29 replies to this topic

[jrdoo7]

He mentiones it in his octopussy commentary. He says he thinks the problem in that movie was them trying to put comedy in the film like one of his. He thinks if it played straight it would have done better. i am wodering if anyone agrees or disagress.

[Diabolik]

I disagree. Besides the music, I think the major problem was that it was a remake of TB, instead of the original story, WARHEAD, because of legal issues. Although many Bond films are similar, this was truely a "been there, done that" except for the fact that Connery was back and was very refreshing to see back in his shoulder holster.

Personally, I like NSNA a hell of a lot better than OP (although the third act finding the bombs is anti-climatic). I thought NSNA had a perfect balance of humor and drama, like many of the Connery Bond flicks did.

And I've said it before, if you haven't seen the "Special Edition" created by Blofeld's Cat (and meticulously adding Bond music from the "official" Bond films) check it out. It makes the film not only watchable, but throughly enjoyable.

[Gothamite]

And I've said it before, if you haven't seen the "Special Edition" created by Blofeld's Cat (and meticulously adding Bond music from the "official" Bond films) check it out. It makes the film not only watchable, but throughly enjoyable.

I really want to see this. I saw a clip of it on YouTube and I thought it looked really cool. There wouldn't be any way to *ahem*... find this DVD on my computer mysteriously by way of accidentally using a download program, would there?

I don't think NSNA's problem was the comedy. Yes, some of it was unbearable (the fight in Shrublands, for example), but I found the main problem of the film was just the all-round Americanisation of the entire experience. An American synth-song, stereotyped Englishmen and an American Bond girl.

[David Schofield]

I DO think Rog has a point... and when you consider how much criticism he always got v Sean, its to his tremendous credit that Connery and the NSNA makers fell into the trap of being so afraid of the then success of Moore-Bond that they tried imitate it.

Whether this would have been the case had McClory/Connery had the chance to do an original story (as Diabolik points out, it is very very similar to TB - as it had to be) is an interesting point. Perhaps without the EON-placed restriction on what they could do with the story, perhaps Connery would have played up on his orginal serious Bond, perhaps emphasising the impact of ageing on Bond, made his consequently more vulnerable, which would have been a far more appropriate, and Flemingesque way, to play the older agent, rather than the Rog comedian interpretation.

As it is, NSNA is a mess, and Connery takes his Bond, like in DAF, and perhaps YOLT, into Rog's world. That said, its probably still a better film than Octopussy, regardless of being non-EON, but, frankly, that's not saying much, is it?

[Safari Suit]

I don't know if adding the comedy element damadged BoxOffice at the time, but I think it has a lot to do with the opinion of NSNA having gone down over the years, while the opinion of OP has, if anything, improved. If you didn't like the direction the series took with Moore, how much better is it really to see the same kind of stuff, except with Connery?

I do think Diabolik makes a good point about it being a TB remake. After getting over the novelty value of a returning Connery, what's left?

I think a serious problem might have been that people had seen the same people playing Q and Moneypenny for some time, and would perhaps not have been ready to accept others in the role, adding to the "not a real Bond" feel. Of course, Octopussy introduced Robert Brown as M, but he was much closer to Bernard Lee than Edward Fox was.

I don't think it should be ignored that Octopussy came out first. Still if earning $160,000,000 in theatres alone circa 1984 is losing, than maybe I should lose more often!

And I disagree that it's better than OP, but at the end of the day, it's all good. And I am certainly hoping it is given the SE treatment one day because the making-of would be fascinating.

Edited by Safari Suit, 04 January 2007 - 04:58 PM.

[Scottlee]

I think NSNA would have been even worse if they'd tried to do it seriously. I don't like the film at all, but there are still six or seven moments I laugh heartily too. It's only for the odd moment of Connery's perfectly delivered humour I go back and watch it.

[Turn]

NSNA's humor is hit and miss. When it hits, it hits very well, but there is just too much that it borders on camp or plain sillieness. Of course, given Lorenzo Semple Jr. used to write for the Batman TV series, it's somewhat understandable. But it also leads you to wonder how much better it may have been given a little more focus on being thrilling rather than funny.

For instance, the fight with Lippe starts out vicious, but ends up mining most of it for laughs. And the same with Fatima's death, she goes out more like The Wicked Witch of the West or something. Don't even get me started on Nigel Small-Fawcett.

On top of that, there was nothing really outstanding in the action department. So your left with a movie that is most memorable because of a talented cast, IMO.

[Safari Suit]

Well, I do think winking at the camera was a bit of a mistake.

[jrdoo7]

i diagree with you. oct is better than nsna. i say nsna is an average film. it is better than tmwtmgg and yolt and dad. to me, it was an average film.

I disagree. Besides the music, I think the major problem was that it was a remake of TB, instead of the original story, WARHEAD, because of legal issues. Although many Bond films are similar, this was truely a "been there, done that" except for the fact that Connery was back and was very refreshing to see back in his shoulder holster.

Personally, I like NSNA a hell of a lot better than OP (although the third act finding the bombs is anti-climatic). I thought NSNA had a perfect balance of humor and drama, like many of the Connery Bond flicks did.

And I've said it before, if you haven't seen the "Special Edition" created by Blofeld's Cat (and meticulously adding Bond music from the "official" Bond films) check it out. It makes the film not only watchable, but throughly enjoyable.

[David_M]

I think Sir Roger's correct, but I'd take it further.

I think NSNA suffers from trying to work in a number of EON formula elements, not just the humor but also the gadgets, the byplay with Moneypenny (never a factor in the books), a "Q" figure (again, not from Fleming) and so on. If they hadn't tried to shoe-horn in these elements, then the lack of a pre-credits sequence, a gunbarrel logo and the Norman/Barry theme might have come across as deliberte artistic choices and not merely the result of being a non-official, "rogue" film. Instead, NSNA comes off as an EON-wannabe, a film that wants to be everything we'd come to expect in a formula Bond film by 1983, only without the budget, the cast or the sense of style to deliver 100 percent.

The ballsy thing to do would have been to take Bond in a whole new direction, as indeed it seemed they might do at the start of the film. But ultimately we got "just another Bond film," and a scaled-down, economy version at that. I agree with Roger that if you're lucky enough to get Sean Connery under contract, rule one should be don't make him play Roger Moore's Bond.

[Bill (008)]

I think Sir Roger's correct, but I'd take it further.

<snip>

The ballsy thing to do would have been to take Bond in a whole new direction, as indeed it seemed they might do at the start of the film. But ultimately we got "just another Bond film," and a scaled-down, economy version at that. I agree with Roger that if you're lucky enough to get Sean Connery under contract, rule one should be don't make him play Roger Moore's Bond.

Touche!. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Make it a straightforward adaptation of the book, without all the stock elements, and you've got a unique film and a winner. As it is, it just comes across as being an Eon wannabee.

Caio,

Bill (008)

[sorking]

Touche!. I think you've hit the nail on the head. Make it a straightforward adaptation of the book, without all the stock elements, and you've got a unique film and a winner. As it is, it just comes across as being an Eon wannabee.

I agree - total wannabe, but lacking the flair for action, credible characterisation (a suitcase full of food? It's so...sitcom) and style.

But it's worth noting that they couldn't have adapted the book. They had no legal right to film the novel's full content, only the original screenplay on which the book was based.

But yeah, to add to the dicsussion, I'd take Octopussy (which is still in my bottom-five Eon flicks) every time over NSNA. Not out of loyalty, but just for the level of enjoyment.

NSNA's plotting is better, but I'll take Moore's age over Connery's paunch, the Acrostar and train sequences over the rocket-bike and radio-controlled sharks, and the black-comedy tension of clown-Bond trying to stop a nuclear explosion over...well, stopping an assassin with a jar of urine.

Edited by sorking, 07 January 2007 - 11:34 AM.

[Simon Bermuda]

I'm not sure that the NSNA makers' objectives were completely clear, even in their own minds. For instance, I can remember it being reported that director Irvin Kershner was approaching the film "as if there hadn't been any previous Bond movies" - when the whole raison d'etre for the project was the return of the "original" 007 with all the familiar old Connery baggage.

Maybe the comedy was intended to ease audiences' acceptance of the ageing Connery as a credible 00 agent, as was the case with the comparably long-in-the-tooth Moore.

Strangely, having sat through an hour or so of Entrapment the other day, I find it somewhat easier to imagine the bearded 69-year-old Connery as an old 007 called out of retirement than the paunchy, Frank Sinatra-wigged Connery of 1983, maybe because in the latter film he somehow managed to seem less like a shadow of his '60s self. Perhaps this owes something to advances in toupee technology?

On the topic of hair enhancement, I always thought the ending of Connery's 1982 film The Man with The Deadly Lens, aka Wrong Is Right, in which he scornfully throws away his rug, would have been more appropriately employed as the final shot of NSNA.

(One last, small observation: I think it's stretching credibility dangerously close to breaking point for Commander James Bond 007 of Her Majesty's Secret Service to make the sartorial choice of (stonewashed?) dungarees over a bare chest, a getup more readily associated with the Arkansas Chugabug than the Aston Martin. Not exactly vintage Fleming. Thankfully, Moore never saw fit to explore that particular mode of apparel ... The oft-cited sins of Sir Roger's legendary safari-suits, Lazenby's frilly-fronted Englebert shirt, and even Connery's own baby-blue terry-towelling bathrobe/shortie jumpsuit thingamijig from GF all pale in comparison.)

[Turn]

I'm not sure that the NSNA makers' objectives were completely clear, even in their own minds. For instance, I can remember it being reported that director Irvin Kershner was approaching the film "as if there hadn't been any previous Bond movies" - when the whole raison d'etre for the project was the return of the "original" 007 with all the familiar old Connery baggage.

Maybe the comedy was intended to ease audiences' acceptance of the ageing Connery as a credible 00 agent, as was the case with the comparably long-in-the-tooth Moore.

Strangely, having sat through an hour or so of Entrapment the other day, I find it somewhat easier to imagine the bearded 69-year-old Connery as an old 007 called out of retirement than the paunchy, Frank Sinatra-wigged Connery of 1983, maybe because in the latter film he somehow managed to seem less like a shadow of his '60s self. Perhaps this owes something to advances in toupee technology?

On the topic of hair enhancement, I always thought the ending of Connery's 1982 film The Man with The Deadly Lens, aka Wrong Is Right, in which he scornfully throws away his rug, would have been more appropriately employed as the final shot of NSNA.

(One last, small observation: I think it's stretching credibility dangerously close to breaking point for Commander James Bond 007 of Her Majesty's Secret Service to make the sartorial choice of (stonewashed?) dungarees over a bare chest, a getup more readily associated with the Arkansas Chugabug than the Aston Martin. Not exactly vintage Fleming. Thankfully, Moore never saw fit to explore that particular mode of apparel ... The oft-cited sins of Sir Roger's legendary safari-suits, Lazenby's frilly-fronted Englebert shirt, and even Connery's own baby-blue terry-towelling bathrobe/shortie jumpsuit thingamijig from GF all pale in comparison.)

Good post.

I thought it was brave of NSNA's creative team to not try and disguise that this was an older Bond. But there was too much comedy.

I also mentioned recently my distaste for the Connery in overalls thing. Funny so many rag Moore in OP for the clown outfit, when it was never intended as comedy, but nobody really gets on the overalls. That's just bad.

[Safari Suit]

Strangely, having sat through an hour or so of Entrapment the other day, I find it somewhat easier to imagine the bearded 69-year-old Connery as an old 007 called out of retirement than the paunchy, Frank Sinatra-wigged Connery of 1983, maybe because in the latter film he somehow managed to seem less like a shadow of his '60s self. Perhaps this owes something to advances in toupee technology?

I read somewhere that Connery wanted to play the character as more weary and obviously aged, which included growing a beard, but the producers disliked the idea. I think it would have been more interesting like that.

[mrweasley]

I quite like NSNA again. I like the ironical approach and that Bond is aged. Klaus Maria Brandauer did a wonderful job as Largo. Only Kim Basinger was a bit weak. The movie suffers from the leak of the „original“ music and to much 80`s flair. But overall I consider it as entertaining every time I watch it.

Edited by mrweasley, 08 January 2007 - 09:27 PM.

[red_grant]

i believe NSNA was a classic oppurtunity for connery and company, after years of lamenting that the 007 series had too less emphasis on characacter and plot and more on stunts and chases and outrageousness.

but when they were given a chance they imitated roger, and did it pretty badly. roger was the master of his art of making those kinds of films work.

they really could have made a great movie abt bonds last mission and him confronting ageing , instead it tried to make it funny. the scehes at shrublands looked like it was out of the carry on series

if only sean had hired the director of dr no and from russia with love to make a movie abt bonds last mission

[DavidSomerset]

I read somewhere that Irvin Kershner almost quit the movie midway and then Sean managed the whole show. I dont really know how a person who makes Empire makes this crap 3 years later as his next movie.
Roger's OP was miles ahead of NSNA. OP had a cold war plot whereas NSNA was just cold. The video game crap was the pits.

Edited by DavidSomerset, 10 January 2007 - 09:51 AM.

[RazorBlade]

I agree that they tried to make an EON bond film and a copy of RM at that. I wonder how they got Sean Connery?

[Scottlee]

The video game crap was the pits.

To be fair that probably looked pretty nifty back in 1983. I'd rather they slugged it out on the billiards table though (or something), and added a little bit of realism.

[Safari Suit]

Actually, I rather liked the Video Game scene; but then I have a fondness for Old School Video Games.

I suspect it might have taken up a fair bit of their budget. One of the few things I can think of that could have caused the film to cost more than OP.

Edited by Safari Suit, 11 January 2007 - 10:32 AM.

[Odd Job]

This thread brings back interesting memories. Altough Roger was the first Bond that I saw (MWTGG), by 1983 I had seen all of Sean's films on TV and he was my favourite. I remember there being great excitement among the older Bond fans with the news of Sean's return but I must admit that I had my doubts. Come November 1983 and OP is released in Australia and I went to see it in Melbourne (where I was stationed at the time). I thorougly enjoyed the movie (especially the train sequence - but not the song, one of the worst). I seem to remember that NSNA opened a little while later, but I was reluctant to go. However all the reviews seemed to be positive (compared to those for OP), so eventually in February 1984 I went to see NSNA in the beatiful State Theatre in Sydney (I had been transferred by the Navy in early Feb).

I went to see this film knowing very little about the plot (other than that it was a Bond film) but had high hopes. The film starts - no gunbarrel, no Maurice Binder type title sequence (I don't know why I expected to see these things, I knew it wasn't an official Bond movie), but worse was yet to come. About 10 minutes into the movie I realised that the plot seemed very familiar. It was just a rehash of TB. I later discovered about the whole copyright problem with TB, the court battles with Kevin McClory and so on, but on this night I had no knowledge of it. Added to that, Sean indeed, did seem to be playing it tounge in cheek. This was far more like the Sean of DAF than the Sean of DN, FRWL and GF. To say the least I was profoundly disappointed. I wondered about all those film critics who had raved about the film and thought maybe they had let nostalgia cloud their judgement. Sean is still (and will probably always be) my favourite Bond, but I think NSNA just goes to show that you can't turn the clock back and it's best just to go forward.

I take my hat off to you

Odd Job

[Fiona Volpe lover]

I watched NSNA again the other evening and seeing it is a strange experience. As atleast one other poster has said before me,it's like watching a cheap imitation of the Eon series. It feels like it was made by people who wanted to slightly mock the official series but didn't have the expertise to do it well. There is a fake superior mocking attitude to the film,but if you want to take the mickey it's best to to the whole Austin Powers route. Much of it seems somewhat halfhearted,and many things don't seem to have been thought through. It certainly suffers from being a remake of the brilliant Thunderball,and almost all the variations on scenes from tht film come off second best.

There ARE things I like in it-the bit with Bond being attacked by sharks,Fatima Blush {almost as great as Fiona Volpe},the score which while maybe out of place is pretty good otherwise I think,a few witty lines. I prefer it to maybe a couple of the Eon films. But it's really a film that didn't need to be made and proved nothing except that Sean Connery was a better Bond than Roger Moore {who I still like alot,I just prefer Connery} and you already had his earlier films to prove that perfectly well.

I have several books on Bond and it's apparent that NSNA got much better reviews than Octopussy when it came out,yet Octopussy is the far better film. I think Octopussy generally did better commercially,which proves,as does the huge success of Casino Royale,that often the public is right!

Edited by Fiona Volpe lover, 31 January 2007 - 10:45 PM.

[English Agent]

NSNA.............most disaapointing aspect for me, was the truly dreadful soundtrack.
What was Legrand thinking of at the time.....????????
It was totally the wrong kind of music for the film.........and i can't believe the
producers didn't get somone else to redo the score. I did hear once that the producer
did want James Horner to do the music........now that would of been good, he went on
to make the wonderful soundtrack to Aliens a couple of years later.

[DaveBond21]

NSNA was the first Bond movie I saw in the cinema.


But I prefer Octopussy any day.

[Royal Dalton]

I did hear once that the producer did want James Horner to do the music.

Yes, he did. But Connery overruled him.

In the early 90s, Schwartzman told Movie Collector magazine that he was planning to recut Never Say Never Again for a Special Edition laserdisc release, and wanted to hire Horner to provide a new score for the film.

[Turn]

NSNA.............most disaapointing aspect for me, was the truly dreadful soundtrack.
What was Legrand thinking of at the time.....????????
It was totally the wrong kind of music for the film.........and i can't believe the
producers didn't get somone else to redo the score. I did hear once that the producer
did want James Horner to do the music........now that would of been good, he went on
to make the wonderful soundtrack to Aliens a couple of years later.

It wasn't so much what was Legrand thinking, but what Connery and the other producers were thinking. The guy was way out of his depth at scoring an action picture. He had a little experience, as in doing scores for Ice Station Zebra, Castle Keep, the original Thomas Crown Affair and The Three Musketeers, but his best work was in things such as The Summer of '42, and he won awards for Yentl. Not exactly the mix you look for when picking a composer for this type of film.

[dodge]

A different game of Dominos undid NSNA for me, if any single thing did. Claudine Auger, in TB, was able to bring off the business of playing, in effect, a lovable 'hooker' who has a brutal 'benefactor.' We never think of her as a whore because of a wonderful sweetness about her. Kim Bassinger is beautiful, with a bod to die for, but she comes across as anything but sweet. She's slinky, sultry, somewhat predatory-looking. A high--priced call girl. I'm always reminded of Rachel Ward screaming in Sharkey's Machine: 'I'm a DANCER! I'm a DANCER!' Right, not a thousand-buck-a-night working girl. It was tough to buy a Bond who couldn't tell the difference.

[plankattack]

NSNA fault's have all been pointed in the thread - music, storyline (veering away from a straight TB adaptation), casting, but what really kills it is that it just looks cheap. Some EONs are visually better than others (I don't think TMWTGG has aged particularly well in that respect), but they all have a certain veneer that coats the proceedings. NSNA doesn't and so at some level it feels almost like a Man From Uncle TV movie (actually worse). Ken Adam isn't essential - EONs without him still look great. But over time there has been very patchy visual tint that has fallen over NSNA. Certainly more so than use of humour of the film. I disagree with Sir Rog there - I don't think that's one of the film's failings.

[LadySylvia]

NSNA fault's have all been pointed in the thread - music, storyline (veering away from a straight TB adaptation), casting, but what really kills it is that it just looks cheap. Some EONs are visually better than others (I don't think TMWTGG has aged particularly well in that respect), but they all have a certain veneer that coats the proceedings. NSNA doesn't and so at some level it feels almost like a Man From Uncle TV movie (actually worse). Ken Adam isn't essential - EONs without him still look great. But over time there has been very patchy visual tint that has fallen over NSNA. Certainly more so than use of humour of the film. I disagree with Sir Rog there - I don't think that's one of the film's failings.

I agree with Plankattack. I don't feel as Sir Roger does that the humor in NSNA ruined the movie. I thought that NSNA was a cheap looking movie that tried to look sophisticated and glossy. And it had Bond playing an over-the-top video game. I mean . . . c'mon! It didn't help for me that the movie was nothing more than an inferior remake of THUNDERBALL.

Do I feel that NSNA was better than OCTOPUSSY? Hmmmm . . . no. No, I don't.

Edited by LadySylvia, 16 March 2007 - 07:37 PM.