Oh, I wouldn't disagree. But the Craig movies are a clear and undeniable reboot, too, to the degree that Judi Dench plays a different M. They have absolutely nothing to do with the timeline established and loosely followed in the previous films. Those copyrighted elements aside, which are a matter of aesthetic, they're just as distant from the previous Eon films now as NSNA.
I agree with Gassy Man on this one. After re-seeing NSNA on TV a few weeks back, it is a bond film. Yeah no gunbarrel and theme etc, but it's still a bond film. CR '67 is a different story though, and CR '54 isn't even technically a movie.
I guess I'm just trying to establish the 'official rules' of why it isn't official... I'm rationalising that I guess it is because NSNA was not made by the official stewards of the franchise at that time. Which is why the future Amazon bond films (while not EON) will still be official, because Amazon are now the main stewards of the franchise. Just like EON were from 1962-2025.
Of course, there's nothing stopping Amazon from declaring NSNA as official (as far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong). But.... NSNA was excluded from that recent Connery box set, so maybe NSNA is destined to be unofficial forever. Only time will tell.
My take is this. Like CR67, NSNA was a 'legal' Bond: they had the rights to make the film. In that sense it is an 'official' Bond, not some dubious copyright- infringing knock-off. However, there are elements in Bond films that belong to EON and only EON. Therefore, as it wasn't an EON Bond, there is the absence of the classic music, the gun barrel, particular phrases, certain characters, and usual cast members. MGM bought NSNA in 1997 and since MGM was EON's partner, it could be packaged with the EON-made Bonds, although I don't think it ever was. It's not a terrible film, but the music dates it worse than late Moores or Brosnans, in my opinion. I last watched it a couple of years ago and it was better than I remembered but it's still amongst my least favourite.
Comments
Oh, I wouldn't disagree. But the Craig movies are a clear and undeniable reboot, too, to the degree that Judi Dench plays a different M. They have absolutely nothing to do with the timeline established and loosely followed in the previous films. Those copyrighted elements aside, which are a matter of aesthetic, they're just as distant from the previous Eon films now as NSNA.
I agree with Gassy Man on this one. After re-seeing NSNA on TV a few weeks back, it is a bond film. Yeah no gunbarrel and theme etc, but it's still a bond film. CR '67 is a different story though, and CR '54 isn't even technically a movie.
I guess I'm just trying to establish the 'official rules' of why it isn't official... I'm rationalising that I guess it is because NSNA was not made by the official stewards of the franchise at that time. Which is why the future Amazon bond films (while not EON) will still be official, because Amazon are now the main stewards of the franchise. Just like EON were from 1962-2025.
Of course, there's nothing stopping Amazon from declaring NSNA as official (as far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong). But.... NSNA was excluded from that recent Connery box set, so maybe NSNA is destined to be unofficial forever. Only time will tell.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Bit bemused by all this, I mean what is an official or unofficial Sherlock Holmes movie, for instance?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
My take is this. Like CR67, NSNA was a 'legal' Bond: they had the rights to make the film. In that sense it is an 'official' Bond, not some dubious copyright- infringing knock-off. However, there are elements in Bond films that belong to EON and only EON. Therefore, as it wasn't an EON Bond, there is the absence of the classic music, the gun barrel, particular phrases, certain characters, and usual cast members. MGM bought NSNA in 1997 and since MGM was EON's partner, it could be packaged with the EON-made Bonds, although I don't think it ever was. It's not a terrible film, but the music dates it worse than late Moores or Brosnans, in my opinion. I last watched it a couple of years ago and it was better than I remembered but it's still amongst my least favourite.
Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, so it's not the same.