James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

The Bond series has one official studio that has produced the films for 56 years. NSNA was never part of the series

It became part of the series when the London High Court ruled in the Spring of 1983.

and was owned by another studio until the legal case in the last 15 years which also brought the 1967 Casino Royale home too.

Being owned by another studio means nothing. The Halloween films aren't all owned by the same studio. Nor are the Charlie Chan films, the King Kong films, the Marvel films, the Terminator films, or the Lara Croft films.

Whether your list includes it won't change that NSNA is not part of the official Bond series anymore than the 1967 Casino Royale.

Well the rights for the 1967 Casino Royale were purchased directly from Ian Fleming, so a case could certainly be made that the 1967 film is "official".

Never has been never will be and is not acknowledged by the Bond team at all

No matter how much EON likes to pretend that it's not a James Bond film, it doesn't change the fact that it's Sean Connery as James Bond 007. It doesn't change the fact that Ian Fleming's name is credited in the film. It doesn't change the fact that Moneypenny, M, Q, Blofeld and Felix Leiter are all in the film. EON tried to stop the film from being released, but not acknowledging it's existence is just sour grapes on their part.

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by MJD64

I take your point and even agree with it, jackinbox, but I believe the reason NSNA is so divisive among Bond purists is that Roger Moore was the established 007 at the time of its release in 1983; in a way, Connery had become an interloper making a competing film to the series he'd made famous and had abandoned over a decade ago.

True, but he'd sort of done the same thing by coming back for Diamonds Are Forever, although that wasn't competing with another Bond film at the time.

It surely didn't help that NSNA is a remake of Thunderball, a film already done nearly two decades previous in the "legit" EON-produced entries. Rathbone and Bruce were the ONLY Holmes and Watson at that time; those Fox-produced films that preceded the Universal series didn't, in retrospect, feel like they were stepping on toes, so to speak.

Fair points. I agree with you and I understand why purists were unhappy with the release of Never Say Never Again in 1983. My issue is with those who treat it as counterfeit. As for it being a remake, there's been a few Bond films over the years that felt like remakes of previous Bond movies.

Of course, that's just a theory I have. Personally, any movie where Sean Connery plays 007 is a James Bond film to me...and I enjoyed it more than 1965's Thunderball.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

It became part of the series when the London High Court ruled in the Spring of 1983.

That's not entirely accurate though.

Never Say Never Again (and Casino Royale '67) ARE James Bond movies. There's no doubt about that. The character of James Bond legally appears in them both and they can rightly be called James Bond movies.

But they are not part of the James Bond (as produced by Eon) series. Eon still has the right to dictate what films are part of the series THEY created.

So if people want to compile a list of James Bond movies and exclude those two, or include them and put asterisks next to their titles, they are free to do so.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

I just find it annoying that anytime I have a discussion with someone about James Bond movies, if I bring up NSNA, they always say "You can't count that one! It's not a real Bond movie!"

There's no other series of films where this happens (that I can think of anyway).

Probably because there is no other well established series of films where someone tried to start a competing series while the original series was still going just because they could.

McClory only owned the rights to remake Thunderball and it was his intention to remake it yet again in the late 90's that started the ball rolling which lead to the legal case that finally shut him down.
He openly stated he intended to start his own Bond series despite the fact he only owned the rights to one title.

Alongside Octopussy NSNA was quite dull but over the years I've grown to enjoy it more although it suffers from the same fate as Thunderball in that the underwater sequences , while nice to look at are actually slow and ponderous and stop the film in its tracks

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

It became part of the series when the London High Court ruled in the Spring of 1983.

No it didn't.
All the court ruling did was officially allow production of the film to go ahead despite the protests of Eon.

Nobody says the film does not exist, but its a standalone produced as the result of the legal loophole that was finally closed and allowed the production of the Eon version of Casino Royale

None of the other series you mention were signed up for by a single studio with the intention of making a series from day one. When Broccoli signed up with Ian Fleming he signed up for the whole series of books and Eon and Danjaq were created specifically for this purpose.

The legal wrangle around Thunderball only cropped up when Fleming published Thunderball without acknowledging it was a screenplay he worked on with 2 other writers. They won the case but after Goldfinger had been made rather than go ahead with OHMSS as originally planned McClory did the right thing and collaborated with Eon to make Thunderball with the proviso he got the rights back after 10 years.

He spent 8 years trying to get NSNA made and without Connery it would never have happened. Getting Connery was the key element into getting investors to sign up for the movie

[frogjunk65]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

It's still a James Bond movie in the legal sense (according to London's High Court).
I'm aware it's not produced by EON, but it's Sean Connery playing James Bond 007. It has Moneypenny, Q, Blofeld, Felix Leiter and M.

If we were going to rank the Pink Panther films, we wouldn't leave out Return Of The Pink Panther just because it wasn't a United Artists production.

I still think it's a pretty good Bond. It's not among the best, but it's certainly better than many that came later. Plus, it was great to have Connery back for one last time.

No!No!No! I’ve been a Bond fan a long time. When this came out the same time as “Octopusssy”. Well maybe four months apart. The only one to see that was truly Bond, “Octopussy”! But everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

Probably because there is no other well established series of films where someone tried to start a competing series while the original series was still going just because they could.

McClory only owned the rights to remake Thunderball and it was his intention to remake it yet again in the late 90's that started the ball rolling which lead to the legal case that finally shut him down.
He openly stated he intended to start his own Bond series despite the fact he only owned the rights to one title.

Alongside Octopussy NSNA was quite dull but over the years I've grown to enjoy it more although it suffers from the same fate as Thunderball in that the underwater sequences , while nice to look at are actually slow and ponderous and stop the film in its tracks

what is it with underwater sequences on Bond films??? I was switching channels last night and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was on. The sequence where they grab the ATAC from the sunken ship was playing and it just drags on and on..... stopping the movie in its tracks as you said above....

The only sequence I can think of that didn't slow down the action was the Lotus underwater in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME....

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

QOS is bad. It's the last Bond movie I saw and the action scenes are bad enough to sink the movie for me.

I sympathise with your comment with regards to the action, because normally I would agree with you. For example, I hate the action in the Bourne sequels. However, for some reason, it doesn't bother me in QOS.... and I can't really explain why? Everything in it just works for me. Whereas with Skyfall it's the opposite -- some things I liked (photography), but an awful lot (plot, character, tone) I didn't.

[brian9229]

Originally Posted by rocknblues81

QOS is bad. It's the last Bond movie I saw and the action scenes are bad enough to sink the movie for me.

Seriously?

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

[/B]


what is it with underwater sequences on Bond films??? I was switching channels last night and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY was on. The sequence where they grab the ATAC from the sunken ship was playing and it just drags on and on..... stopping the movie in its tracks as you said above....

The only sequence I can think of that didn't slow down the action was the Lotus underwater in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME....

I personally enjoy the underwater sequences, they may slow the pace down at times but I don’t mind that. Not everything needs to be fast paced and I like the underwater environments.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I personally enjoy the underwater sequences, they may slow the pace down at times but I don’t mind that. Not everything needs to be fast paced and I like the underwater environments.

well to each his own. Love the Bond films, my favorite series of all time. Even the lowest ranked ones are still good movies....

but the underwater stuff is the only time where I start fidgeting..... meaning that other sequences that are not fast paced do not have the same effect on me for some reason...

[ROSS.T.G.]

I have the urge to watch Moonraker...

[lateralspin]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Look at the Hannibal Lecter films.

Are Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal & Red Dragon one series because they all star Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter?

The guy who owns the rights to the sequels/prequel obviously wants to capitalise on the star power of the actors. Red Dragon seems to be a success in terms of an exercise in marketing. I suppose that movies can be looked upon as commodities and marketing opportunities, and they have a life beyond art.

I thought Hannibal Rising was a really shitty movie...

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by lateralspin

The guy who owns the rights to the sequels/prequel obviously wants to capitalise on the star power of the actors. Red Dragon seems to be a success in terms of an exercise in marketing. I suppose that movies can be looked upon as commodities and marketing opportunities, and they have a life beyond art.

I thought Hannibal Rising was a really shitty movie...

agreed!

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by lateralspin

The guy who owns the rights to the sequels/prequel obviously wants to capitalise on the star power of the actors. Red Dragon seems to be a success in terms of an exercise in marketing. I suppose that movies can be looked upon as commodities and marketing opportunities, and they have a life beyond art.

I thought Hannibal Rising was a really shitty movie...

Yes, it's well known that Dino De Laurentiis was eager to capitalize on the success of SOTL in order to make up for giving away the rights. My point in making that specific post as a response to someone else though, was simply to point out that sometimes movies seem to be connected because the same actor is playing the same part, but other times it's because all the people behind the camera are the same even if the stars are different.

Originally Posted by Markgway

I sympathise with your comment with regards to the action, because normally I would agree with you. For example, I hate the action in the Bourne sequels. However, for some reason, it doesn't bother me in QOS.... and I can't really explain why? Everything in it just works for me. Whereas with Skyfall it's the opposite -- some things I liked (photography), but an awful lot (plot, character, tone) I didn't.

I don't dislike it at all, but I don't know why everyone seemed so enamored with Skyfall when it came out. I know it was the 50th anniversary of the franchise but some people acted as if there hadn't been a Bond film in twenty years or something. There are some great moments in it but a lot of it also seemed very contrived, and I never really got why we were supposed to be so emotional over

[Show spoiler]M dying. It never seemed to me like she and Bond ever had some great emotional connection. Was it maybe because it was Judi Dench saying goodbye to the series?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by brian9229

Seriously?

I agree. The A.D.D. editing style just ruins the entire film. From the opening chase the Marc Forster was obsessed with cutting cutting cutting to the point you can't tell who is who. Someone timed it: the average shot is 2 seconds long.

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

That's not entirely accurate though.

Never Say Never Again (and Casino Royale '67) ARE James Bond movies. There's no doubt about that. The character of James Bond legally appears in them both and they can rightly be called James Bond movies.

But they are not part of the James Bond (as produced by Eon) series. Eon still has the right to dictate what films are part of the series THEY created.

So if people want to compile a list of James Bond movies and exclude those two, or include them and put asterisks next to their titles, they are free to do so.

You raise some great points and you obviously know your Bond history. My main objection is with those who want to dismiss it as if it doesn't belong in a discussion of the Bond films.

I thought the DVD cover was a joke since it removed any reference to James Bond.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

You raise some great points and you obviously know your Bond history. My main objection is with those who want to dismiss it as if it doesn't belong in a discussion of the Bond films.

I thought the DVD cover was a joke since it removed any reference to James Bond.

[Show spoiler]

Not only that but IIRC the copyright info on the back of that DVD pretty much hid the fact that MGM were releasing it - it just said copyright "NSNA Company".

[lateralspin]

It seems that maybe Spectre might be the "weakest" in the Craig Bond series. There are many things that I like about Quantum of Solace..

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by lateralspin

It seems that maybe Spectre might be the "weakest" in the Craig Bond series.

The all-powerful Rotten Tomatoes critics agree: Spectre 63%, Quantum 65%, Skyfall 92%, Casino Royale 94%.