Never Say Never Again: Looking back 30 years on

24

Comments

  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2013 Posts: 9,117
    Double post. Apologies.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 1,817
    I read many criticisms to my position and mostly they are fair. I know I'm a bit radical on this subject but I personally don't believe that any impersonation of James Bond is sufficient to claim it is a Bond movie. I put examples as Lazenby's U.N.C.L.E. cameo and the fan films but certainly NSNA could have a better case.
    Perhaps a better way to put it is NSNA is not on the Bond canon (it's certainly not the same timeline as it would've been a 2 hour déjà vu for Bond).
    Leaving that aside, I can't believe something is wrong with me as a Bond fan if I don't count NSNA in the canon,I'm simply not interested as I'm neither interested on watching the CR spoof. For example, as a fan of Star Wars I don't care for the Holiday Special even if it is an official entry made by Lucas.
    That's the reason of way I seldom talk about non-canonical Bond movies, even if in this thread I evidently made an exception.

    But, what I find most difficult to understand, is the motivation of some members to defend so strongly a lousy movie, with low quality in many different areas, and made mostly by feelings of hatred and revenge against the franchise and its producers that we all (I thought) admire and respect.
  • I've amply explained my position on the film as far as what I object to and the difference between official and what others can't seem to accept as such. It's very simple- EON produced, official. Non EON produced, unofficial. It's ridiculous and moronic to argue that point, and I am done listening to those who think white is black and black is white ~X( . Over and out, fingers in my ears, not returning for more of this nonsense.

    @0013- spot on that last paragraph. Stick to your guns, there's nothing wrong with your lack of acceptance of the film in counting it as part of the canon, it's a minority of those who wish it to be who are having an issue with the truth.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 12,837
    0013 wrote:
    But, what I find must difficult to understand, is the motivation of some members to defend so strongly a lousy movie, with low quality in many different areas

    So have you seen it or haven't you? Because I swear your other post said something about not watching it "even for the 100th anniversary" before.
    0013 wrote:
    (it's certainly not the same timeline

    Neither are the Craig films.
    0013 wrote:
    made mostly by feelings of hatred and revenge against the franchise and its producers that we all (I thought) admire and respect.

    I enjoy NSNA. It doesn't mean I respect EON any less. What if EON stopped producing the films, would you watch them then?
  • Posts: 1,817
    So have you seen it or haven't you? Because I swear your other post said something about not watching it "even for the 100th anniversary" before.

    I've watched some scenes and bits of I but not completely.
    Neither are the Craig films.

    But it still is canon... and a consciously made reboot.

    I enjoy NSNA. It doesn't mean I respect EON any less. What if EON stopped producing the films, would you watch them then?

    I don't question the fact that somebody as yourself likes it (even if it is hard to understand why). I was aiming to the intense need to defend the production.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2013 Posts: 9,117
    0013 wrote:
    I read many criticisms to my position and mostly they are fair. I know I'm a bit radical on this subject but I personally don't believe that any impersonation of James Bond is sufficient to claim it is a Bond movie. I put examples as Lazenby's U.N.C.L.E. cameo and the fan films but certainly NSNA could have a better case.
    Perhaps a better way to put it is NSNA is not on the Bond canon (it's certainly not the same timeline as it would've been a 2 hour déjà vu for Bond).
    Leaving that aside, I can't believe something is wrong with me as a Bond fan if I don't count NSNA in the canon,I'm simply not interested as I'm neither interested on watching the CR spoof. For example, as a fan of Star Wars I don't care for the Holiday Special even if it is an official entry made by Lucas.
    That's the reason of way I seldom talk about non-canonical Bond movies, even if in this thread I evidently made an exception.

    But, what I find must difficult to understand, is the motivation of some members to defend so strongly a lousy movie, with low quality in many different areas, and made mostly by feelings of hatred and revenge against the franchise and its producers that we all (I thought) admire and respect.

    And what I find must (sic) difficult to understand is people who enter into debates without having the first clue about what comprises a coherent argument.

    Here is the definition of official for those who may not be familiar with the word:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=official

    I think it safe to say we are discussing definition 2 here (unless I'm totally wrong and the antipathy towards NSNA is due to point 5 and it not having the backing of the US Medical Board to be tested on humans or something?) so the question is 'just who is the 'proper authority' who can 'authorise' a Bond film?' (At the time - it's probably a different story these days).

    Well I've news for some of you - it's not EON. They are just people who bought the rights to make Bond films and, apart from quantity, they have no more right to call their films official than Feldman.

    Mcclory had the same 'official' rights as EON and Feldman to make a Bond film and thus NSNA was born and is legitimately an official Bond film.

    So just who is granting these rights? Ian Fleming - you know, that guy who invented the f**cking character. He sold the right to make an official Bond film (CR) to Gregory Ratoff whose widow sold it on to Charles Feldman. In exactly the same way he sold the right to make films on all the other novels (apart from TSWLM for which only the title could be used and TB - more on that in a minute) to Harry Saltzman.

    The right to film the novel TB was taken from Fleming by the court and awarded to Kevin Mcclory.

    All three people - Feldman, Saltzman and Mcclory - had exactly the same right from Fleming (albeit two through buisness contracts and one following a law suit) to make films of their respective Bond novels which they did. Mcclory just happened to use this right twice.
    I'm not sure but I think Feldman or his heirs could have adapted CR every year until 2004 or whatever if they had so desired.

    In Return Of The Man From Uncle they called the character played by Lazenby 'JB' because if they had called him James Bond Cubby (who owned Saltzman's rights by now) would have sued - and I dare say Mcclory too.

    Fan films on Youtube are tolerated up to a point but if anyone tried making money from them commercially they too would be sued because unlike EON they don't have any official rights granted by Fleming or Glidrose to do so.

    To quote Mr Vincent Jones 'Do you want me to draw you a picture?'

    Now all that aside 0013 I'll happily discuss with you the fact that EON do a great job, its a disgrace that Mcclory was even awarded the rights in the first place and that NSNA really isn't that good. But one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

    And the fact remains that NSNA is legitimate and no matter how much you don't watch it nothing will change that.

    NSNA is just a Bond film from the same father just with different mothers. It still has Fleming's genes and blood running through its veins even though its not part of the 'family'.
    0013 wrote:

    I don't question the fact that somebody as yourself likes it (even if it is hard to understand why). I was aiming to the intense need to defend the production.

    I'm merely defending the law which allowed the production to be made. Do I agree with the judgement that was passed finding Fleming guilty of plagiarism and awarding the film rights to Mcclory? Not in the slightest but there's nothing I can do about that unless I advocate turning to anarchy.

    But don't worry 0013 you are not alone in your blinkeredness where hating Mcclory and fawning over EON supercedes any logic; surprisingly there are actually even more infantile views than yours out there:
    It's very simple- EON produced, official. Non EON produced, unofficial. It's ridiculous and moronic to argue that point, and I am done listening to those who think white is black and black is white ~X( . Over and out, fingers in my ears, not returning for more of this nonsense.

    Good to see such erudite arguments on here. Presumably SirHenry is down to address the Oxford Union on all manor of topics with a razor sharp intellect like that?

    Although personally I think it better that the rights lie solely with EON and the idea of rogue Bond films sprouting up all over the place does not appeal they should not be above criticism. EON has committed as many crimes against the character as NSNA ever did so please don't let the truth get lost in your eagerness to join a Mcclory witch hunt and buy into some Pravda-esque revisionist history where EON have never done any wrong.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    EON has committed as many crimes against the character as NSNA ever did
    Judge chrisisall rules in your favor.

    NSNA gave us Legrand; Eon gave us Conti.
    NSNA gave us Basinger; EON gave us Roberts.
    NSNA gave us a poorly paced crap climax; EON gave us "Here's to us"

    Case closed for me. :))
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote:
    EON has committed as many crimes against the character as NSNA ever did
    Judge chrisisall rules in your favor.

    NSNA gave us Legrand; Eon gave us Conti.
    NSNA gave us Basinger; EON gave us Roberts.
    NSNA gave us a poorly paced crap climax; EON gave us "Here's to us"

    Case closed for me. :))

    And you didn't even need to call your star witness: DAD!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    And you didn't even need to call your star witness: DAD!
    I save that for harder cases.
    :))
  • Posts: 1,817
    I tried to offer a different framework of analysis, with the concept of canon. It could be something like this:
    For the movies:
    Canon A: 23 EON movies
    Canon B: 23 + CR54 + CR67 + NSNA
    Canon C: fan movies

    For books:
    Canon A: Fleming's
    Canon B: Fleming's + continuation authors
    Canon C: the former ones + the Moneypenny diaries, young Bond books, ecc.

    So arguing on the definion of "official" as a term doesn't really lead anywhere, as I was discussing substance, not form.
    Anyway, I stand with my Canon A with no regrets but I still don't understand the motivation to defend NSNA so eagerly.
    And what I find must (sic)

    And yes, sorry for my typo. I only hope that it wasn't some sort of mockery as I think it would be uncalled for.
  • I've always been a firm backer of NSNA. I just don't see that it's as bad as a lot of people say it is. It has some genuinely brilliant lines from Connery, one of the better Felix Leiters, a great extended fight sequence in the health clinic and a wonderfully psychotic villain. On the downside, it occasionally feels a little cheap, the soundtrack sucks and the end's an anti-climax.

    Overall though, I like it. I certainly think Eon have made worse entries in the series.
  • Posts: 1,052
    I don't really care if it's official or not, it has it's moments in terms of a few good gags but really it's just a naff remake of Thunderball. I don't think Connery is that good in it and he just looks really weird in it, too much eye liner!
  • chrisisall wrote:
    EON has committed as many crimes against the character as NSNA ever did
    Judge chrisisall rules in your favor.

    NSNA gave us Legrand; Eon gave us Conti Serra.
    NSNA gave us Basinger; EON gave us Roberts.
    NSNA gave us a poorly paced crap climax; EON gave us "Here's to us"

    Case closed for me. :))

    Fixed ;)

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Fixed ;)

    Hard as it is to believe, I like Cont's score less than Serra's. :-??
  • chrisisall wrote:
    Fixed ;)

    Hard as it is to believe, I like Conti's score less than Serra's. :-??

    It's not hard to believe and I get that. Much of the FYEO soundtrack is simply awful and perhaps worse than GE, for nothing more than the fact that Conti understood what they wanted him to do much more than Serra did, and still failed to marry his sound with the Bond sound and make it work. If not for the theme song and managing to use variations of it throughout, I'd have come to the same conclusion. I have the FYEO soundtrack but listen to it as much as I listen to the GE soundtrack I don't have- which is to say not at all.

  • edited October 2013 Posts: 1,497
    I happen to like the FYEO soundtrack :(

    I think side B of the soundtrack; tracks like "Cortina" and "Goodbye, Countess/No Head for Heights/Dining Alone" work really nicely with the film. It's certainly several notches above Legrand's score in my book.

    The Rage track is definitely a stinker though
  • Odd, all this talk about 'canon'. I don't suppose Sherlock Holmes fans mind about the different movies made by Rathbone, Cushing, Brett et al though they all have different producers. That said, Holmes fans were sniffy about other stuff: relocating Holmes to the Second World War as a propoganda piece, and of course about Watson being a hopeless duffer in those movies. Ditto Christie's films, purists only care about how truthful they are to the books, not about who is doing them.

    Of course, NSNA fails on that count really because ironically, at the time the idea was that the film would be truer to Fleming and more credible and realistic than the Moore nonsense, that it would be a real thriller. Turned out not to the be so, it was really a synthetic EON Bond film, a poor imitation that didn't play to Connery's strengths at all. However, when NSNA was being made the asumption was that this would be the real deal, and that EON's movies would be exposed as the imposters.
  • Posts: 1,146
    The only reason this is a 'real' Bond film for me is the presence of Connery. I like this film more than any Bond film in the '80's, yet that is not saying much.


    That stated, the film suffers from a pretty mediocre musical score that direly needed John Barry's presence, a lack of directorial...style expected from the Connery films previous and an abrupt, jolting and unsatisfactory ending. I liked that he retired at the end of the film and ended the Bonnery Bond circle, but the above-mentioned comparisions with Thunderball, a successful, sprawling, brawny story did not help. There's cool stuff in the film, like the opening for example, but the story creaks in places.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    There is a certain je ne sais quoi that makes a Bond film a 'Bond' film. NSNA has always lacked this for me. It's the seal of quality, the production value, the unmistakable class that EON have always endeavoured to provide. I've had my gripes with them, but through it all they have always delivered quality. The only film they faltered on technically, for me, is DAD. The rest are technically produced to the highest standard. NSNA appears sub-par IMO and next to OP looks like a swatch to OP's Rolex. I actually think the gulf between the two is huge and Roger's beautifully assured performance makes Connery look mediocre. I have a modicum of sympathy for McClory but no love when it comes to his production. I'd feel a massive sense of loss if any of the EON canon were taken away, NSNA - couldn't care less.
  • edited October 2013 Posts: 6,396
    RC7 wrote:
    There is a certain je ne sais quoi that makes a Bond film a 'Bond' film. NSNA has always lacked this for me. It's the seal of quality, the production value, the unmistakable class that EON have always endeavoured to provide. I've had my gripes with them, but through it all they have always delivered quality. The only film they faltered on technically, for me, is DAD. The rest are technically produced to the highest standard. NSNA appears sub-par IMO and next to OP looks like a swatch to OP's Rolex. I actually think the gulf between the two is huge and Roger's beautifully assured performance makes Connery look mediocre. I have a modicum of sympathy for McClory but no love when it comes to his production. I'd feel a massive sense of loss if any of the EON canon were taken away, NSNA - couldn't care less.

    Couldn't have put it better myself. And when you consider that NSNA had a higher production budget than OP (nearly a staggering $9 million more in fact) and yet it looks so damn cheap. The production values are appalling, the soundtrack is awful and the action sequences are bland and insipid.
  • Posts: 1,146
    That's a fair statement to make, and yet there's a more than a few Bond films that have the budget and more while failing to deliver a good story.

    The Tarzan yell and clown outfit come to mind.
  • Posts: 6,396
    That's a fair statement to make, and yet there's a more than a few Bond films that have the budget and more while failing to deliver a good story.

    The Tarzan yell and clown outfit come to mind.

    You've picked out 2 scenes, which are fairly loathed by most on here, but overall OP trounces NSNA in every aspect.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    OP trounces NSNA in every aspect.
    IMO as well.
    I used to LOVE NSNA, but then I left college & stopped the drinking games....
    :D
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Couldn't have put it better myself. And when you consider that NSNA had a higher production budget than OP (nearly a staggering $9 million more in fact) and yet it looks so damn cheap. The production values are appalling, the soundtrack is awful and the action sequences are bland and insipid.

    I agree. It's like one of those made-for-TV films, where the whole cast gets back together a number of years later for a one-off special. It's so bland.
  • Posts: 1,146
    In all honesty, would I like this film if it had not had Connery in it? Probably not, but I felt like the tone of the story tried to take itself way more seriously than Octopussy.

    That stated, neither of these pictures reflect the cream of the crop in terms of bond cinema.
  • That's a fair statement to make, and yet there's a more than a few Bond films that have the budget and more while failing to deliver a good story.

    The Tarzan yell and clown outfit come to mind.

    You've picked out 2 scenes, which are fairly loathed by most on here, but overall OP trounces NSNA in every aspect.

    The Tarzan yell is plain daft, are all of Moore's antiques in the jungle chase, but the clown suit is brilliant. One of Moore's best dramatic scenes with, made all the more harrowing by the fact that none of the USAF top brass believe him, and the obvious parallels to 009's death.

    The whole bomb chase act in OP is the highlight of the film for me. The India stuff is just travelogue filler.
  • That's a fair statement to make, and yet there's a more than a few Bond films that have the budget and more while failing to deliver a good story.

    The Tarzan yell and clown outfit come to mind.

    You've picked out 2 scenes, which are fairly loathed by most on here, but overall OP trounces NSNA in every aspect.

    =D> I'm a Connery die hard and couldn't agree more. Sean should have stayed retired after DAF. In this one for the money too.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited October 2013 Posts: 17,687
    I'm a Connery die hard and couldn't agree more. Sean should have stayed retired after DAF. In this one for the money too.
    I blame EON's Moonraker for making the idea of NSNA being either palatable or profitable possible.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    The main difference in NSNA is the "music" and the lame MI6 staff, other than that OP and NSNA are equally mediocre imo.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited October 2013 Posts: 9,117
    chrisisall wrote:
    I'm a Connery die hard and couldn't agree more. Sean should have stayed retired after DAF. In this one for the money too.
    I blame EON's Moonraker for making the idea of NSNA being either palatable or profitable possible.

    Please explain - I can understand Mcclory might have thought after TMWTGG that maybe Bond was over and it wasn't worth it but the success of TSWLM and MR might have made his mind up to press ahead. However the Warhead script by Deighton was being written in 75/76 so it seems Kevin was serious long before MR was even conceived of.
Sign In or Register to comment.