39 replies to this topic

[smirt spionum]

Okay, I've been a big Bond fan for all my life, but not the level of most people here, so please excuse my ignorance ;-).

Why is it that Never Say Never Again isn't "counted" as an official Bond film? I understand why Casino Royale isn't, but why not this one? I know it's just a rehash of Thunderball, but still kinda cool.

Just curious...

[Bryce (003)]

A good film - mostly for Connery playing Bond at the age he was at the time (53).

There's been many a link on these forums and one of them has "THE" full story. I forget who posted it, but it answers all questions.

Can somebody find the link?

and lastly, Kevin McClory can rot in Scotland for all I care....that's assuming Sony/Columbia hasn't sent out a hit-team to find him.

[Jeff007]

Try this
http://www.ianflemin...afjbfaq/3.shtml

[Bryce (003)]

Thanks Jeff.

Wow! It's just like MI6 -

"Somebody call down to records."

[007ES]

I believe it was a remake of Thunderball

[Felix's lighter]

In reality, it's not as hideous a movie as many Bond fans (including myself) make it out to be. It's just that Kevin McClory - the producer of the movie - has been a pain in the *** to EON for going on three decades now, and he's the main reason the series was held up for six years (not, as is popularly thought, the poor box office performance of Licence To Kill, although I'm sure it played some small factor).

[steg76]

Wow, how spooky is that? I'd just logged on for the first time in ages to ask the very same queston:eek:. It's was only in my mind because I've just bought the two 'spoof' films to add to my collection with the other 19 films.

I'll have a read through that link that someone kindly posted and see if the answer is in there.

[ShakeNotStirred]

First of all, it wasnt produced by MGM and thats the main reason. Second of all, its just a remake of Thunderball, and therefore shouldnt be considered a bond movie. BTW, why did we wait so long between LTK and GE?

[deth]

Never Say Never Again is HORRIBLE. I turned it off half-way through the first time I saw it, it was so boring.

[Felix's lighter]

I was wrong on the point about Kevin Mclory holding EON up for six years. Further research shows it was actually MGM's legal wranglings that held things up (mind you, the performance of LTK didn't help). More info can be found on 007 Forever - I'll get you a direct link when I find it.

[ChandlerBing]

I have a real good question about the movie:

Why was it even made? It contributed nothing to the Bond mythology. Thunderball has already been done, people. As much as I enjoy Sean Connery, the movie was a waste of time.

[Felix's lighter]

Why was it made? To make money, of course. Are there any other reasons to make movies (tongue plants in cheek)?

Piece of useless trivia: back in Oct. 1983, when NSNA came out, the movie held the Number One spot for four consecutive weeks (according to Box Office Mojo). Yet it's widely considered a flop - why?

[ChandlerBing]

It's not a flop. It made just a little less than Octopussy here in the USA back in 1983. It made 55 mil at the box office that year. Octopussy made around 65. Connery's movie had the biggest fall opening at that time.

[B5Erik2]

I just watched NSNA again last night, and I thought it was pretty good. Remove the character of Nigel Small-Fawcett and make M a little less of a joke and you've got a very good Bond movie. Connery was great, Max Von Sydow was perfect as Blofeld, and Klaus Maria Brandauer was good as Largo. Kim Basinger was decent as Domino.

The pacing of the movie was good and the effects were decent (for 1983).

I woulndn't rank it any higher than 14th or so when ranking the Bond films, but it is better than it gets credit for.

And it SHOULD be counted - not as an "official" Bond film, but as a serious Bond movie (unlike that catastrophe, Casino Royale).

[Vodka Martino]

NSNA was repeated on TV here in Melbourne, Australia just last Saturday night. I hadn't seen it for a few years so I forgot how bad or good it was. So here's my breakdown:
THE GOOD
Connery...Sean Connery. In a fight with this guy, Roger Moore wouldn't stand a chance. Connery is the reason why this was a better film than "Octopussy" of the same year. And the action scenes were good for their time. Making Felix Leiter black was a great idea, too. Klaus Maria Brandauer made a credible villain whom you actually liked a little.
THE BAD
My main problem lies with the script. There are a couple of instances where somebody will make a comment to Bond and his only reply is "Thank-you". For example, Felix Leiter tells Bond that if he's not careful, blah, blah, blah "M will have your *ss." And 007 merely replies with "Thank-you". It just seems like too many wasted opportunities. The screenwriter was a guy named Lorenzo Semple jr who wrote numerous episodes of the "Batman" TV series in the 60s. An odd choice unless the producers were trying to capture some of that 60s campiness that the early Bond films were famous for. IMHO, there were better screenwriters kicking around in Hollywood in the early 80s.
Irving Kirshner's direction lacked any real flair. There was nothing memorable about it.
THE UGLY
THE WORST MUSICAL SCORE OF ANY BOND FILM! And that includes "Casino Royale". If you close your eyes when you watch this film, you'd swear you were watching an episode of "Hart to Hart" (during the action scenes) or "The Love Boat" (during the quieter moments). And don't get me started on the theme song!

There you have it. Yes, NSNA was a remake of "Thunderball" and all it really needed was a few changes of scenery, less scuba diving and a better confrontation between Bond and Largo and it probably would have been a better film. Sean Connery described the making of this film as "a toilet" and you can't argue with that.
Personally, I would rather watch NSNA 100 times over than sit through "Octopussy" and "A View To A Kill" ten times over.

Vodka Martino

P.S.- for those of you perhaps too young to remember, "Hart To Hart" and "The Love Boat" were a couple of TV shows from the 80s.

[Jriv71]

I make a motion that we not count Diamonds Are Forever as a serious Bond film. What kills me is that the book was brilliant. Bond in the U.S. Bond at the racetrack. Bond at, yes, a Casino. Does anybody have any idea how badly they blew it.

[marktmurphy]

NSNA also had script work performed on it by veteran UK TV sitcom writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais, hence the reappearance of the "Would you fill this sample flask Mr. Bond?" "From here?" exchange originally seen in Porridge. I think its got some of the best lines and gags in a Bond film "My Martini's still dry"; "One must be relaxed when going down" etc. Beats DAD's dialogue into a cocked hat.

And Vodka Martino, are you saying that you think Casino Royale has a bad soundtrack? I don't understand; its outstanding. Very funny, slinky and melodic. Its really worth buying the cd in my opinion.
Beats DAD's music etc etc.

[Vodka Martino]

Originally posted by marktmurphy

And Vodka Martino, are you saying that you think Casino Royale has a bad soundtrack? I don't understand; its outstanding. Very funny, slinky and melodic.

MarkT,
In retrospect, I have to admit that I was a little harsh on the music of "Casino Royale". It was screened the week after NSNA and I have to say that it stands up quite well as an example of 60s film comedy. If you forget that everybody in it is called James Bond and you take the film on its own merits, it becomes a pretty funny film.
And yes, the music was better than I remembered. In my own pitiful defence, may I say that the last time I saw this film was when I was about 15 years old, back in the days when I took the Bond films VERY seriously.
And Ursula Andress looked better in this film, dare I say, than she did in "Dr.No" , if that's possible.
Alas, I was really tired the night I saw "Casino Royale" and only watched the first hour. It screened at 11:30pm. Been kicking myself slightly for not staying up to catch the rest of it.
So I hope I haven't upset anyone with my earlier post. My opinions were based on memory, a dangerous thing to do.

Vodka M

[JBond007]

The soundtrack is unimaginative, and the absence of the Bond theme is alarming (though they obviously couldn't use it).

Rather disappointing that they couldn't have started off with a BIG BIG stunt, rather than the rather lame infiltration.

Interestingly, the Second Unit Director was Vic Armstrong.

[FireKiss]

Just got NSNA on a dvd for ten pounds. I must say apart from a lot of ifs and buts, and general plot holes, this is a hugely entertaining 'boys own' adventure. Yes the music is very eighties, the sfx a tiny bit cheap and the oddly fake looking bomber plane.
But the natural performance of Connery, slipping straight back into the roll like a made to measure glove, and as most commentators have noticed, he is actually fitter at that time, than he was when he made DAF. And with a more natural mature agent look about him.

But the character that really stands out is Barbera Carrera as Fatima Blush. Much prefereable to Jinx, and several of the Eon leading ladies. Oh, and the 'Algernon' character is great, really funny word play with 007.

The film had everything you could possibly ask for in a Bond film.

[kevrichardson]

Connery had a hand in the script so he ahd a lot invested in the film. He played Bond as more mature "spy". The lack of "gadgetery" helps the film. It is a more straight peformance also because the producer was limited in what could be used in the film. Due to EON /coryright . Barbara Carrera was Fatima Blush was a nice piece of casting in 1983 > Kim Bassinger was good also.

[Johnson Galore]

Originally posted by Jriv71
I make a motion that we not count Diamonds Are Forever as a serious Bond film.  What kills me is that the book was brilliant.  Bond in the U.S.  Bond at the racetrack.  Bond at, yes, a Casino.  Does anybody have any idea how badly they blew it.

Bond in the mud bath when the assasins arrive! Great book- inane film. NSNA is definitely an improvement over DAF and an intersting way for Connery to retire from the series.

[Dr Noah]

"its just a remake of Thunderball, and therefore shouldnt be considered a bond movie"

By that logic, the various remakes of "The Hound Of The Baskerviles" are not Sherlock Holmes movies...

[JBond007]

The question is, WHY DID SEAN CONNERY RETURN TO MAKE NSNA BUT NOT OHMSS??

My guess was that he got pi$$ed off with EON and made this one to tick them off.

[Johnson Galore]

Originally posted by JBond007
The question is, WHY DID SEAN CONNERY RETURN TO MAKE NSNA BUT NOT OHMSS??

My guess was that he got pi$$ed off with EON and made this one to tick them off.

My impression is that he was given significant creative control over NSNA and a big paycheck. At the time of OHMSS, he was tired of the Bond character and wanted to move on. By the mid-70s, he was expressing interest in a new Bond-project.

[JBond007]

I doubt that the NSNA paycheck would have been as big as that of DAF?

NSNA just seemed very low budget (no action scenes were really spectacular).

[flares]

NSNA's Budget was $34 Million (in the same year Octopussy's was only $20 Million.

The only films that cost more than NSNA were all the ones after and including Goldeneye. Just goes to show money isn't everything.

[Mr. Kidd]

I get hot under the collar when I think that Connery turned down OHMSS
yet was persuaded to return as Bond for NSNA. Not nearly as good a
film and to me merely an excuse for McClory to wring that last drop
of cash from his lone Bond property and stick it to EON. To me the best
things about the film were the scenes between Connery and Klaus
Maria Brandauer (one of my favorite performances of ANY villian!) None
of the traditional Bond conventions that string the series together
(gunbarrel logo, Bond theme, stylish credites, etc.) appear here and
the teaser was a dud. Connery's swan song SHOULD have been with
EON & DAF.

[Red Grant]

Originally posted by Mr. Kidd
I get hot under the collar when I think that Connery turned down OHMSS
yet was persuaded to return as Bond for NSNA. Not nearly as good a  
film and to me merely an excuse for McClory to wring that last drop
of cash from his lone Bond property and stick it to EON. To me the best
things about the film were the scenes between Connery and Klaus
Maria Brandauer (one of my favorite performances of ANY villian!) None
of the traditional Bond conventions that string the series together
(gunbarrel logo, Bond theme, stylish credites, etc.) appear here and
the teaser was a dud. Connery's swan song SHOULD have been with
EON & DAF.

I don't think Connery specifically turned down OHMSS - he just decided well into the production of YOLT that it would be his last movie. I don't think he gave any consideration to the fact that the next movie was to be OHMSS knowing it would be a good one to do. I suspect he returned to do NSNA as he was experiencing a significant low point in his career and the only thing he could make money with was a Bond film. The result is an awful film that Connery hated making even more than the EON series as he was surrounded by "bankers" (a good enough word for them!) and ended up virtually directing much of the movie himself. Connery's contract included total script and casting approval and he brought in writers Dick Clement & Ian La Frenais to spice up the script with "British" humour. I think the end results show that although Connery made a fine 007 he didn't have the knowhow to turn NSNA into a Bond film as it is so flat and lifeless because it is missing all the necessary ingredients that make a Bond film work. Unfortunately all these elements are part of the EON series and therefore couldn't be used (other than the things in the THUNDERBALL film script).

[JBond007]

Well said.

The absence of an eye popping pretitle sequence and the Bond theme are alarming.