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
Perhaps a better way to put it is NSNA is not on the Bond canon (it's certainly not the same timeline as it would've been a 2 hour déjà vu for Bond).
Leaving that aside, I can't believe something is wrong with me as a Bond fan if I don't count NSNA in the canon,I'm simply not interested as I'm neither interested on watching the CR spoof. For example, as a fan of Star Wars I don't care for the Holiday Special even if it is an official entry made by Lucas.
That's the reason of way I seldom talk about non-canonical Bond movies, even if in this thread I evidently made an exception.
But, what I find most difficult to understand, is the motivation of some members to defend so strongly a lousy movie, with low quality in many different areas, and made mostly by feelings of hatred and revenge against the franchise and its producers that we all (I thought) admire and respect.
@0013- spot on that last paragraph. Stick to your guns, there's nothing wrong with your lack of acceptance of the film in counting it as part of the canon, it's a minority of those who wish it to be who are having an issue with the truth.
So have you seen it or haven't you? Because I swear your other post said something about not watching it "even for the 100th anniversary" before.
Neither are the Craig films.
I enjoy NSNA. It doesn't mean I respect EON any less. What if EON stopped producing the films, would you watch them then?
I've watched some scenes and bits of I but not completely.
But it still is canon... and a consciously made reboot.
I don't question the fact that somebody as yourself likes it (even if it is hard to understand why). I was aiming to the intense need to defend the production.
And what I find must (sic) difficult to understand is people who enter into debates without having the first clue about what comprises a coherent argument.
Here is the definition of official for those who may not be familiar with the word:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=official
I think it safe to say we are discussing definition 2 here (unless I'm totally wrong and the antipathy towards NSNA is due to point 5 and it not having the backing of the US Medical Board to be tested on humans or something?) so the question is 'just who is the 'proper authority' who can 'authorise' a Bond film?' (At the time - it's probably a different story these days).
Well I've news for some of you - it's not EON. They are just people who bought the rights to make Bond films and, apart from quantity, they have no more right to call their films official than Feldman.
Mcclory had the same 'official' rights as EON and Feldman to make a Bond film and thus NSNA was born and is legitimately an official Bond film.
So just who is granting these rights? Ian Fleming - you know, that guy who invented the f**cking character. He sold the right to make an official Bond film (CR) to Gregory Ratoff whose widow sold it on to Charles Feldman. In exactly the same way he sold the right to make films on all the other novels (apart from TSWLM for which only the title could be used and TB - more on that in a minute) to Harry Saltzman.
The right to film the novel TB was taken from Fleming by the court and awarded to Kevin Mcclory.
All three people - Feldman, Saltzman and Mcclory - had exactly the same right from Fleming (albeit two through buisness contracts and one following a law suit) to make films of their respective Bond novels which they did. Mcclory just happened to use this right twice.
I'm not sure but I think Feldman or his heirs could have adapted CR every year until 2004 or whatever if they had so desired.
In Return Of The Man From Uncle they called the character played by Lazenby 'JB' because if they had called him James Bond Cubby (who owned Saltzman's rights by now) would have sued - and I dare say Mcclory too.
Fan films on Youtube are tolerated up to a point but if anyone tried making money from them commercially they too would be sued because unlike EON they don't have any official rights granted by Fleming or Glidrose to do so.
To quote Mr Vincent Jones 'Do you want me to draw you a picture?'
Now all that aside 0013 I'll happily discuss with you the fact that EON do a great job, its a disgrace that Mcclory was even awarded the rights in the first place and that NSNA really isn't that good. But one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
And the fact remains that NSNA is legitimate and no matter how much you don't watch it nothing will change that.
NSNA is just a Bond film from the same father just with different mothers. It still has Fleming's genes and blood running through its veins even though its not part of the 'family'.
I'm merely defending the law which allowed the production to be made. Do I agree with the judgement that was passed finding Fleming guilty of plagiarism and awarding the film rights to Mcclory? Not in the slightest but there's nothing I can do about that unless I advocate turning to anarchy.
But don't worry 0013 you are not alone in your blinkeredness where hating Mcclory and fawning over EON supercedes any logic; surprisingly there are actually even more infantile views than yours out there:
Good to see such erudite arguments on here. Presumably SirHenry is down to address the Oxford Union on all manor of topics with a razor sharp intellect like that?
Although personally I think it better that the rights lie solely with EON and the idea of rogue Bond films sprouting up all over the place does not appeal they should not be above criticism. EON has committed as many crimes against the character as NSNA ever did so please don't let the truth get lost in your eagerness to join a Mcclory witch hunt and buy into some Pravda-esque revisionist history where EON have never done any wrong.
NSNA gave us Legrand; Eon gave us Conti.
NSNA gave us Basinger; EON gave us Roberts.
NSNA gave us a poorly paced crap climax; EON gave us "Here's to us"
Case closed for me. :))
And you didn't even need to call your star witness: DAD!
:))
For the movies:
Canon A: 23 EON movies
Canon B: 23 + CR54 + CR67 + NSNA
Canon C: fan movies
For books:
Canon A: Fleming's
Canon B: Fleming's + continuation authors
Canon C: the former ones + the Moneypenny diaries, young Bond books, ecc.
So arguing on the definion of "official" as a term doesn't really lead anywhere, as I was discussing substance, not form.
Anyway, I stand with my Canon A with no regrets but I still don't understand the motivation to defend NSNA so eagerly.
And yes, sorry for my typo. I only hope that it wasn't some sort of mockery as I think it would be uncalled for.
Overall though, I like it. I certainly think Eon have made worse entries in the series.
Fixed ;)
Hard as it is to believe, I like Cont's score less than Serra's. :-??
It's not hard to believe and I get that. Much of the FYEO soundtrack is simply awful and perhaps worse than GE, for nothing more than the fact that Conti understood what they wanted him to do much more than Serra did, and still failed to marry his sound with the Bond sound and make it work. If not for the theme song and managing to use variations of it throughout, I'd have come to the same conclusion. I have the FYEO soundtrack but listen to it as much as I listen to the GE soundtrack I don't have- which is to say not at all.
I think side B of the soundtrack; tracks like "Cortina" and "Goodbye, Countess/No Head for Heights/Dining Alone" work really nicely with the film. It's certainly several notches above Legrand's score in my book.
The Rage track is definitely a stinker though
Of course, NSNA fails on that count really because ironically, at the time the idea was that the film would be truer to Fleming and more credible and realistic than the Moore nonsense, that it would be a real thriller. Turned out not to the be so, it was really a synthetic EON Bond film, a poor imitation that didn't play to Connery's strengths at all. However, when NSNA was being made the asumption was that this would be the real deal, and that EON's movies would be exposed as the imposters.
That stated, the film suffers from a pretty mediocre musical score that direly needed John Barry's presence, a lack of directorial...style expected from the Connery films previous and an abrupt, jolting and unsatisfactory ending. I liked that he retired at the end of the film and ended the Bonnery Bond circle, but the above-mentioned comparisions with Thunderball, a successful, sprawling, brawny story did not help. There's cool stuff in the film, like the opening for example, but the story creaks in places.
Couldn't have put it better myself. And when you consider that NSNA had a higher production budget than OP (nearly a staggering $9 million more in fact) and yet it looks so damn cheap. The production values are appalling, the soundtrack is awful and the action sequences are bland and insipid.
The Tarzan yell and clown outfit come to mind.
You've picked out 2 scenes, which are fairly loathed by most on here, but overall OP trounces NSNA in every aspect.
I used to LOVE NSNA, but then I left college & stopped the drinking games....
:D
I agree. It's like one of those made-for-TV films, where the whole cast gets back together a number of years later for a one-off special. It's so bland.
That stated, neither of these pictures reflect the cream of the crop in terms of bond cinema.
The Tarzan yell is plain daft, are all of Moore's antiques in the jungle chase, but the clown suit is brilliant. One of Moore's best dramatic scenes with, made all the more harrowing by the fact that none of the USAF top brass believe him, and the obvious parallels to 009's death.
The whole bomb chase act in OP is the highlight of the film for me. The India stuff is just travelogue filler.
=D> I'm a Connery die hard and couldn't agree more. Sean should have stayed retired after DAF. In this one for the money too.
Please explain - I can understand Mcclory might have thought after TMWTGG that maybe Bond was over and it wasn't worth it but the success of TSWLM and MR might have made his mind up to press ahead. However the Warhead script by Deighton was being written in 75/76 so it seems Kevin was serious long before MR was even conceived of.