47 replies to this topic

[Sunny_on_SM]

Favouritism aside, from all points of view on the subject, including ethical (meaning that his friend's, Roger's, Bond film was being released that year as well), do you feel that it was the right decision for Sean to make NSNA? Opinions?

[Daddy Bond]

I for one wouldn't miss NSNA if had never been made (of course I wouldn't know that I wouldn't miss it if it had never been made - but you get the point).

I for one wouldn't have minded two Bond movies in one year IF both were quality movies. NSNA is NOT a quality Bond movie IMO. In fact, it's not a quality movie of any kind.

Regards.

[crheath]

I always thought this was Connery's biggest mistake. If you're going to come back and play Bond, play him for the original producers.

When NSNA came out, the same year as Octopussy, Roger looked so much better. Many fans I knew, who had never seen Connery, didn't care for it. What they didn't realize was that Moore's was the "official" Bond movie.

This, I always thought, hurt Connery's reputation as Bond.

[dinovelvet]

I always thought this was Connery's biggest mistake. If you're going to come back and play Bond, play him for the original producers.

When NSNA came out, the same year as Octopussy, Roger looked so much better. Many fans I knew, who had never seen Connery, didn't care for it. What they didn't realize was that Moore's was the "official" Bond movie.

This, I always thought, hurt Connery's reputation as Bond.

Well I mean the whole point of NSNA was for Connery to give the finger to EON and say he could out-Bond them. Which of course he didn't, as OP soundly beat NSNA at the box office. So in that respect, it probably was a mistake. I don't think it hurt Connery's rep as Bond any, he is still regarded as the best, most people just forget about NSNA as "that one that wasn't a real Bond movie".

[Hotwinds]

This is in retrospect but they should have made the film they wanted to make and not have him play "James Bond". From what I have read they were stopped from doing all kinds of things because it was too different from the original book. That aside, if the film had a different soundtrack and was not so wink wink at the audience, (that takes you out of the film) it would have been better. I had such high expectations at the time and I was dissapointed. I also blame the director. Just one example,there was a still shot of the Nabila ship I saw in a magazine before the film came out that looked so huge and cool. They did not once make it look that impressive in the film. Good thing Connery made "The Rock" when he did. In many ways Connery is ageless.

Favouritism aside, from all points of view on the subject, including ethical (meaning that his friend's, Roger's, Bond film was being released that year as well), do you feel that it was the right decision for Sean to make NSNA? Opinions?

Edited by Hotwinds, 29 August 2006 - 10:51 PM.

[crheath]

I always thought this was Connery's biggest mistake. If you're going to come back and play Bond, play him for the original producers.

When NSNA came out, the same year as Octopussy, Roger looked so much better. Many fans I knew, who had never seen Connery, didn't care for it. What they didn't realize was that Moore's was the "official" Bond movie.

This, I always thought, hurt Connery's reputation as Bond.

Well I mean the whole point of NSNA was for Connery to give the finger to EON and say he could out-Bond them. Which of course he didn't, as OP soundly beat NSNA at the box office. So in that respect, it probably was a mistake. I don't think it hurt Connery's rep as Bond any, he is still regarded as the best, most people just forget about NSNA as "that one that wasn't a real Bond movie".

I agree 100%. It's just that when Octopussy and NSNA came out, so many of my friends said they liked Moore way better than Connery. I had to tell them so many times that they had to toss NSNA out of the Connery series and go back and watch the old EON ones from the 60's. Now, of course, with NSNA forgotten, people realize that.

[Spurrier]

It did not help Connery that though he was just 52, he looked 62.

[Skudor]

Favouritism aside, from all points of view on the subject, including ethical (meaning that his friend's, Roger's, Bond film was being released that year as well), do you feel that it was the right decision for Sean to make NSNA? Opinions?

On balance I tilt just a bit onto the yes side. He was too old, but he was still the original and best. I think NSNA is a far better Bond movie than, for example, DAF. And I'm glad it exists!

[codenamel]

Sean Connery has appeared in worse films than NSNA, most of them post 1980, but this film certainly is the least of his seven Bond films and the one I would never own. It is from beginning to end an American's idea of what a James Bond film should be and what James Bond should be as an onscreen character. If SONY and Kevin McClory had been able to proceed with their Bond project a few years back, this is likely the kind of film they would have turned out again, doubtless what they would have called a hipper and trendier 007. Nearly every scene in NSNA is a send up of Bond with a broad wink at the audience and an implied "see how clever we are." Connery did manage to shine through the muck now and then, but these moments were few and far between. It seemed to me that the people making NSNA did not give a fig for James Bond and were only hoping to ride the coattails of the official franchise to make a quick buck, well many bucks. The supporting cast was simply awful, except for Max Von Sydow's Blofeld, and he was not onscreen enough to save the film. It was not really a James Bond movie, but someone's crude imitation of a James Bond movie starring an actor with too much hubris to do the role right any longer. One glaring plot flaw that still stands out is how Largo's yacht and the American submarine sailed from the coast of Libya to the Persian Gulf, almost a thousand miles, in a few hours without having to pass through the Suez Canal. It was just one example of the contempt the makers of this film had for the intelligence of their audience.

Aside from a cringe-worthy Tarzan yell, Roger Moore's performance in OCTOPUSSY ranks as one the best in the history of the official franchise. The winks at the audience were kept to a bare minimum and Moore was a serious, deadly James Bond who did not need an invisible car or a pocketful of gimmicks to give him gravitas. His age, sophistication and incomparable charm seemed unbeatable and in top form, and he handily defeated the competition at the box office as he did with Kamal Khan and the Russians onscreen.

Did Connery make a mistake by appearing in this film. Well, I can't blame him for not turning down a paycheck. However, this was the role that made him a star in the first place. Without it, his most memorable films might have remained DARBY O'GILL AND THE THE LITTLE PEOPLE and ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE with Lana Turner. He might have insisted on a better script, within the legal limits of the Thunderball decision, and insisted on playing James Bond as a character with the ability to feel fear, anger and even remorse like the rest of us. Then again, I am a fan of the human Bond and not the iconic superman.

[DLibrasnow]

Of course he should have made it....Never Say Never Again is a far better movie than anything EON ever released.

[Pam Bouvier]

No such thing as a bad Bond movie...especially a Connery Bond movie
Some fun momnets in NSNA, plus Fatima Blush is a great villianess.
Glad the movei was made!

[Skudor]

No such thing as a bad Bond movie...especially a Connery Bond movie

Couldn't agree more.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Better him than anyone else. And you can sure as heck bet all your McClory-isms that a Thunderball remake would have been made at some point. No doubt about that.

Personally, I don't mind that Never Say Never Again was made. While one of my lesser favorites, I still enjoy the film. It has a few things that make the film and Connery's return worthwhile. 1) It starred Sean Connery in a faithful adaptation so it was as "official" as an unofficial Bond film can get. 2) It shows what can happen when you remake a Bond film--DLibraSnow aside, it's not as good as the original. And 3) we got to see what an older 007 would be like. (Then two years later we got Roger Moore's version in A View To A Kill.)

All that plus we got an interesting war game exercise, a great fight with Lippe at Shrublands, the black widowish Fatima Blush, the psychotic Maximillian Largo, a tricked out motorcycle, and Kim Basinger as a Bond girl (granted she would have been better if cast 10 years later--acting and looks-wise.)

Besides, it was Connery's swan song in the role that made him famous and it serves as a nice way to compare his appearances and performances over the years.

[tambourineman]

Even though Moore was older at the time, I think he still looked more fitting as Bond, with Connery he just looked old because we're so used to seeing him the role as a younger man.

I wouldnt have minded the movie if it was good though. But it wasnt.

[Doctor Shatterhand]

For those of you who were not old enough or even born in 1983, the excitement of two James Bond films in one year was good enough. Though NSNA appears tired after all these years, OP is not exactly a shiny jewel in Eon's crown. Both films suffer from two actors who were getting on in age.

OP is still a great deal of fun and all the actors are hamming it up.

However, I would not go so far to toss our NSNA. Brandauer's performance as Largo and Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush are two of the best villains to grace the screen. Nice touch with Max Von Sydow as Blofeld. And I always knew my cousin would make a great Bond girl.

[scottright]

As I remember thinking at the time, you couldn't get King Kong off the building alive, Rick never met Elsa again, and Rhett still doesn't give a damn...but by God it's Sean Connery back for just one more time as James Bond. That alone is reason to be grateful.

As for the movie, I was - and am - less thrilled that it was warmed-over "Thunderball" but the great cast and Connery's performance - certainly better than "Diamonds Are Forever" or "You Only Live Twice" - made me easily over look the many flaws. As Bond, Connery can do more with an eyebrow than Roger Moore can do in an entire film (no knock against Rog, whom I like very much...but he's just not Sean Connery. Note the small moment where Bond selects an apple tosses it gently in the air...and catches it behind his back.). As for him being older, it works here because Connery plays it that way. The Bond in "NSNA" is meant to be Connery's age...whereas Roger Moore's Bond is meant to be sort of "ageless" (as if he was perpetually spry enough to hang from planes, run on moving trains, and swing from vines).

So yeah, I'm glad Connery made it. I'm sure he regrets it - but it's a nice coda to one of Hollywood's greatest cinema icons. He really did say "Never Again" after it - and he meant it.

[I never miss]

I'm glad he made it - NSNA is better than one or two Eon official films and this surely is enough to make it worthwhile IMHO.

[OmarB]

I was 4 years old at the time so I was unaware of what happeend that year. Growing up though my dad filled me in on all that happened that year concerning Bond.

Should they have made it? No! I hate speaking badly and bashing Bond but it was a really bad movie. Really bad, so bad I've made it thru the movie maybe twice in my life and the last time I was piss drunk.

Sean didnt shine, Irving Kirshner didnt rule as he usually does, it was slow and plodding. Just bad.

[Scottlee]

Of course he should have made it....Never Say Never Again is a far better movie than anything EON ever released.

For a minute there I thought you were serious.

[avl]

NSNA was a terrible mistake. The only (and I mean the only) good thing was the "my martini's still dry" line, but that in itself justifies the film, sadly

[crheath]

Of course he should have made it....Never Say Never Again is a far better movie than anything EON ever released.

For a minute there I thought you were serious.

I know. That had to have been a joke ...

[Blonde Bond]

I wouldn't mind if it didn't exist. I mean the film was very boring and I wished it would end soon. This is not the case with EON bond flicks (minus DAD, of course).
It was thunderball all again, but it was a tasteless version. Connery was already too old to be bond.
Connery was better as Mason in the Rock. That's how the, then old bond should have been.

Cant believe the same director also directed The Empire Strikes Back.

[DamnCoffee]

NSNA is as Bare as sean connerys head

[Sunny_on_SM]

This may not be an issue and no one mentioned it here, but being a Roger Bond fan, I felt it wasn't 100% ethical for Sean to first say he was sick and tired of playing Bond and state that he'd never come back to it, ruin his relationship with Cubby, and then make his own Bond movie fully aware that his friend Rog was doing a Bond movie that very same year. Then, when the movies turned out lesser successful at the box office, Sean blamed everyond for that except himself. So to me, that was not just "showing the finger" to Broccoli, but also showing it to Roger. I didn't like that. To me, it undermined Sean's character.

Does anyone look at it the same way?

[Hotwinds]

Sean said in an interview in Rolling Stone magazine the "I was curious", on what Bond would be like at that age. He also got 4 million for it and he had his hand in everything because so many things were going wrong. Kim Bassinger has been quoted as saying that if it wasnt for Sean it would have been a disaster. Sean said that the producer was incompetent and that not enough money was spent on it like it was supposed to have been.
So no I dont think he was giving the finger to Roger but I know he had issues with Cubby. I would like to know what the outcome of his 250 million dollar lawsuit against Cubby and the gang came out?

This may not be an issue and no one mentioned it here, but being a Roger Bond fan, I felt it wasn't 100% ethical for Sean to first say he was sick and tired of playing Bond and state that he'd never come back to it, ruin his relationship with Cubby, and then make his own Bond movie fully aware that his friend Rog was doing a Bond movie that very same year. Then, when the movies turned out lesser successful at the box office, Sean blamed everyond for that except himself. So to me, that was not just "showing the finger" to Broccoli, but also showing it to Roger. I didn't like that. To me, it undermined Sean's character.

Does anyone look at it the same way?

[Turn]

This may not be an issue and no one mentioned it here, but being a Roger Bond fan, I felt it wasn't 100% ethical for Sean to first say he was sick and tired of playing Bond and state that he'd never come back to it, ruin his relationship with Cubby, and then make his own Bond movie fully aware that his friend Rog was doing a Bond movie that very same year. Then, when the movies turned out lesser successful at the box office, Sean blamed everyond for that except himself. So to me, that was not just "showing the finger" to Broccoli, but also showing it to Roger. I didn't like that. To me, it undermined Sean's character.

Does anyone look at it the same way?

I don't agree at all.

Sean is hardly the first entertainer to say they'd never play a famous role again and reprise it, so that shouldn't be held against him (Nimoy said he'd never play Spock again and how many musicians said they'd never reunite with their bands, for example?). I like Roger too, but to be fair how many times did he publicly say he wouldn't play Bond again only to be lured back during the '80s?

NSNA was a hit, so I don't think there was ever any doubt there. There were other factors working against it that probably prevented it from being a bigger hit, such as having another Bond film released before it, not to mention the series was beginning to wane in popularity at the time. And you can tell there were some problems with the production that kept it from being better than it was, so the producer should probably bear some of the blame. As somebody else mentioned, without people wanting to see Sean as Bond again, this may have ended up the type of shunned curiosity the '67 Casino Royale was for so long.

[Sunny_on_SM]

I don't agree at all.

Sean is hardly the first entertainer to say they'd never play a famous role again and reprise it, so that shouldn't be held against him (Nimoy said he'd never play Spock again and how many musicians said they'd never reunite with their bands, for example?). I like Roger too, but to be fair how many times did he publicly say he wouldn't play Bond again only to be lured back during the '80s?

Yes, that is true, but the story with Roger was different from Sean or Leonard Nimoy (BTW, I am also a big Star Trek fan ). Roger was lured back for another go while he was still playing Bond, they hadn't given to role already to somebody else. Sean made NSNA again while Roger was going strong as Bond. There's no secret that Sean has always been a bit possessive of the role, considering himself the best, even though he gave it up on his own and burned bridges so to speak. As difficult as it was to shoot NSNA, as much trouble as they went through making it, to me the whole thing was a waste of nerves and money for something Sean had supposedly cut all ties with. I remember Cubby said that he was angry with the way Sean acted after Cubby "made him famous". I know that Roger Moore said that it never bothered him that Sean made NSNA the same year he made Octopussy. But in his place, I'd be perturbed.

[dee-bee-five]

Favouritism aside, from all points of view on the subject, including ethical (meaning that his friend's, Roger's, Bond film was being released that year as well), do you feel that it was the right decision for Sean to make NSNA? Opinions?

Nobody should have made that abomination.

[Shaun Forever]

It's not the best movie, but I guess it's still nice to have, a nice curiosity for Bond fans, something different (a bit like OHMSS, though that film really is great).


It's not the best, but at the end of the day I am glad it was made.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Of course he should have made it....Never Say Never Again is a far better movie than anything EON ever released.

For a minute there I thought you were serious.

I know. That had to have been a joke ...

No, it isn't. Never Say Never Again really is DLibrasnow's favorite Bond film.

I don't agree at all.

Sean is hardly the first entertainer to say they'd never play a famous role again and reprise it, so that shouldn't be held against him (Nimoy said he'd never play Spock again and how many musicians said they'd never reunite with their bands, for example?). I like Roger too, but to be fair how many times did he publicly say he wouldn't play Bond again only to be lured back during the '80s?

Yes, that is true, but the story with Roger was different from Sean or Leonard Nimoy (BTW, I am also a big Star Trek fan ). Roger was lured back for another go while he was still playing Bond, they hadn't given to role already to somebody else. Sean made NSNA again while Roger was going strong as Bond. There's no secret that Sean has always been a bit possessive of the role, considering himself the best, even though he gave it up on his own and burned bridges so to speak. As difficult as it was to shoot NSNA, as much trouble as they went through making it, to me the whole thing was a waste of nerves and money for something Sean had supposedly cut all ties with. I remember Cubby said that he was angry with the way Sean acted after Cubby "made him famous". I know that Roger Moore said that it never bothered him that Sean made NSNA the same year he made Octopussy. But in his place, I'd be perturbed.

Maybe you, but not Roger Moore. He and Sean Connery are really good friends. Besides, to most everyone--Moore included--Connery was the best 007, so why begrudge the man the opportunity (after a 12-year absence) to return to the role that made him famous and that he did so well? Also, it was only one film. It wasn't like Connery was going to compete against Moore year after year after year. It was a special one-off production, no more, no less.