Casino Royale 54, 67, and NSNA should be included in future boxsets

John from Cork

A lady in America actually took MGM to court for leaving them out and she won. Anyway Casino royale 54 could be an extra on the casino Royale 06 disk, NSNA could be an extra on the Thunderball disk.

SpectreOfDefeat

"A lady in America actually took MGM to court for leaving them out and she won."

How?... I suppose if you advertise your boxset as "the complete James Bond collection", but leave out CR54 and NSNA, then technically there might be a case there...the mind boggles...


CR54 I'm admittedly not too fussed about; however, I'd enjoy a proper 'canonised' release of NSNA, with the gunbarrel and proper Bond theme added. I think NSNA at least has a decent claim to being a legitimate Bond film given that it stars Connery, and riffs on many of the specific tropes of the Eon films. As a footnote, the old DVD design for NSNA is clearly modelled on the style of the official Special Edition releases; perhaps a deliberate attempt to evoke customer confusion, one wonders?

Here's what I mean:

John from Cork

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/mgm-fox-provide-87m-worth-james-bond-films-end-class-action-1127738

SpectreOfDefeat

Very interesting, thanks. As I understand the situation nowadays, MGM own the rights to CR54, CR67 and NSNA- so all three could potentially be included on a boxset in future...

7289

In order to be filmed CR’67, NSNA and CR’54 had to be legal or “official” Bond films. It’s delusional to suggest that the only “real” Bond films are those done by EON alone. The world is more complicated than that and often is full of ideas and endeavors that don’t fit our preferred view.

The lawsuit won’t change any minds, likely won’t make for bigger boxsets of dvds, but some lawyers sure got a nice paycheck... that’s what makes the world go round.

DavidJones

7289 wrote:

In order to be filmed CR’67, NSNA and CR’54 had to be legal or “official” Bond films. It’s delusional to suggest that the only “real” Bond films are those done by EON alone. The world is more complicated than that and often is full of ideas and endeavors that don’t fit our preferred view.

Exactly. Though I used to consider them unofficial, I realised they aren't. They're just made by a different company.

It's a bit like calling the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films unofficial because they didn't have Robert Downey Jr in them.

emtiem

Yeah I find it weird when people say Connery made six Bond films plus an unofficial one, because he made seven Bond movies. I can’t look at NSNA in any way and say it’s not a Bond movie, because it clearly is. You can’t even really say it’s made by totally different producers, as one of the producers on it was a producer on Thunderball! As you guys say, ‘official’ seems such a strange term because it was all legal and above board: they had the rights to use 007 officially. As they own it now I think there’s an argument to say it probably should be part of a complete set, even if not standing shoulder to shoulder alongside the others.

CR 67 is a bit different as it’s Bond spoof, although it’s not really even a spoof on the Bond films for most of its running time. It’s really a comedy film that features a James Bond character. Personally I’d be less bothered about that one.

Matt S

I became a fan of Bond because of the EON 007 film series. While Fleming’s books are great, of course, I am mainly a fan of the film series. I think of them as related but separate entities. Some of my favourite Bond films are YOLT and MR, which are not adaptations of Fleming stories. The film series invented many of its own things. To me, NSNA is as much a knock-off of an EON Bond film as it is an adaptation of a Fleming story. For that reason it seems like a knock-off rather than the real deal. It also spoofs Bond in many ways, with humour that is considerably different than in Connery’s original Bond films or Moore’s Bond films.

I don’t think it belongs in a box set with the EON films because it’s quite obviously not part of that series. I prefer the Barry Nelson CR over the Craig version, but I still wouldn’t want it in an EON series set.

John from Cork

Matt S wrote:

I became a fan of Bond because of the EON 007 film series. While Fleming’s books are great, of course, I am mainly a fan of the film series. I think of them as related but separate entities. Some of my favourite Bond films are YOLT and MR, which are not adaptations of Fleming stories. The film series invented many of its own things. To me, NSNA is as much a knock-off of an EON Bond film as it is an adaptation of a Fleming story. For that reason it seems like a knock-off rather than the real deal. It also spoofs Bond in many ways, with humour that is considerably different than in Connery’s original Bond films or Moore’s Bond films.

I don’t think it belongs in a box set with the EON films because it’s quite obviously not part of that series. I prefer the Barry Nelson CR over the Craig version, but I still wouldn’t want it in an EON series set.

Eon knocked off Fatima Blush in GoldenEye, they also stole a line from CR67 about poison pen letters

SpectreOfDefeat

"Eon knocked off Fatima Blush in GoldenEye, they also stole a line from CR67 about poison-pen letters."

True. But I think overall, NSNA is far more derivative of Eon than Eon have been since of it. All the key tropes of the Eon series- Q in his workshop outfitting Bond with ridiculous gadgets and complaining that he isn't taken seriously, a supercillious M clashing with Bond, banter with Moneypenny, villains with isolated grandiose lairs, and the three-character Bond girl structure originated by Roald Dahl are pilfered and lampooned by NSNA at points. The result is that- even if NSNA is a cheap knockoff- it does genuinely feel in some ways like an Eon film, more so than CR54 or CR67.

emtiem

Matt S wrote:

I became a fan of Bond because of the EON 007 film series. While Fleming’s books are great, of course, I am mainly a fan of the film series. I think of them as related but separate entities. Some of my favourite Bond films are YOLT and MR, which are not adaptations of Fleming stories. The film series invented many of its own things. To me, NSNA is as much a knock-off of an EON Bond film as it is an adaptation of a Fleming story. For that reason it seems like a knock-off rather than the real deal. It also spoofs Bond in many ways, with humour that is considerably different than in Connery’s original Bond films or Moore’s Bond films.

It does spoof Bond, but I'm not sure it does it any more so than the Eon movies spoofed themselves.

DavidJones

John from Cork wrote:

Eon knocked off Fatima Blush in GoldenEye...

I don't disagree, but how do you suppose they are so similar, other than the fact they're both brunettes who are white with make-up?

emtiem

You agree but you don't know why?

Thunderbird 2

Personally, I see the films EON have made then there 'is everything else.'

If going to extremes, what about James Bond Jnr? Michael G Wilson was a producer, and it was done under the MGM banner.

EON Bond is the real thing. The tag ons are just that, and still sit next to Austin Powers abd ither genre knock ofs in the same vein.

DavidJones

emtiem wrote:

You agree but you don't know why?

I neither agree nor disagree. Once I'm told more of the reasoning behind it, then I'll decide which one to choose.

John from Cork

DavidJones wrote:

John from Cork wrote:

Eon knocked off Fatima Blush in GoldenEye...

I don't disagree, but how do you suppose they are so similar, other than the fact they're both brunettes who are white with make-up?

The whole ott sadomasochism personality

John from Cork

Afaik MGM have never given CR54 any kind of UK dvd release since they acquired the rights to it 20 years ago.