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
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
Amazon.com should bring you far. ;-) And if you live in the UK, there's Amazon.co.uk for you.
And I've never seen it because of my loyalty towards Don Broccoli...
A shame really as you not really judge the effort.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
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.
goodnight
Over this...
Wow, both images are so bad they have hidden themselves from existence! :O
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)
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.