Ok I Understand Why This Film Was Made But Why Did Sean Do It?
Can Anybody Tell Me Why He Wanted To Remake Thunderball When He Stared In The Original? Seems Abit Daft To Me
Was It Just For Money?
Did He Not Like The Original Thunderball?
Whats The Story?
He got talked into it. In the mid-1970s Kevin McClory approached him to appear in a remake, Connery said no, as he hated Bond at that point. So McClory suggested he contribute to the script, based on his own knowledge of the genre, along with spy writer Len Deighton. That captured Connery's enthusiasm and made it more likely he's participate in the film Warhead.
That film fell through. Then another script came to the fore and Connery agreed to it, possibly cos at that point he hadn't had a big box office hit of late. This was before The Untouchables, The Name of The Rose, Indiana Jones and The Presidio etc. Connery was sort of yesterday's man - Cuba, Outland, Meteor, Ransom, The Man With The Deadly Lens, anyone?
So he did this film to get a bit of limelight back, to be more in the driving seat this time round, and maybe to get a bit of revenge on Cubby Broccoli who he felt hadn't given him enough of the cash first time round. He seemed to genuinly think it was a good script too - more fool him.
He was having a mony problem so he did this to get his bank balance back on track
shareIt's usually always money, Michael Caine stated in an interview he did "Blame it on Rio" because his business manager told him he had a mortgage payment due on one his million dollar homes.
I've never had the opportunity to turn down several million dollars, and I probably wouldn't one bad film wasn't going to hurt someone like Connery or Caine, because even if they weren't the star of some of their films they could still bring in an audience because of who they are.
Both Caine and Connery were taking supporting roles in films there for awhile, everyone got bills to pay. I didn't care for this film much but it's watchable.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.
I hope Connery got a fat paycheck for this film because it's the absolute lowpoint of the entire 007 franchise! Just terrible. If 1983 was the "Battle of the Bonds" with Never Say Never Again vs. Octopussy, I'm surprised audiences didn't just throw their hands up and demand that they STOP making such films. Thankfully, Timothy Dalton was only a few years away to turn things around. :)
shareI remember seeing both films, but from what I remember they both oddly enough did very well at the box office, I remember there was a lot of goofy hype and debates over the two Bonds and the films.
It's also funny what a difference a few years can make, I remember a young Kim Basinger on an episode of "Charlie's Angels" and her character was hired at the end of the episode to be their receptionist, but she was never seen again. Then she made that television movie about a centerfold, and then she starring in her third big film with Sean Connery which I believe was her break out role if I'm not mistaken. She over shadowed Barbara Carrerra who was very popular at the time.
Both "Octopussy" and this film were definitely 80s movies. A lot of people didn't like Timothy Dalton as Bond, I liked both his films as James Bond, and I think that was the first time I ever saw Maryam d'Abo in "The Living Daylights" and then Carey Lowell in "Licence to Kill" it's funny because she did that film with Talisa Soto who would marry her co-star from "Law & Order" Benjamin Bratt.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.
Kim Basinger does make an impression with this film but I thought her acting was fairly poor. Babera Carrera, on the other hand, was sexy and over the top in a fun way. Every time she's on screen, you can't really take your eyes off her. She was probably the only entertaining part of the film.
shareThis was only Ms. Basingers third film, but this film got her noticed, and if you look at the films both women made after this film Ms. Basinger's went on to do "The Man Who Loved Women" with Burt Reynolds, "The Natural" with Robert Redford, a art house film called "Fool for Love" and then "Nine 1/2 Weeks" Mickey Rourke.
Barbara Carrerra was perfect for the role since she was one of those actors made for the 80s, she's in the same vein as Joan Collins, Linda Evans, and the rest of the prime time divas of the 80s, I believe she went onto take a role on "Dallas", and the rest of her films were mainly "B" type films typical of the 80s. Although I did like "Loverboy" Robert Picardo is in that film and has hair not to mention a young and scrawny Patrick Dempsey.
Barbara Carrera was very attractive and exotic looking, I think Kim Basinger got more notice because she looked like a woman that a normal guy could approach, Ms. Carrera has never come across that way.
Movies will make you famous; Television will make you rich; But theatre will make you good.
Barbara Carrera was apart of the infamous "dream season" (where they killed Patrick Duffy's character off the year prior, only to "resurrect him" in the shower via a dream from Victoria Principal's character) of Dallas.
shareDo you have references for that ?
My understanding is, that he has enough work to live. At last main actor in Outland '81. There are two reason to do that. First and important, he has not quit with original bond makers in good condition. He didn't like them, so this was the reason to say "Never". So this unoffical Bond was a good way to pay back. Second, the movies he made were not so successfully in the profit. He needs a bigger one, to bring him back to better roles. And this worked, after that he made a few of his greates movies.
Digital_Data
http://www.youtube.com/LiebensteinMovies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdNoovrhVt0
From 1983, the entire episode of Film '83 dedicated to Never Say Never Again including a long interview between Sean Connery and Barry Norman. Includes the immortal hairpiece-based question from BN to SC "Is it a case of 'rug when you need it, rug when you don't'?".share
From what I heard they contacted George Lazenby to do the movie and he was all set to do it but Connery came in and said he wanted to do because he was have financial problems and needed the money
shareFrom what I heard they contacted George Lazenby to do the movie and he was all set to do it but Connery came in and said he wanted to do because he was have financial problems and needed the money
Connery did have some commercial success following "Diamonds Are Forever",
notably 1975's "The Wind And The Lion" and "The Man Who Would Be King"
but otherwise he was in the shadow of Roger Moore, until 1983 - bizarre.
If this film had been made and released in 1975 (as originally intended)
it would not have competed with an official Bond movie - shame it did!
And the one good thing about this film: it made Connery 'huge' again.
[deleted]
Had this been made in 1975, Connery would have bounced back much sooner!
shareTried watching it today, it is as bad as I remembered. But then Octopussy was pretty awful too. And I'm sure it didn't re- establish Connery in any big way either. In fact, he almost immediately decided it was a huge mistake, called the producer "An incompetent ass I should have killed" and didn't work again until Highlander (1986).
His late 80's career revival only occured much later when he started acting his age and palying older, "Mentor" supporting roles as he did in Highlander, The Untouchables, Last Crusade and Red October.
It would seem one bad film can put Connery off movies for a while. He hasn't worked again to this day since The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
"The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" is IMO very under-rated.
And "Octopussy" needed a better script, as well as a new James Bond!
Tried watching it today, it is as bad as I remembered. But then Octopussy was pretty awful too >>> We just watch this and Octopussy back to back. Octopussy is by no means a great Bond film, but it is excellent compared to this awful mess of a film. You are right in that it is every bit as bad as people remember. It's easy to forget just how bad the plot is, how cheap the sets look, how unimpressive Connery is in the role, how bad the effects are, how bad the overall cast is (Mr. Bean, Q-Algernon, M, Felix), how laughable the music is, how utterly stupid the video game confrontation is...the list goes on.
And "Octopussy" needed a better script, as well as a new James Bond! >>> I'm thankful that Roger Moore decided to come back as his decision spared us from the monumentally stupid road that Cubby wanted to take...by casting an American in the 007 role. James Brolin had the role until Moore came back. Whew, that was close!
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Did it ever occur to you that he might want to take it easy in his retirement
He had made plenty of movies already and maybe now wanted to relax and have some time to himself.
I'm sure that Connery also regrets turning down the Gandolf role in Lord of the Rings.
shareMaybe he needed a hit? He was doing trash like Meteor just before this and cheap Alien knock offs like Outland (which I admittedly quite enjoyed). This was a guaranteed hit.
share[deleted]
It was a question of "rights" (as in copy), this is not a "real" bond movie, nobody else could do them since the real franchise owns the right. Except, they found a guy who had a part in thunderball, so he had had part right to that story, and then they could do this remake. But why? Well ultimately most people in Hollywood make movies for the money. This was unlikely to be different.
--
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure.
What the hell are you talking about?
Let me see if I can get my head around what you are saying. The production team that wanted to make Never Say Never Again couldn't do it unless they found someone who had had something to do with the making of Thunderball? Is that what you are saying?
And you're suggesting that that is the reason Sean Connery was approached to make this movie and the reason Sean Connery agreed to do this movie?
I'm sorry to harp on but I really want to make sure I've understood you correctly before I wet myself laughing.
"Hi, yeah its me. Err......I forgot my mantra"
Connery was tied to the project for many years, the script they started off with wasn't the film the finally made. I guess it was mostly to get something back. The 1980's where harsh on the Bond's and I have to say Never Say Never wasn't the worst Bond film of that decade despite it being a re-make of "Thunderball."
shareIt's true that this Bond film didn't relaunch Connery's career in itself. He did take a break for a couple of years after, the experience was so bad.
But it would have proved that he could be big box office with the right vehicle and it would have raised his profile. I think he had a change of agent in the late 1980s too which might have helped, plus they cottoned on to not using him as the main leading man but rather as a foil, or father figure.
The 1980's where harsh on the Bond's and I have to say Never Say Never wasn't the worst Bond film of that decade >>> Never Say Never Again is easily the worst film in the franchise...even when up against Die Another Day. It is just too bland, lazy, and poorly put together to have anything of merit. Having just watched it back to back with Octopussy, Never Say Never Again still suffered from being far more awful.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
MOney! He was most likely given a huge paycheck!
shareIan Flemming didnt originally write 'Thunderball' a friend of his wrote it as a screenplay for a film but it didnt work out so he gave it to Flemming who rewrote the story as a bond novel.
However, the friend was pissed cuz he didnt get any writing credit in any of the films or novels for his contribution and creation of SPECTRE, and its leader, Ernst Stavro Blofeld. so he sued the company who owns James Bond and won the rights to the character and his terrorist organization because he did, in fact, create those two things. and since Thunderball was his story, he really wanted to make it so in the end he did....as Never Say Never Again. Now, as to why Sean Connery agreed to be in this, i have no clue.
Money my man. Th film was terrible but still made money for everyone
My Voting history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?votehistory
Money my man. Th film was terrible but still made money for everyone
[deleted]
007 is hot property and is guaranteed to sell *beep* loads. If this film was not 007 and did not have Connery init it would have performed badly despite it been a poor relation to the 007 family
My Voting history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?votehistory
[deleted]
Uh, yeah. Thanks for posting it "three" times. I think I get the point. But it was still a good movie. Better than the competing OCTOPUSSY.
For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
Watching the films back to back, Octopussy was clearly more entertaining than this dreck. Never Say Never Again was cheap looking, cheap feeling, boringly presented, and laughably cast for the most part. Octopussy is no prize, but NSNA makes it look like a gem.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Nothing memorable about the villains in OCTOPUSSY.
For DEMONIC TOYS and updates on Full Moon Films:
www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/
[deleted]
Nothing in this film was better than the Brosnan Bonds. 007 was embarrassing to watch here and given nothing interesting to do, unless you count playing a "dangerous" video game as interesting (Ooops, look like you do count that ). Goldeneye is a great film through and through, Tomorrow Never Dies is a serviceable action film but not bad, The World Is Not Enough is good too with exception to Denise Richards, and Die Another Day starts off good before turning into a parody. But even as a parody, it is better than the dreck called Never Say Never Again, a film that felt more like a made-for-TV reunion that nobody was available for except the main star than anything, complete with cheap sets and effects and a bad score just to add insult. It is bland on ever level, with exception to Barbera Carrera. Once she exits the film, there is nothing of interest left to watch.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
You are all wrong about why Connery did this movie. He did not need the money and neither did he do it because he had input into any of the script. The pure and simple answer to all you simpletons is that Sean cares about World Peace and the idea that two real nuclear warheads were going to be stolen and planted somewhere in the world by the prick directing this movie, meant Sean wanted to be a part of the production to ensure that the nukes were disarmed and no one got blown up. I would have thought it easy to figure out but it appears you lot are all so dumb that you need it spelt out in big letters. I personally am glad Sean recovered those two nukes. You all should too.
shareOh right, I forgot this was a documentary!
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur2533227/ratings
www.kittysafe.net
[deleted]
I wonder what the late 1990s remake with Timothy dalton would have been like if it had been made was going to be called warhammer.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Well I agree with what someone earlier said about them bringing Sean Connery on to simply supervise the script and provide input, but I also heard that Connery was ultimately unsatisfied with his Thunderball film for whatever reasons, so when the script for Never Say Never Again was finished he was quite impressed and interested in playing the part again so he could 'do it right' this time. So when they asked him if he wanted to he said totally.
shareMcClory only had the rights to Thunderball. So doing yet another remake of Thunderball (Warhead 2000) would have been ridiculous.
share