Never Say Never Again Vs Thunderball

christotheman

Even though we know which film is going to win, I want to know what film you think is better?

bondaholic007

Definetly Thunderball, I do not like Never Say Never Again, They is no point of making it, Connery is too old, the up to date technology used in it, like the eye scanning thing is just stupid, It comes no where in the league of Thunderball. Bad actors throughout Never Say Never Again, Q Urgo

Loeffelholz

This ground was been well-trodden on these boards, but...of course TB wins this match-up, ten times out of ten...but I happen to enjoy NSNA, more than perhaps ninety percent of the members here---in my opinion, it's much more enjoyable than the other Bond they made that year ( ), and the one after that ( )...on the other hand, 1983 was a great summer at the cinema for Bond fans B-)

If I want to see a Geezer Bond, it's going to be Connery every time (four years younger than Moore, in better shape and looking fifteen years younger for NSNA), especially when he's still able to 'sell' the action, as IMO he is here. If I want a silly Bond, same thing.

Yes, it was a troubled production with a script that wasn't what it could have been. Yes, the score is substandard, as is the main title theme (which shouldn't have been playing over what I see as an excellent opening scene)...and yes, the little rocket thingies with the lampshade thrusters that Bond and Leiter use are embarrassing ;%

I enjoyed Klaus Maria Brandauer, Barbara Carrera and Max von Sydow as the heavies. I enjoyed the fight at Shrublands between Bond and that guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark. I thought Kim Basinger was fine as a Bond girl. I even enjoyed Rowan Atkinson. I liked seeing the Bentley again. I liked that Bond's patented 'trick suitcase' held nothing more dangerous than contraband vodka and caviar, smuggled into a health clinic I liked the motorcyle sequence, and the final scene with Fatima Blush: "Well, there was this girl in Philadelphia..." B-)

And I loved that---for once!---Bond's relatively advanced age is actually incorporated into the storyline. We know we're seeing a fiftysomething Bond; we're supposed to know it, and the filmmakers wisely don't ignore the fact. In that respect, this film arguably embraces the character's rich past in a way the Eon films didn't at the time.

Is it TB? No...but---thank God!---it isn't OP or AVTAK, either* [sound of retching]. It was just incredibly exciting to see Connery in the tux again, and IMO it was a better swan song for him than DAF.

All lifelong Bond fans make decisions as to what they will forgive in the films, and what they will not forgive. All of the Bond actors enjoy this kind of dispensation to some degree, I think---some more than others, and deservedly so. I suppose I choose to forgive a great deal in this one, simply because it is the great Sean Connery. It may not be a film critic's rigid, disciplined impartiality...but it is the affection of a devoted fan.

As ever, opinions will vary. But this is my own.**

* _{There were of course a couple of fine moments for creaky old Sir Roger in OP, and in other people's opinions there are in AVTAK as well.}

**_{Merely the opinion of the post's author; not intended as a smite upon anyone else's opinion, nor a proclamation of absolutely the last word on the subject. In some instances, may cause chafing, the condition known as 'sausage fingers,' visions of the apocalypse, hyperventilation, varying box office returns in different countries for reasons the author had best not comment on, loose bowel syndrome, the shakes, the creeping crud, the screaming meemies, trench foot, trench mouth, a lifelong crush on Sylvia Trench, an appreciation for a darker Fleming-inspired James Bond, the heartbreak of psoriasis, acid reflux, night sweats, ingrown toenails, post-posting stress disorder, a firm conviction that Amy Winehouse is hiding under the bed with a pirate's dagger clenched between her teeth, and jungle rot. If rash develops, discontinue use.}

8420

I haven't watched NSNA ;% So it TB for me.

Loeffelholz

8420 wrote:

I haven't watched NSNA ;% So it TB for me.

Give it a look when you get the chance, 8420. Flaws and all, it is a James Bond film, and I never fail to be entertained by it.

Thunderpussy

Has to be Thunderball for me the scale of it is truly fantastic not the best Bond by a long way,But an epic.While NSNA IMHO looks like a TV movie of the week with some really bad over acting.I do have it as part of my collection but it's rarely watched.

bacaret

Thunderpussy wrote:

Has to be Thunderball for me the scale of it is truly fantastic not the best Bond by a long way,But an epic.While NSNA IMHO looks like a TV movie of the week with some really bad over acting.I do have it as part of my collection but it's rarely watched.

thats exacly right you are comparing one film tb that was truly groundbreaking in movie making with Connery at the top of his game. nsna looks and feels like a made for tv movie that just rips off the original. And another thing is what was Sean thinking.:(:(:(

christotheman

yeah NSNA sucked, but the touchup they did was good SC looks the way he did in DAF

Mister White

Loeffelholz wrote:

It was just incredibly exciting to see Connery in the tux again, and IMO it was a better swan song for him than DAF.

I also prefer Thunderball, but Loeff has an excellent point there!

{[]

JADE66

Thunderball is certainly the better film but NSNA wasn't all bad.Connery's return was the best part. I was in college when the film came out and I remember the crowds lining up around the block to see the new Connery Bond film. I also remember how disappointed I was to find that it was just a remake of Thunderball. That said, the film had some fine moments; the fight at Shrublands, the scenes with Fatima("I got you all wet." "Yes, but my martini is still dry."), the scene with Algernon/Q: "I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence." For once Felix gets to take part in the action and Bernie Casey's performance in the roll was fine.
Thunderball, however,is the superior film. Its pacing is better, the casting is better, and Bernard Lee's M ("Now that we're all here.") is superb.
Thunderball ranks among my favorites for all tese reasons and more. NSNA is a pale shadow of that film. But it's still Bond. B-)

scaramangasgoldengun

theres a simple mathimatical equastion to solve this topic....

THUNDERBALL / BOND ELEMENTS X MUSIC + ACTION + GADGETS + CLASSIC BOND + MORE Bond elements = BRILLIANT THRILL RIDE and a great Bond film

NSNA = ABSOLUTE 100% SH*T + 10%SH*T = MORE SH*T THAN ONE CAN BARE

Loeffelholz

scaramangasgoldengun wrote:

NSNA = ABSOLUTE 100% SH*T + 10%SH*T = MORE SH*T THAN ONE CAN BARE

Barbel

I can't write any better than Loeff- his comments several posts above say it all. TB is IMHO the better film and stands up to repeat viewing far more strongly than NSNA, but you had to be there at the time when this was the keenly anticipated return of Sean Connery to his signature role to fully enjoy the experience. OP is the better of the two Bond movies relased in 83, and Moore's performance can stand beside SC's any day.

And I haven't even mentioned the music:

TB- awesome, never topped.
OP- average JB (ie better than anyone else).
NSNA- stinks like a week-old horse.

Jimmy Bond

I agree with Loeffelholz, almost completely.

Thunderball is the more accomplished Bond film. Its got better action, score, directing and all. However, NSNA excels in cinematography, and prevails over TB in the casting department. If something TB, IMO, it had to be the cast.

Adolfo Celi just doesn't cut it as a Bond villain. Neither convincing or terrifying, neither intimidating or interesting, Celi's Largo was a bore. Klaus Maria Brandauer, on the other hand, was brilliant.

Anyway, I don't want to re-iterate everything else that Loeffelholz said, so I'll leave it at that.

My only disagreement is that, I find them both equally good. TB has the better action, but NSNA has the better characterization - but thats me.

Napoleon Plural

I don't know Barbel. I was there at the time and it was a massive letdown to see Connery back like this, a real anticlimax although I think the hype and euphoria took hold more in the US - released three months later in the UK it played second fiddle to Jaws 3D of all things at the local fleapit being relegated to the much smaller second screen.

I will say that NSNA had more vivid set pieces for the most part, TB gets a bit samey.

Higgins

scaramangasgoldengun wrote:

theres a simple mathimatical equastion to solve this topic....

THUNDERBALL / BOND ELEMENTS X MUSIC + ACTION + GADGETS + CLASSIC BOND + MORE Bond elements = BRILLIANT THRILL RIDE and a great Bond film

NSNA = ABSOLUTE 100% SH*T + 10%SH*T = MORE SH*T THAN ONE CAN BARE

) well, I wouldn't be that drastic*, but I'd like to add something to your TB equation:
Claudine Auger + Claudine Auger ;% + Claudine Auger :007) + Luciana Paluzzi -{ + Luciana Paluzzi :v + Mollie Peters {[]

and the fact, that James Bond's NSNA chase bike is obviously a 125 cc makes it a poor man's Bond imro


*the only dog s**t on a paper plate Bonds are DAF and QoS {:)










.... did I mention Claudine Auger by the way?

scaramangasgoldengun

I can accept DOG**IT being linked to DAF ... fire away my good man say all you want about the obvious DOGS**T that was DAF .....

but QoS is a film that has grown on me and I love it now.. one of my favorites.. my Father said it was SH** when he first watched it.... and that it was not a patch on CR .... but even he thinks its pretty good after watching a few times.....

THE way i rate CR and QoS is

CR = A 10/10 Bond film one of the best possibly the best of the lot.... it was always going to be a hard act to follow...

QoS = 8/10 Bond film, keeps the gritty elements .. Daniel Craig frther establishes himself although the guy did it one one film .. and it was a very good film good action.. sotry etc ...... my only complaint with QoS is certain unecessary scenes..... like the whole Boat chase.. that was a waste of film and was not that good anyway . and I dont think Dominic Green was that good a villain .... lacked alot... was re release of Gustav Graves .. who was himself a bit of a re release of Hugo Drax.... But as I say ... CR was always going to be a tuff act to follow...

anyway I am straying from the topic here....

Thunderball..... one of my favorites.. just a classic .. perfect elements .. locations babes... gadgets action .. just everything u want in a Bond film.... it was a classic...

NSNA - i think there was like a few bits I liked in it .... the bit Bond fights the guy at the health clinic that was ok .. and he had that weapon that could half a knife in two.. a sort of blade belt thing... fatima blush .. a good nut case character and very attractive..... Kim Basinger .. gorgus Gal.... very nice.. poor character.. though in the film... just eye candy realy.... and the bit Bond puts the cigarette case in the guys hand and says its a bomb...

DIslikes... Connerys bad.. grey wig... the motorcylce chase was poor.. ok in parts... those stupid rocket pack pod things were so stupid.. and badly filmed.. largo.. what the hell was he meant to be .. a snivling little weezle.. of a character.. not threatening in the slightest .. poor poor music.. even the cannonball run film with roger moore playing a nut case who thinks hes roger moore playing Bond had better Bond music .. than NSNA.... connery is just past it.. plain and simple.. at least Roger still looked capable and cool in Octopussy .. did i mention bad music .. well the music is terrible.. in it.

CR 67 is more of a Bond film than this in my opinion and its just a spoof.. and a very funny and brilliant spoof at that . and peter sellers and david niven made for better Bonds than Connery did in NSNA...

Barbel

scaramangasgoldengun wrote:

NSNA - .. did i mention bad music .. well the music is terrible.. in it.

Yup. The music in CR 67 is far superior! (Burt Bacharach, of course)

Blackleiter

Thunderball was better, but there are several things I enjoyed about NSNA. First, I thought Connery was great in his return as Bond. Second, I thought Barbara Carrera was a hoot as Fatima Blush. I also enjoyed the oily creepiness of Klaus Maria Brandauer as Largo - a much more memorable villain than Adolfo Celi. And finally, kudos to Bernie Casey as the first Black Felix Leiter (to be followed Jeffrey Wright in the Daniel Craig Bond films). This might seem like a small thing, but the musical soundtrack of NSNA really helped to ruin the movie for me. The lack of the James Bond Theme and other "Bond-style" music playing in the background seriously weakened every scene in the movie!

Krassno Granitski

Loeffelholz wins! I agree with everything he said

Blackleiter

I have to agree - Loeffelholz nailed it!

The Viking

Now that I have read Loeffelholz's post, I feel a need to see NSNA again. I haven't seen it since the '80s. When I first saw it in 1983, I liked it better than OP despite some noticeable flaws. Thunderball is another story. TB is my second favorite Bond film (after FRWL). I have watched TB several times recently, in preparation for a cruise to Nassau that my girlfriend and I are going on in December.

JADE66

Loeffelholz wrote:

This ground was been well-trodden on these boards, but...of course TB wins this match-up, ten times out of ten...but I happen to enjoy NSNA, more than perhaps ninety percent of the members here---in my opinion, it's much more enjoyable than the other Bond they made that year ( ), and the one after that ( )...on the other hand, 1983 was a great summer at the cinema for Bond fans B-)

If I want to see a Geezer Bond, it's going to be Connery every time (four years younger than Moore, in better shape and looking fifteen years younger for NSNA), especially when he's still able to 'sell' the action, as IMO he is here. If I want a silly Bond, same thing.

Yes, it was a troubled production with a script that wasn't what it could have been. Yes, the score is substandard, as is the main title theme (which shouldn't have been playing over what I see as an excellent opening scene)...and yes, the little rocket thingies with the lampshade thrusters that Bond and Leiter use are embarrassing ;%

I enjoyed Klaus Maria Brandauer, Barbara Carrera and Max von Sydow as the heavies. I enjoyed the fight at Shrublands between Bond and that guy from Raiders of the Lost Ark. I thought Kim Basinger was fine as a Bond girl. I even enjoyed Rowan Atkinson. I liked seeing the Bentley again. I liked that Bond's patented 'trick suitcase' held nothing more dangerous than contraband vodka and caviar, smuggled into a health clinic I liked the motorcyle sequence, and the final scene with Fatima Blush: "Well, there was this girl in Philadelphia..." B-)

And I loved that---for once!---Bond's relatively advanced age is actually incorporated into the storyline. We know we're seeing a fiftysomething Bond; we're supposed to know it, and the filmmakers wisely don't ignore the fact. In that respect, this film arguably embraces the character's rich past in a way the Eon films didn't at the time.

Is it TB? No...but---thank God!---it isn't OP or AVTAK, either* [sound of retching]. It was just incredibly exciting to see Connery in the tux again, and IMO it was a better swan song for him than DAF.

All lifelong Bond fans make decisions as to what they will forgive in the films, and what they will not forgive. All of the Bond actors enjoy this kind of dispensation to some degree, I think---some more than others, and deservedly so. I suppose I choose to forgive a great deal in this one, simply because it is the great Sean Connery. It may not be a film critic's rigid, disciplined impartiality...but it is the affection of a devoted fan.

As ever, opinions will vary. But this is my own.**

* _{There were of course a couple of fine moments for creaky old Sir Roger in OP, and in other people's opinions there are in AVTAK as well.}

**_{Merely the opinion of the post's author; not intended as a smite upon anyone else's opinion, nor a proclamation of absolutely the last word on the subject. In some instances, may cause chafing, the condition known as 'sausage fingers,' visions of the apocalypse, hyperventilation, varying box office returns in different countries for reasons the author had best not comment on, loose bowel syndrome, the shakes, the creeping crud, the screaming meemies, trench foot, trench mouth, a lifelong crush on Sylvia Trench, an appreciation for a darker Fleming-inspired James Bond, the heartbreak of psoriasis, acid reflux, night sweats, ingrown toenails, post-posting stress disorder, a firm conviction that Amy Winehouse is hiding under the bed with a pirate's dagger clenched between her teeth, and jungle rot. If rash develops, discontinue use.}

Well said. I agree completely. I was in college when NSNA came out and I remember standing in line (a very long line, around the block in fact) to see this film. I also remember that I was very disappointed coming out of the cinema, grumbling
about remaking Thunderball. Upon reflection though, NSNA had a lot going for it, Fatima Blush being near the top of the list.
And of course it was a return to 007 status for Sean Connery. Max von Sydow was a fine Blofeld but why the producers would include that silly white cat from the EON series is beyond me. The Blofeld of the novels had no particular affection for animals that I can recall and while it may have been a clever way to identify Blofeld before he turned out to be Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas etc., once his face was revealed, the cat should have been fed to the fish.(Just kidding. No letters or threats from PETA members please.) Yet, there Blofeld is, stroking his kitty.
I like the fact that Bernie Casey's Felix gets to do more than just be 007's useless sidekick(ala Cec Linder, Norman Burton, David Hedison). And NSNA contains some of my favorite lines. Fatima: Oh! I've got you all wet. Bond: Yes. But my martini's still dry.

All in all NSNA is a mixed bag. It's not the film that Thunderball is. But it was certainly superior to Octocrappy. Connery's return was the best part and it shows that Bond is a commodity that people want to see, Connery or Moore, old or young, original, remade, EON or independent. Bond means box office. :007)

JADE66

Excuse me. I seem to have repeated myself. Getting old, I guess. ;%

0013

I have to be honest. I like both, but NSNA is a very interesting premise. Could an older Bond cut it? And I say, yes, in a slightly darker , more gritty world, where the current M is a nincompoop with no regard for Bond and his capabilities, and Q branch is more limited.

The first use of the Laser watch, I might add. And it's not a Q branch invention, it was of Russain origin.

Humor is good.

But the film does sort of fizzle out at the end.

I sort of grudginly place it in my Bond collection beside Octopussy so it's all strict chronological order. Yeah it's not EON Bond, but to totally dismiss it would be a sin. It has a few things going for it, more so than say 1967's Casino Royale.

Accept it as a Bond movie, I say. An interesting close cousin of the Eon series. And It's Sean Connery's last Bond performance. And he seems on better form than say Diamonds are Forever, which he seems half hearted about it.

Thats my two pence or cents

0013

Higgins

... on a sidenote: Everybody seems to complain about the space scenes in Moonraker and the invisible car in DAD, but where are the moans about that Atari battle sequence?