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
They're not the only differences that set the two films apart. OP has far better production values (on a cheaper budget as well I might add) and more original and exciting set pieces than NSNA.
I do think that OP is the vastly superior film though.
Except in The Battle For Bond it clearly states that Paramount would only greenlight Warhead (as it was then) if Sean was on board but this was whilst TSWLM was still in pre-production. And Connery was location scouting with Mcclory in NY around 76/77 so was virtually on board by then.
So your dates are somewhat out for blaming it on MR.
I'm saying that was a tipping point IMO. It basically said to them, don't worry about making it like a classic Bond movie. It took creative pressure off.
Whatever, it's just an opinion. ;)
NSNA
* Better villains (both Brandeur and Carrera chew the scenery)
* Better direction
- Better cinematography from the legendary Douglas Slocombe
* Wittier screenplay from Lorenzo Semple, Jnr.
* Better song (it's let down by tacky production and a weak performance from Lani Hall - but it's a bloody good song at its core - after all it's Burt Bacharach and Alan & Marilyn Bergman)
OP
* More engaging central performance from Moore
* Better score
* Better love interests
* Better PTS
- Bettet finale
That said and done, I still think I prefer OP. Somehow it's more than the sum of its parts.
Michel Legrand is NOT an awful composer.
Go listen to Les Parapluies de Cherbourg, Les Baie des anges, The Thomas Crown Affair, Summer of 42 and The Go Between, to name a few.
Conney's favourite film composer, Jerry Goldsmith, was his original choice, but his schedule that year was already too full. Michel Legrand (who was the original composer on Robin and Marian before his score was thrown out) was his second choice.
This is fantastically interesting. Connery has such a good understanding of Bond. I always thought he hated the series and never gave a moment's thought about it but here he really exposes himself as a guy who understands it all well; a borderline fan perhaps.
His summation on Moore' tenure is dead-on when he describes it as essentially being parody and Connery's review of FRWL is difficult to argue with. He even states he knew that the producers were heading down the parody track when he was doing DAF. He's much wiser and more insightful than his usual cantankerous self.
Good interview, Sean seems quite ordinary.
Can't really imagine Barry getting away with the dry "Felix Darker" remark these days.
It does look cheap, couldn't believe it when I found out OP had a lower budget. Have to disagree with you on the action though.
Does it? Wow. That said I don't think OP looks like a particularly expensive film in itself. It does look better than NSNA though. NSNA seems quite amateurish.
Why in your opinion is NSNA better than OP?
Agree. This is coming from me who watched the first 4 Bond films when they were released first in 1960s, having read the novels before then. Nice to see Connery in NSNA, tolerating some excesses in that film. I think we should keep our conversations a bit more dignified. Each of us likes a different Bond film as the best. That is the beauty of being fans of Bond.
For me, who watched Connery in 1962 in DN and in FRWL the next year, it took a long time to accept George Lazenby, although I knew that Peter Hunt was a very talented editor, the best director for that film and would have done even better if he had Connery. Nevertheless, I saw the film the very first day it was released because of Peter Hunt, but could not accept George Lazenby then. Over the nest few years, I realised how good a Bond George Lazenby would have become had he stayed.
Let us take the good bits in every film and in this case NSNA.
NSNA isn't bad, but if I would rank it below any of the EON films. It doesn't feel like a Bond film. Connery is in it and he plays "James Bond," but it's not a Bond film.
I guess I'm in a super minority here, I actually enjoy NSNA over TB. And I rank Octopussy as one of the best in the series.
I wonder if Connery, even at this point, even liked NSNA. I read that the production of the movie was a disaster.
I'm watching DAF at the moment and you know what? I don't care much for Sean in it. Simply put, I don't believe he is James Bond like I did in the first few films. Give me Brosnan in Goldeneye anyday over Sean in Diamonds or NSNA - he may have been nervous but at least he was interested, keen and still reasonably good shape if a bit on the light side.
Back in '83 I was just so happy to see him back it never really hit me how BAD NSNA was. Or how bad he was in it.
Before NSNA he made Outland. After he made Highlander. He was absolutely stellar in BOTH. I think he regretted every minute of making NSNA.
At the very least he seemed to be having fun poking fun at the franchise in DAF.
Regarding NSNA he doesn't bother hiding his accent:
"What's the shtory on how the damn things were shtolen"
Like I said before, DAF is the best Bond spoof ever.