I’ve generally thought it’s not all that bad of a movie, but as you say, doesn’t exactly feel like a Bond movie.
2 Likes
I’ve had it sitting in my top 10 for years, but I haven’t rewatched it in a while. It has a great villain and some good action scenes, and I love the climax and the title song.
“I got a licence to kill-t…”
2 Likes
Well said! From the Bond Films, which I have seen at least, it at least ranked very highly to me, but I can totally see why it was disliked for such a long time. These day I think, while the consensus have shifted dramatically in its favor, it still feels like one of those Films from the Series which either you really love/like or just really don’t. (I am saying this mainly because looking at some Online Pieces and/or Rankings it either gets praise fairly highly or places very down, although I could be wrong on that one, just an Observation I made recently really).
2 Likes
OMG the song 
A bland song based around the horn refrain from Goldfinger. I think they got sued for using it? Or had to pay royalties.
2 Likes
Yeah they assumed because it was a Bond song they could just pinch it.
They then found out it was not the case.
Wouldn’t have thought it did much for mending their bridges with John Barry.
2 Likes
I don’t think they count.
For clarity they should just start calling the films, Bond 26, Bond 27 etc.
2 Likes
Lovely Video!
I must admit it’s hard to really make either of those two count, NSNA has more of a claim to be ‘counted’, even if I simply view it as an Outside Oddity (I’d say similarly to the first few Strangers Films, which you COULD view in Canon (maybe? Perhaps?), but really, why would you try to fit in it and not view it as its own Thing? (Especially with my example getting further and further away from being Doctor Who-adjacent).
Casino Royale on the other Hand is similar to curse of fatal death with the difference of one being charming and the other being the Spoof Casino Royale Film, so that probably says all that needs to be said.
Sorry for the ramble!
1 Like
Why would we count them? The first one is a new version of Thunderball; the second is a Bond spoof that has little to nothing to do with CR or the main series
1 Like
I haven’t watched Calvin’s video yet but I’d make an uneducated guess that he’s not making an argument for them to count in continuity, just that now this new Amazon deal has seen Eon give over creative control then the lines of “official” and “unofficial” has potentially blurred slightly?
So does it now mean Never Say Never Again and Casino Royale '67 can be considered “Legacy Bond” alongside the Eon films?
Personally for me it makes no difference, the deal now doesn’t alter the status quo that was in place 1967-1983 so I’m with @monkeyshaver, I wouldn’t count them any more than I always have but I’m really looking forward to Calvin’s video, even if he’s saying that they should now count!
3 Likes
You pretty much nailed it, @ChrisStokes. He also says we’re so used to the Bond films being classed as “EON Productions” and that helping to differentiate the others. But now, going forward, they might not necessarily be EON Bond films - they’ll be Heyday Films, Amazon Productions, etc. so that strict EON/Non-EON distinction is gone, blurring the lines more.
3 Likes
I finally watched it and as ever found myself nodding in agreement all the way through.
In matters of taste I do differ from Calvin a lot and I enjoy both Casino Royale '67 and Never Say Never Again more than he does but in terms of them “coming in from the cold” so to speak, the Amazon deal does raise a big question, tackled as articulately as ever by Calvin.
I’m inclined to believe that not much will change though. Even though we’re in something of a post-Eon phase and the phrases “official” and “unofficial” Bond films mean less now and everything 1962-2021 could be considered “Legacy Bond”, the differentiation between Eon films and non-Eon films does remain. Casino Royale '67 and Never Say Never Again aren’t part of that same series and so I reckon they’ll still be considered outliers.
3 Likes
Maybe I don’t know enough about how this works, but if Eon handed it off to MGM/Amazon, isn’t it just the MGM/Amazon is the continuation of Eon now? So the ones they make are now official like Eon was and everything else isn’t, just like before? Just swap out the names?
2 Likes
Yes if they want, and they likely will.
Which is why I think the 2 “unofficial” films will retain the status they have for all these years. But the question arises from Eon no longer being THE company in creative control of Bond. The company who actively kept the 2 films out “in the cold” even when studio deals and settled court cases essentially gave them the option to be brought back in. So now that the whole thing is being shepherded by an entity other than Eon, there is the possibility that Casino Royale '67 and Never Say Never Again could be folded into the back catalogue in a more official way.
Like I’ve said, I doubt they will. The status quo with Eon films and these 2 will most probably be what it always has been. But the question has arisen because of the shake-up, and it was clearly playing on Calvin’s mind enough to make a video about it. And it does give pause for thought.
3 Likes
Interesting times we live in! I also don’t think much will change -we’ve been living with the current situation for decades, so there’s not much point to it, even though Amazon might acknowledge them more than Eon did.
2 Likes
Yes exactly, it isn’t a question of Eon films losing their ‘official’ status, just… Will those 2 previously unofficial films be a little more official?
Again, almost certainly not but this question is a good little indicator of how drastically the Bond landscape has the potential to shift with this shake-up.
Not everything we can think up WILL for sure happen, but so much stuff we’ve previously taken for granted “just 'cos” has the capacity to be thrown out, upturned or reshaped that it’s worth reminding ourselves that so much more COULD happen now someone else has the reins.
Again, not that it will, just that it could.
I’m actually finding it all a bit exciting at the moment if I’m honest, not knowing. It’s a new feeling. Sure, between Bonds we’d speculate on who they’d cast but this is something else entirely and it’s not a thing Bond fans usually have to contend with.
Who fans, all the time, but applying it to Bond? It’s novel.
3 Likes
Thinking about it more, I can see those two being perhaps included in some physical Releases going forward, besides that? I doubt much will be done with them, besides being obviously Part of Amazon’s Streaming Library.
1 Like
2 Likes
Felt like it, so I rewatched Die another Day recently. Again, I think I mentioned it already, but I don’t find it as bad as many. It has Problems, boi does it have plenty of Problems. Tonally, it’s a whiplash from the first Half or so to the Rest of the Story. The Villain well.. uhh, where to even begin? Taking this Film seriously is a bit hard, don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of genuine great Stuff to be found. And oh well, even its really stupid Things have something entertaining to it.
What can I say? I had a good Time with it. Is it one of the best Bond Films? No. But it’s a fun romp. Although I really am not fond of Jinx, very surprised a Spin-off about her was ever considered 
(nothing against Berry as an Actress, she can be great but she really didn’t have all that much luck with Franchise Films in the early 2000s, did she?)
2 Likes
