MovieChat Forums > Never Say Never Again (1983) Discussion > Being not 'official' doesn't make it bad

Being not 'official' doesn't make it bad

posted 11 years ago by spacemanspiff00
12 replies | jump to latest

Is this going to go down as a all time classic? No. Is it one of the better 80's Bond movies and a fun watch? I would say so. Just seems to get hate because its not Eon-produced.

[–] wallacesawyer 11 years ago

I'd say it's good fun, and only as "bad" as a lot of the Bond films that came before and after.

This movie does seem to get a bad rap because it's not only a non-Eon production, but also technically a remake. And I certainly won't agree with anyone who says it good only because Sean Connery is in it.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] yusef-ghanima 11 years ago

i find it really better than thunderball, which was average.

[–] Kylo_Ren 11 years ago

It's been bought by Eon and is now official.

[–] BatmanBeyond 11 years ago

The terms "official" and "unofficial" are stupid, anyway. NSNA is as official a Bond film as it can be - unofficial would imply would imply it was made without authorization from anyone and such, thus making it not a valid story. Which it is.

What it isn't, is a Bond film made by EON. Which, as we know, isn't the same thing as not being an official Bond film.

[–] domester82 11 years ago

Yeah, unofficial is a silly term. McClory had the rights to make an adaptation of Thunderball. In that way, it was an authorised production of a James Bond novel. Just as the makers of 1967s Casino Royale owned the rights to film Fleming's book.

Unofficial would be like an independent fan film, without any authorisation from Fleming's estate, or from EON. MGM bought the distribution rights for NSNA anyway, so its canon now.

[–] KingCobra686 9 years ago

Buying the rights doesn't automatically make it canon. Buying the rights means that EON now gets to decide what to do with the movie, whether that be to adopt it into their "official" movies, or to bury it.

I'm sure EON was sick of all the drama involved in this movie and just wanted to buy it out to get rid of it forever. If they hadnt done that, the current owners could have kept distributing it and promoting it forever.

[–] PNTPictures 11 years ago

Being non-official is not what made this film bad. The script did that all by itself!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDNGPR3sBDk

[–] kelzan 10 years ago

Not being official doesn't make it bad. But it is still bad in my opinion. It is the only Bond movie I found truly boring.

[–] cartesianthought 9 years ago

It's not bad because it's unofficial.

It's bad because it's bad.

And it's lacking all the elements that the Eon films had. A strong score, a vibrant cast, big set pieces, beautiful scenery (not just rooms with expensive antique furniture). It wasn't bombastic enough to be a fun adventure, and it certainly couldn't say it had a serious story either. Considering that the budget of NSNA was much bigger than Octopussy's (how??), that's just mind boggling.

[–] necoleman 8 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday....Member since May 2006

You're right. And it gets hate because of Sean Connery's age. Which doesn't bother me at all! I have been a Sean Connery/James Bond fan for over 50 years. It's been a natural progression to watch him mature in each of his JB films....because NO ONE stays young forever!

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

[–] TMC-4 8 years ago

Not that it matters much, but I find it interesting that the idea of Felix Leiter being played by a person of color (Bernie Casey) was later adapted in the official EON Bond series in Casino Royale (Jeffrey Wright).