Never Say Never Again - A Bond Film ?

13

Comments

  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    i consider NSNA a proper bond film its just diffrent from the others...
    it has an actor who played Bond back as Bond (Connery in this case)
    it has all the ingridents that made the bond films bond films
    the only thing about it is that it doesnt have a gunbarrel- but then agian Casino Royale didnt really have a proper Gunbarrel just one that is part of the opening credits
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    @samainsy
    Amazon.com should bring you far. ;-) And if you live in the UK, there's Amazon.co.uk for you.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I believe this has just come out on Blu-Ray or is about to this month. So you can see the dead ferrett and dodgy eye-liner combo in all it's Connoried glory!
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 1,817
    It's not a Bond film in my opinion. It's a film with a character named Bond in it, as many other spoofs and fan made movies.
    And I've never seen it because of my loyalty towards Don Broccoli...
  • Posts: 7,653
    0013 wrote:
    Is not a Bond film in my opinion. It's a film with a character named Bond in it, as many other spoofs and fan made movies.
    And I've never seen it because of my loyalty to Don Broccoli...

    A shame really as you not really judge the effort.

  • edited April 2013 Posts: 12,837
    0013 wrote:
    Is not a Bond film in my opinion. It's a film with a character named Bond in it, as many other spoofs and fan made movies.
    And I've never seen it because of my loyalty to Don Broccoli...

    So if for some reason Bond 24 wasn't produced by EON but turned out brilliant and had everybody raving, would you not go and see it?

    Personally what I look for in a Bond movie isn't the fact that it was produced by the Broccoli family.

    I don't like Kevin Mcclory, I don't like how it's a TB remake and I don't like the reasons behind NSNA being made but I still enjoy the film itself.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I don't consider NSNA a True Bond movie. It looks, sounds and feels like a Made for TV movie.
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 1,310
    Murdock wrote:
    It looks, sounds and feels like a Made for TV movie.
    I sometimes get that feeling of this film, too. The cinematographer had some strange liking to soft lighting (which made everyone appear to have a "glow" around them), and it just looked cheap.

    The casino scene in FYEO also had a little bit of this going on.

    Check out this screenshot from NSNA - soft lighting at its worst.
    [url=" http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=3769&position=3"] http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screenshot.php?movieid=3769&position=3[/url].
    It just looks foggy, strange and wrong....and cheap.
  • I find it very amusing with the sweeping statements saying, it's not an official Bond movie, that it's not even a Bond movie or even worse, it's not a movie at all! It's all three, whether you like it or not.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    edited April 2013 Posts: 24,161
    I find it very amusing with the sweeping statements saying, it's not an official Bond movie, that it's not even a Bond movie or even worse, it's not a movie at all! It's all three, whether you like it or not.

    Correct.

    One may see it as a work of hatred and irrational disdain, as I often do for that matter, but it's also a reasonably faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel, save for a couple of elements, and it features one of Connery's best performances as Bond - IMO at least. It's part of the pandebondium, folks.
  • Posts: 66
    Although it is lacking a lot of what makes the EON films great. It was an attempt to make Bond more human. So despite an abysmal score, among the movies other faults, I find it somewhat better than some of the official entries in the series. It was also nice to see Connery enjoying himself as 007 again.
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 1,817
    In response to @SaintMark and @DarthDimi, I can't appreciate a movie like NSNA because I believe it's a movie just "against" something. McClory made it against EON and in revenge to Fleming. Connery also took it as his personal vendetta against Cubby Broccoli.
    So there is not really a creative effort like "let's make a Bond movie better than the other ones from EON" or "lets adapt Fleming's Thunderball as it should be done".
    Even if EON and the Broccoli family have made mistakes over the time, they not only have tried to improve over them (CR, SF show that) but they reflect a serious respect for Bond and Fleming and even if they have enriched their wallets by that, it's clear that the legacy they've carried it's more than money to them.

    @thelivingroyale You ask me if I'll see future Bond films not made by EON. I don't know, perhaps I will and if they are not a competition I could appreciate them as canon. But again, I don't know the circumstances.
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 14
    I always liked NSNA but felt the music was terrible and the lack of gunbarrel blasphemous. The fact that it's a remake of TB never bothered me because it's a good SPECTRE plot and they might try it again nearly 20 years later. The changes in casting Moneypenny and Q don't make much sense, but the different M works since there was a lag in replacing Bernard Lee with Robert Brown. Having NSNA in the timeline between FYEO and OP is close enough and I'm willing to overlook the different Moneypenny. The different Q could just be another Q-branch employee while Desmond's Q is on leave. I like the cast and think Largo and Fatima Blush were both excellent adversaries for Bond. Largo could be a nephew of TB's Largo, also with a yacht and tied up with SPECTRE. Bernie Casey makes a great Leiter. The gadgets are great, the humor is usually funny, the action is generally good and they came up with unique set-pieces. And Connery is as always excellent as Bond, and looks better than he did in YOLT and DAF. The scene where Fatima has Bond at gunpoint is perfection.

    There is a fan-edit of NSNA called Never Say McClory Again, which adds a gunbarrel and adds proper Bond music from other films' soundtracks. This greatly improves the movie and makes far more sense to be included in the same timeline as the other films.

    The lack of Bond theme and the missing gunbarrel don't bother me nearly as much after QOS and SF didn't start with the gunbarrel. And both CR and QOS didn't have much use of the Bond theme in their scores in comparison to the other films. The original score for NSNA sounds just as bad as portions of the GE score like the driving scene when Bond is having his psychological evaluation but that is another matter.

    It's a solid Bond film to me though it is probably in the lower third of my ranking. It's a fun outing for 007.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    0013 wrote:
    In response to @SaintMark and @DarthDimi, I can't appreciate a movie like NSNA because I believe it's a movie "against" something. McClory made it against EON and in revenge to Fleming. Connery also took it as his personal vendetta against Cubby Broccoli.
    So it is not really a creative effort like "let's make a Bond movie better than the other ones from EON" or "least adapt Fleming's Thunderball as it should be done".
    Even if EON and the Broccoli family has made mistakes over the time, they not only have tried to improve over them (CR, SF show that) but they reflect a serious respect for Bond and Fleming and even if they have enrich their wallets by that, it's clear that the legacy they've carried it's more than money to them.

    Those are interesting reasons for hating the film.

    I agree that its right to despise McClory as the only thing he was ever interested in was getting a slice of the pie that Fleming and EON had cooked up. The most Kevin ever contributed to the world of Bond was a single plotline and (possibly) SPECTRE and the names Blofeld, Largo and Domino. Thats no more than the likes of Bruce Fierstein or John Logan and considerably less than Maibaum and P&W so his delusions that he was entitled to a bigger cut are frankly laughable. I can only think he did not emply a very honourable lawyer as whenever Kev came up with another spurious reason to sue for ownership of Bond his legal advice was always 'we'll see EON in court' rather than 'no Kevin you will lose again.'
    Whilst Fleming was never going to live to a ripe old age, I think its pretty fair to say that the court case with McClory clearly hastened his death so for this alone he should be reviled. However the fact that even after effectively winning the lottery with a bumper payday for TB it wasnt enough for him and for the rest of his life he tried, with increasingly tragic levels of desperation, to cash in further on the success of other people just goes to show up a rather pathetic man and in the end you almost have to feel a bit sorry for him chasing the golden Bond rainbow by unveiling his latest TB script every couple of years to a deafening silence from Hollywood.

    As for Connery I guess you are also right in that part of it was two fingers to Cubby, although as with anything Sean related he wouldnt have done it if the fee wasnt right. I'd be pretty surprised if his NSNA paycheck didnt dwarf Rog's for OP and if Sean wasnt the highest paid actor of the year.

    However the film at least tries to be a solid Bond entry and despite quite a few things that hamper it (score, action - especially when compared with OP, no gunbarrel/Bond theme, feeble climax, TV movie production values) for the large part it succeeds. I would say it is certainly far more faithful and respectful to Fleming and the character than drivel such as DAD I feel it does get a pretty bad rap overall. There are some good things about it (Sean is back and having a whale of a time, Barbara and Klaus put in some great villainous performances, there are some fine one liners, decent fight at Shrublands, the death of Fatima) and I dont think it deserves to be held in such contempt as CR67 and indeed DAD.
  • Posts: 37
    I don't particularly care for McClory but NSNA was the first bond film i saw and i loved it back then! (Anglia showed it around xmas somewhere late 80's i think??) Still prefer it over OP and think its a decent effort. Great to see Connery back!
    Don't really care its not made by Eon, in fact i wish there were a bit more producers able to make bonds - one movie only every 3rd year or so is not enough for me. Eon is getting slower over time and although Skyfall was great, the movies haven't significantly improved in quality compared to the old days imo..
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,161
    0013 wrote:
    In response to @SaintMark and @DarthDimi, I can't appreciate a movie like NSNA because I believe it's a movie "against" something. McClory made it against EON and in revenge to Fleming. Connery also took it as his personal vendetta against Cubby Broccoli.
    So it is not really a creative effort like "let's make a Bond movie better than the other ones from EON" or "least adapt Fleming's Thunderball as it should be done".
    Even if EON and the Broccoli family has made mistakes over the time, they not only have tried to improve over them (CR, SF show that) but they reflect a serious respect for Bond and Fleming and even if they have enrich their wallets by that, it's clear that the legacy they've carried it's more than money to them.

    Those are interesting reasons for hating the film.

    I agree that its right to despise McClory as the only thing he was ever interested in was getting a slice of the pie that Fleming and EON had cooked up. The most Kevin ever contributed to the world of Bond was a single plotline and (possibly) SPECTRE and the names Blofeld, Largo and Domino. Thats no more than the likes of Bruce Fierstein or John Logan and considerably less than Maibaum and P&W so his delusions that he was entitled to a bigger cut are frankly laughable. I can only think he did not emply a very honourable lawyer as whenever Kev came up with another spurious reason to sue for ownership of Bond his legal advice was always 'we'll see EON in court' rather than 'no Kevin you will lose again.'
    Whilst Fleming was never going to live to a ripe old age, I think its pretty fair to say that the court case with McClory clearly hastened his death so for this alone he should be reviled. However the fact that even after effectively winning the lottery with a bumper payday for TB it wasnt enough for him and for the rest of his life he tried, with increasingly tragic levels of desperation, to cash in further on the success of other people just goes to show up a rather pathetic man and in the end you almost have to feel a bit sorry for him chasing the golden Bond rainbow by unveiling his latest TB script every couple of years to a deafening silence from Hollywood.

    As for Connery I guess you are also right in that part of it was two fingers to Cubby, although as with anything Sean related he wouldnt have done it if the fee wasnt right. I'd be pretty surprised if his NSNA paycheck didnt dwarf Rog's for OP and if Sean wasnt the highest paid actor of the year.

    However the film at least tries to be a solid Bond entry and despite quite a few things that hamper it (score, action - especially when compared with OP, no gunbarrel/Bond theme, feeble climax, TV movie production values) for the large part it succeeds. I would say it is certainly far more faithful and respectful to Fleming and the character than drivel such as DAD I feel it does get a pretty bad rap overall. There are some good things about it (Sean is back and having a whale of a time, Barbara and Klaus put in some great villainous performances, there are some fine one liners, decent fight at Shrublands, the death of Fatima) and I dont think it deserves to be held in such contempt as CR67 and indeed DAD.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS_2Or0enrudgqzXKXwDtqiXsXTqoZyMawQZY9vvJAlmF2T3VYvfw
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    Still better than YOLT....
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 11,189
    002 wrote:
    Still better than YOLT....

    Is it??? I like YOLT and think that, while it has its faults, it has an unfair time on here. The score alone makes YOLT superior.

    @Wizard. Royale'67 is a mess but it did at least give us a good song by Burt Bacharach.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    BAIN123 wrote:
    002 wrote:
    Still better than YOLT....

    Is it??? I like YOLT and think that, while it has its faults, it has an unfair time on here. The score alone makes YOLT superior.
    I hear this all the time, about how one film or another is "treated unfairly", but I don't see it. How exactly is it called being unfair to a film if you criticize that said film that a group of others (sometimes in the majority) like? Every film ever, Bond or otherwise has its lovers or haters, whether they are classics, genre films or whathaveyou. So you could say every film ever made has been "treated unfairly as well", by this logic?
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    NSNA can be a lot of fun but if it didn't have Connery in it I suspect I wouldn't give two shats about it. It's all about getting to see him play Bond one last time.
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 12,837
    002 wrote:
    Still better than YOLT....

    I'll always defend NSNA but I can't agree with that. Not at all.

    YOLT is brilliant. It's pure spectacle but I love it. It's an insanely enjoyable film featuring one of Barry's best soundtracks, Donald Pleasance and a volcanoe lair. We also get some fun gadgets and action, good Bond girls and allies, and even ninjas! And for all the talk of Connery being bored I just don't see it.

    NSNA is leagues ahead of Diamonds but YOLT? Nah.
  • samainsysamainsy Suspended
    Posts: 199
    DarthDimi wrote:
    @samainsy
    Amazon.com should bring you far. ;-) And if you live in the UK, there's Amazon.co.uk for you.
    thanks isnt it a comedy and is it good cos i need 8 more till i have all of them includinf CR67 and NSNA and a few more

  • Posts: 7,653
    NSNA is the dignified farewell and thank you to Sean Connery's 007, DAF was a poor note to leave the franchise with NSNA he did it with visual pleasure.
  • Posts: 5,634
    another duplicate thread, doubtless aware, but once again, it's not a release that's meant to be taken seriously. It's screams at you it's merely a spoof and just to play along, and it doesn't try to be anything different. If ever I can manage a watch, it's only for the lovely Barbara Carrera, and there's not much else going for it all said. Better than YOLT ? I don't know. Both are poor and disappointing experiences, but at least Connery's 1967 release is an official part of the Bond series. NSNA just has a bit of fun, Connery enjoys himself, one or two decent action sequences, spoof release, and that's about it for the most part. Damn sight better than the awful Casino Royale 67 though

    goodnight
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    I'll take this
    x-thunderball-big.jpg

    Over this...
    justinbieber-neversaynever-bond.gif
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote:
    I'll take this
    x-thunderball-big.jpg

    Over this...
    justinbieber-neversaynever-bond.gif

    Wow, both images are so bad they have hidden themselves from existence! :O
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    the first one was the cover of Thunderball and the second was a photoshopped image of Justin Bieber on the Never Say Never Again poster. X.X
  • 002002
    Posts: 581
    002 wrote:
    Still better than YOLT....

    I'll always defend NSNA but I can't agree with that. Not at all.

    YOLT is brilliant. It's pure spectacle but I love it. It's an insanely enjoyable film featuring one of Barry's best soundtracks, Donald Pleasance and a volcanoe lair. We also get some fun gadgets and action, good Bond girls and allies, and even ninjas! And for all the talk of Connery being bored I just don't see it.

    NSNA is leagues ahead of Diamonds but YOLT? Nah.

    yeah i was mucking about YOLT while being perhaps a bit boring still has Blofeld, Connery and John Barry's music so yeah its good but not as good as Connery's first 3

    i actually liked Diamonds- mainly for the PTS and the music (Bond meets Bambi and Thumper is perhaps my favourite bond theme)
  • edited April 2013 Posts: 55
    I view NSNA as part of an "alternate series" made up of the seven Connery Bond films. For DC Comics fans, I would liken this to Frank Miller's BATMAN: YEAR ONE. B:YO was part of the "official" DC continuity, but was also a prequel to THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, which was NOT part of the official continuity. So, B:YO was part of two universes - the "DC Universe," and the "Frank Miller universe."

    Similarly, the original six Connery films are obviously part of the ongoing Eon series. But they're ALSO part of the "Connery" universe, where by 1983 Bond has been retired for several years and is brought back into action. Sure, the "remake" element creates some continuity problems...but the Eon series has plenty of continuity problems too.

    NSNA is an "official" Bond film, in that it's a legally made film about the Bond character. But it's not part of the Eon series, because...it's not. Seems fairly self-explanatory.
  • Aziz_FekkeshAziz_Fekkesh Royale-les-Eaux
    Posts: 403
    It's a movie featuring James Bond as the protagonist, Sean Connery in the lead role, and made using Bond rights. But it wasn't made by Eon and for that reason I can't include it in the official canonology of the other 23 films. And the TB story was already done.
Sign In or Register to comment.