For those of you that don't consider it to be a Bond film, what would you consider it to be? A fluke? An enigma? A Thundeball remake, thus still making it a Bond film? A personal attack from Sean Connery to the producers of the official films? Or do you think it should be wiped out of existance? I'm in the minority here when I say that I consider this to be a Bond film, and I know a lot of people think it to be a piece of trash. I've honestly seen worse movies (Casino Royale '67) for example, and this is a far better effort than Connery's last Eon film. That being said, I do see the flaws with the movie. For example, the music is quite horrid; the production design is poor and in no way to the scale of Sir Ken Adam, and the color scheme of the film is not that great. It just seems a bit dull. However, there are upsides to this film in the long run. I don't think they equal the negative aspects, however I find myself entertained by it. The laser watch was an awesome touch as well; something never before seen in 007 until 1995. In any event, it's nice to see that Connery still made an effort to come back and that is why the film did so well at the box office. Obviously, if it wasn't for him, the film would be...nothing. Thoughts? Comments?
What IS Never Say Never Again?
#1
Posted 03 August 2014 - 10:55 PM
#2
Posted 03 August 2014 - 11:41 PM
Of course it's a Bond film. A gunbarrel and a theme tune do not a Bond film make. Even if it hadn't starred Connery, it's a film about the exploits of a British Secret Service agent named James Bond, in an adventure derived from a novel by Ian Fleming. It has its flaws but it also has its good points, but even if it were completely execrable, those matters alone make it a Bond film.
#3
Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:42 AM
I do agree that Sir Sean did a better job in NSNA then he did in DAR.
He actually seemed to enjoy the role, he was in better shape, and he did a classic Bond line during the tango scene with Domino.
"Your brother is dead. Keep dancing."
#4
Posted 04 August 2014 - 05:49 AM
I've got to be honest, I've never seen it all the way through... Speaking of which, I should probably hop onto eBay quick.
#5
Posted 04 August 2014 - 07:34 AM
It is a Bond film, of course. At the time it wasn't "official" in that it wasn't part of the Broccoli franchise, but it is clearly based on the Fleming novel Thunderball, which was of course based on the Fleming-McClory-Whittingham screenplay/treatments which were to have been the basis for a Bond film. (Robert Sellars' book "The Battle For Bond" explains it all in great detail.) That, for me, makes it a Bond film.
However, it might have been a better, or more interesting Bond film if the interpretation of Thunderball had been a bit looser, as the screenplays which preceded the one used were. Unfortunately, as the NSNA producers had the lawyers for the official films breathing down their necks it would have been difficult to deviate too far from the Thunderball storyline. A different soundtrack would also have helped - it might have been possible to compose a Bondian soundtrack without explicit use of the original Bond theme. Instead, with the exception of the theme tune the music seems to go out of its way not to sound like Bond.
I also thought that Max Von Sydow's Blofeld was criminally underused, - admittedly the character didn't appear much in the book Thunderball either - and was played as almost "benign", if you can say that about a Bond villain. He just didn't come across as villainous enough, imho - a strange thing to say about an actor well used to playing the sinister.
#6
Posted 04 August 2014 - 09:46 PM
What do I consider it to be? My answer is simple.
It's a film. Not a Bond film, not a counter attack, not anything. Just a film.
And not a very good one.
#7
Posted 04 August 2014 - 11:20 PM
It's not a particularly good film, but it is a Bond film. Not an EON Bond film, but a Bond film nonetheless. That being said, if it had all the trappings of an EON Bond-film (gun barrels, theme music, familiar faces at MI6 etc), then those trappings might have elevated it's status.
Compare it with SC's previous appearance DAF - take out Shirley Bassey blaring, a v good score from Barry and some witty (almost nostalgic) repartee with M, and I'm not entirely convinced you're somehow left with something that would be that much better than NSNA. My point being that, while NSNA ain't that great, there are a good few "official" Bonds that it's still as good as or better than.
#8
Posted 05 August 2014 - 03:55 AM
Never Say Never Again is a Bond film, albeit a terrible one.
#9
Posted 05 August 2014 - 09:49 AM
A gunbarrel and a theme tune do not a Bond film make.
Actually yes.
Story wise, I'd rather watch NSNA than Thunderball (all those underwater parts are too boring). Regarding everything else (cast, music, etc.), Thunderball wins.
#10
Posted 05 August 2014 - 04:12 PM
Yeah I thought Never Say never Again was a Bond remake of Thunderball? But I could be wrong.
#11
Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:24 PM
Never Say Never Again is a Bond film, albeit a terrible one.
We agree on something!
#12
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:02 AM
It's a DVD on my shelf.
I think it's significantly less than any of the EON Bonds. It just sort of seems to stop caring about two thirds of way through.
#13
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:31 AM
It was a treat and a half in 1983.
It isn't anything less for me now.
#14
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:41 AM
I consider to be a rogue Bond film. Just like what is called a rogue spy and a rogue agent.
#15
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:44 AM
Without Anna Paquin?
#16
Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:13 AM
For me it is a remake made to be a competitor. Octopussy is James Bond 13 and A View to a Kill is James Bond 14 in the series. If you want to include Never Say Never Again as part of the core series, you won't hurt my feelings.
#17
Posted 07 August 2014 - 04:10 AM
NSNA is a Bond film, in the same way that the 1954 and 1967 versions of CR are. It is not an official Bond film, as those would be the ones made by Eon, and which celebrated their 50th anniversary in 2012. Even the Craig films, despite the reboot, are still official Bond films as they were all made by Eon. Whether NSNA is a good film is a question for debate, and while I did not like it back in 1983, due to my loyalty to Eon, there are more elements in that film which make it feel like a real Bond film then there were in Quantum of Solace.
#18
Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:46 PM
It's an insult, that's what it is.
I'll never link it to the EON James Bond canon at all, and I just find it embarrassing to carry the James Bond name.
#19
Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:08 PM
I'm not a huge fan of NSNA, but I am glad it's there. If anything it showed what a Bond film could be like in other hands (CR '67 doesn't count as it's intended as a spoof). It gets slighted for some things that the creative team really had no control over such as the lack of Bond theme and gun barrel, as well as restrictions to stick closely to the source material. And it took chances to show an aging Bond and reflected the budget cuts in the real world, also occurring in John Gardner's book series at the time.
Would there be this type of discussion if they'd been allowed to make the film they wanted with the epic ideas such as a final battle at the Statue of Liberty?
What I'll never understand is some of the blind loyalty to all things EON. It's not like that organization hasn't had its share of missteps over the years. Was anything in NSNA so embarrassing you'd put it below things like a 57-year-old Roger Moore dangling from a loose fire truck ladder, kicking the hats off guys in convertibles, being chased by bumbling cops and a heroine bellowing "James!" every few minutes? Those are moments I wouldn't show a non-fan.
#20
Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:27 PM
It's an insult, that's what it is.
I'll never link it to the EON James Bond canon at all, and I just find it embarrassing to carry the James Bond name.
Exactly. The fact that it is a remake of Thunderball (which begs the question why this movie should be remade in the first place) is really bad. I mean some of the Bond movies aren't all that great but that's the fun of the Bond franchise. To marvel at the ones that were fantastic and laugh at the horrible ones.
#21
Posted 08 August 2014 - 12:29 AM
What IS NSNA?
Not as good as Octopussy which, IMCO, won the battle of the Bonds, but then EON followed up with AVTAK.
So, NSNA is : not as good as Sir Roger's best, but certainly better than his worst.
#22
Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:43 AM
I think Turn has a point. NSNA was restricted, for legal reasons, in its storyline, although I still think it could have been reworked a bit more imaginatively and the music score could have been a little more like a Bond score without lapsing into the Monty Norman theme. But as Turn says, it did do something a bit different in deliberately depicting an older Bond. Sean Connery was only 53 at the time, but his Bond was treated by his superior M as if he was past his sell by date and ready for his pension. It's the theme of whether an agent like 007, and a section like the Double Os is relevant anymore, a theme taken up in a different and much more serious way in Skyfall. (Only in SF it's not just Bond's relevance and competence but M's which is called into question.)
We ended up with a remake of Thunderball because that's all McClory and his people were allowed to make, although as I say there must have been other ways besides the "ageing Bond" storyline to make it seem more distinctive from the original film. What's puzzling though, and we've discussed this on another Cbn thread, was Kevin McClory's plan to make a series of Bond films on the strength of owning the rights to one story. I can't see how he could have done it - unless it was to have been like the Die Hard film series, with Bond foiling SPECTRE's plan to blackmail the world with stolen nuclear weapons, and then in the next movie Bond is sent to - what a co-incidence! - foil SPECTRE's plan to blackmail the world with stolen nuclear weapons! (Maybe, as with John McClane's adventures in the first two Die Hards they could have set the films around Christmas - on the other hand the official film series' lawyers would have jumped on that idea faster than you can say "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" )
#23
Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:55 AM
Actually, I'll amend my previous comment.
Never Say Never Again is a shameless cash-in on a successful series. Don't forget, it's a Kevin McClory production.
#24
Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:41 PM
What IS NSNA?
Not as good as Octopussy which, IMCO, won the battle of the Bonds, but then EON followed up with AVTAK.
So, NSNA is : not as good as Sir Roger's best, but certainly better than his worst.
Hey, hold on here. No AVTAK bashing. AVTAK is for me what DAD is for you.
Don't forget, it's a Kevin McClory production.
It is NOT a Kevin McClory production. It was a Jack Schwartzman production. McClory only got a meaningless executive producer credit for contractual reasons. He had no say over the production.
#25
Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:05 AM
Hey, hold on here. No AVTAK bashing. AVTAK is for me what DAD is for you.
Okay, fair enough.
Suffice to say, NSNA is what Thunderball would have been if EON hadn't made it until 1985.
Thank heaven it got made when it did.
#26
Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:42 AM
I like to think of it as a prequel to the Rowan Atkinson Johnny English movies.
#27
Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:39 PM
it's a remake of Thunderball , starring Sean Connery, but produced by different group of people. that's the long and short of it.
#28
Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:58 PM
... The fact that it is a remake of Thunderball (which begs the question why this movie should be remade in the first place) is really bad.
Sorry, Iceskater, but to me this argument sounds like it negates the legitimacy of ever remaking anything.
Many movies have been remade to take advantage of new cinematic innovations: Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None was remade as Ten Little Indians, only in colour and in a different location. Cecil B. Demille filmed The Ten Commandments both in silent black & white and in Technicolour Panavision.
Hollywood will remake anything that they're aware already has a fan following, even such recent schlock as RoboCop and Total Recall. Bond - even by another producer - is no exception (granted, NSNA is no improvement on Thunderball, but the fan base was there).
Besides, to follow your apparent logic to its extreme, you're saying that Casino Royale should never have been remade, even though it's arguably the most faithful adaptation we've seen yet.
Please feel free to tell me that I've misinterpreted your meaning.
#29
Posted 10 August 2014 - 03:00 AM
I think you have. I was referring to this movie in general. Not any other Bond movie. I said
"which begs the question why this movie (as in Thunderball/Never Say Never Again) should have been remade. I never said remakes are horrible. I never said anything should be remade. I think you really misunderstood what I said and ran with it.
#30
Posted 10 August 2014 - 03:25 AM
I sure did.
This must be an off day for me.
As you were.
Anyway, being a remake, NSNA has no place in the EON chronology, but I still enjoy it as a 'what if' alternative.