films aren't good, but John Barry could've made them even better. I like Arnold and some of the other composers but nobody could do a Bond score like he did. RIP.
If you actually look at the video and the way it ends, it actually has a very SF like vibe and one of the films that NSNA resembled to me was SF. What with an ageing Bond off his game having to prove himself in the field on more time. This was this angle of NSNA that really works, for instance there is a great moment when Connery drives his Bentley to Shrublands and says "they don't make them like that any more" of the car. It's a great moment, however despite the rather original opening act once the story moves forward it becomes too straight a remake of TB. Part of me thinks many of the issues why the film became so bland so quickly was the legal issues with script rewrites having to pass through lawyers offices continually.
timdalton007
Sad to say, but some fans are seriously delusional.
Saying that though, although I like the film more than most, I definitely wouldn't say it's better than Octopussy.
That's really not the case. The film is official in the sense that it is a film featuring James Bond 007, the character created by Ian fleming. It just isn't part of the EON production film series produced by the Broccoli family. The filmmakers had all the legal rights to make this film, it's far from unofficial in that sense.
I still think that 1983 had so much promise for Bond fans and while both films have their merits, they were still disappointments.
This. It's a proper film (not a fan film), with the James Bond character, and it isn't a spoof, and to top it all off it stars Sean Connery.
Sounds like a real Bond film to me.
I think it clearly dosen't fit within the lineage of the EON Bond films. This is just in the details (Edward Fox's M, the lack of Desmond Lleyewyn etc).
I think it's better viewed as a spin-off. A special kind of one-off film made to essentially bid farewell to the Connery Bond era. It's still a 'Bond movie', but it dosen't have a place within the official 23 EON films. It's something of a companion piece.
I do feel that the lawsuits surrounding NSNA (apparently EON where heavily on Schwartzman's back throughout the process, making sure he didn't veer to far from the TB novel) meant that the filmmakers had a hard time trying to put their own stamp on the film. With this in mind, maybe NSNA turned out as good as it could possibly have been by introducing a subversive edge. But if such creative issues existed from the outset why both making the film at all?
Almost everything is wrong, even Connery's toupe, and trimming his eyebrows. I think in that famous b+w gun-holding pose of NSNA, it works cos his eyebrows are still thick, he's the Bond we remember.
One of a few disappointing Bonds, TMWTGG being the first, and FYEO the second, in that as with NSNA I bought the line of it being a more serious effort, but the slapstick gags, broad dialogue and synth score sunk it for me.
When I saw this in 1983, it was amazing to see the original Bond back on screen, and it does look good on the cinema screen compared to a dvd copy.
I didnt see TB until later, so to me the similar storyline was not a problem. It was the other way around. When watching TB I knew the story beforehand, and so that was less exciting. TB is the superior film, though.
The biggest problem in NSNA is the awful composer, Legrand, suggested by Connery himself. And that terrible computer game scene. Not worthy of Bond!
Nicely summed up. The film has aged terribly and lacks that certain something that EON production brings. But it's all about Connery, he just has the towering persona and that twinkle in his eyes that always makes a Bond film a lot of fun. Barbara Carrera is also a great femme fatale.
As for the music - dreadful. The scores of FYEO and OP, while a bit stuck in 80's mode, still stand up well by comparison.
What I like about NSNA are the genuinely funny quips (much better than what EON were writing at the time) and the great cast of Connery, Fox, Brandauer and Max Von Syndow in a cameo role (apparently he filmed more scenes but they were edited out), I think the film had a very sexy feel about it with far more focus on the female form then it's EON counterpart.
What I dislike is the lack of action scenes, the rather plodding pace of the story,the music, it's very dated and the drab cheapness of the interior locations.
As I've said before surely for us Bond fans, one more Bond film in the universe can only be a good thing, regardless of quality...ok, except DAD obviously!
Thanks for your post Saunders, it took a long time to write my initial post so I appreciate your comments.
The film is still a 'Bond movie' but I don't think it has a place within the EON series. So for instance I don't think we should start referring to Skyfall as Bond 24 etc. But NSNA is a Bond film, just not an EON Bond film.
Both OP and NSNA are really very similar. Both films are guilty of being very silly at times. OP's offences are often mentioned but in NSNA we see Bond wear a pair of dungarees, ride a bicycle, do some cheesy ballroom dancing, play computer games with the baddie, jump off a cliff with a horse, etc.
The big disappointment of NSNA was that it promised the return of the Connery Bond and instead we got another version of the 80's Moore Bond.
They are all official because all parties had the legal right at the time to make a film based on those rights.
For example had the court case found that half the Bond books were based on screenplays Mcclory had written with Fleming and he had won the rights to make 6 or 7 Bond films would they all be unofficial too? Even if Mcclory had made more than EON?
There seems to be some confusion that EON are somehow official because they invented the gunbarrel and Bond theme.
The logic behind saying 'NSNA is not a proper Bond film because there's no GB, Bond theme or Lee, Lois & Llewlyn' is the same as fans of CR54 (there must have been the odd one) bleating in 1962 that DN is not an official Bond film because there's no 'Climax Theatre' logo or a TV announcer introducing it.
NSNA has a lot of flaws but not being 'official' isn't one of them except we are denied the EOn chutney of GB, Bond theme and MI6 regulars which is a bit jarring compared to what we are used to.
I wonder what the reaction would be had NSNA been, for example, CR06 (which feels like it is from a different series anyway)?
CR06 doesn't have a proper GB and but for the last seconds no Bond theme so had it gone up against OP in 1983 would it have been regarded as rubbish because 'its not official' despite being 100 times more 'official' in the sense that its faithful to Fleming and the novel upon which it is based?
Is having the EON Productions label attached to a film really the be all and end all for some people?
Slag NSNA off by all means but do it for the right reasons.
Bravo.
It's the reason why I started this thread so we can talk about NSNA as a film and not continue the everlasting debate if it's 'official' or not.
Michel Legrand told Jon Burlingame in The Music of James Bond that Connery *recruited* the composer for the movie. Legrand was tired after working on Yentl, but was talked into doing NSNA by Connery himself.
Connery remains the original and definitive Bond till date. That is the reason why NSNA is viewed as an original james bond movie compared to the other official entries with imitators of Connery in the role of Bond! Though NSNA lacks certain official elements, the mere presence of Connery makes it an official James Bond movie!!
IMO
Only in your delusional mind or those who wish to join you in la-la fantasy land. It didn't come with the official BOND 50 set and although EON owns the rights now, its no more official than CR54 or CR67 in their eyes, nor do they stand by it as such. If you or others want to call it a "Bond film", fine, but let's not attach the "official" title to it because there is no proof to these ridiculous claims.
Is that really the best you've got?
I doubt the tarantula enjoyed being prodded into walking across that pane of glass in DN.
What about the fighting fish in FRWL? Did they all survive the shoot? My guess is in the animal rights lax 60's their fate was to be flushed down the bog by the teaboy.
Blofelds cat doesn't seem too enamoured with his starring role in numerous scenes and in YOLT went and hid in the rafters for days and wouldn't come down he was so scared.
Sharks getting a stuntman's knee in the face, snakes having Geoffrey Holder land on top of them, pigeons being forced to double takes there's plenty of other films in which animals get a rough deal for our entertainment.
And what about DAD abusing my eyes and pissing all over Fleming's grave?
These are all fine though because they are 'official'.
But I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I still love a nice bit of foie gras (sorry Sir Rog).
I'm afraid it's you who is living in la la land old son. Unless when EON bought the rights to all but two of the books it came with the right to claim ownership of the word 'official' as well?
CR54, CR67 and NSNA are all official James Bond films because if they weren't EON's lawyers would have blocked them being made (well at least the second two obviously). Try releasing your own Bond film to see how far an unofficial film would fare.
I'm at a loss as to why you are so against NSNA? Especially given that it clearly makes less of a mockery of the character than DAD does. Yes it's far from brilliant but I hardly think it deserves such irrational vitriol. Did it touch you innapropriately when you were a child or maybe it was your pet horse that they callously slung off the top of that fortress?