It always amuses me when I hear some Bond fans call NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN [NSNA] a "renegade" or "rogue" film production (the actual renegade Bond film is Charles Feldman's 1967 production of CASINO ROYALE). NSNA exists because of the incredible carelessness of none other than James Bond's creator, Ian Fleming. If Fleming had secured novelization rights for his work with Kevin McClory and Jack Whittingham on their early Bond screen treatments from 1959, we wouldn't have had this alternative take on THUNDERBALL released in October 1983. The British courts awarded McClory film rights (and remake rights ten years from THUNDERBALL's initial release) to Fleming's novel Thunderball as well as those aforementioned screen treatments. NSNA is an 'official' James Bond film in my opinion because it comes directly from Ian Fleming's actions in 1961.

It's a shame that United Artists and EON Productions didn't offer Kevin McClory another deal for his remake. Instead of harassing McClory with several lawsuits once he was able to remake THUNDERBALL in 1975, why didn't EON producer Albert R. Broccoli offer McClory a deal he couldn't refuse? Why didn't Broccoli approach him with this in the contract: McClory still having full control as producer like he did on THUNDERBALL, but with a larger salary and a bigger percentage of the profits than in the 1965 contract? With this in mind, why didn't Broccoli offer EON's full support with all of the official Bond trimmings, provided McClory's new 007 production be released in an alternate year in relation to the next EON Roger Moore Bond film? I suppose it was due to the extreme greed on both sides that an agreement could never be reached.

Overall, I feel that NSNA is superior to THUNDERBALL in many ways, especially with Sean Connery's superb performance and the stylish villains. I fully admit that one of the main reasons I defend NSNA is that I feel that Connery owns this particular character -- and especially so here: Sean Connery IS James Bond. With the sole exception of his film DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, I rank Connery's Bond films higher than all of the Bond films made by Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. So Connery's return to the role was quite a gift for all of us Bond fans that cut our teeth on his turn as Agent 007 in the 1960s. Well, that's my particular Bond bias and I'm totally up front about it: Sean Connery is the man. However, with some of the apparent NSNA naysayers, I guess they appear to feel the opposite way about Connery's Bond as well as seeming to favor EON's formulaic kinetics and visuals over story and character.

For it is my contention that NSNA's story and characters are not only richer but also more involving when compared to EON's THUNDERBALL. Except for sheer want of more spectacle and being saddled with a truly terrible music soundtrack, NSNA is superior to THUNDERBALL in every department. Due to EON's constant legal harassment, NSNA had so many legal hurdles to overcome that it's a wonder it turned out as good as it did. But here are just a dozen items that NSNA does NOT have as stumbling blocks, yet which hinders EON's THUNDERBALL to no end:

1. Bond's overall cavalier attitude whenever he's on screen that completely kills any suspense. I feel that Connery's portrayal of 007 in THUNDERBALL comes across as just a smarmy superman who really isn't in any danger at all. If Bond doesn't act like he cares, why should the audience? (Connery's Bond in NSNA is far more suave, charming and sophisticated, plus he acts as if he's in real danger throughout NSNA).

2. Bond's sexual blackmailing of Patricia Fearing. (But in NSNA the therapist's reactions to Bond at Shrublands are very humorous and it appears that she's not impressed at all as she contorts his spine. But later she comes to his room on her own initiative with some healthy food she has specially prepared for Bond. I find this far more appealing than that strained seduction within the sauna in THUNDERBALL).

3. The screenwriters' contrived clumsiness of producing a double through miraculous plastic surgery and voice lessons. A very tired cliché, even at the time of THUNDERBALL's release.

4. The moronic 'hide and seek' sequence involving Francois Derval's body at Shrublands. This sequence offers no suspense or tension. But as far as this and other contrived coincidences at Shrublands, this is a weak point of the novel as well. I find the Fatima/Petachi coincidence far more interesting than Count Lippe's Tong tattoo and Bond's overly obvious reaction to it that jump starts the plot here.

5. Bond's crude and clumsy carnality with Domino in their first two encounters, especially during their dance together. (In NSNA the seduction of Domino in the spa is more suave and sexy than those crude come-ons from Bond in THUNDERBALL. Domino Derval's response while she dances with Bond: "The way that you [dramatic pause] hold me" is also truly insipid. In NSNA, the duo's tango is far more riveting because Bond has just told Domino about the death of her brother).

6. The role of Felix Leiter is filled by a non-actor whose wooden performance makes the character a complete joke. (In a short amount of screen time, Bernie Casey's Leiter easily convinces the audience that he and Bond have a professional history together and also a true friendship. Van Nutter was hired as a favor and his leaden performance is laughable: great lines like, "Now what do we do?" and "Go right! Go right!" are not awe inspiring, to say the least. He's nothing more than Bond's lackey in THUNDERBALL).

7. Bond's casino confrontation with Largo is so perfunctory that it fails to involve the viewer to any significant degree. (Although it is rather dated, the computer game confrontation in NSNA is far more suspenseful and riveting than Bond very casually putting the Chemin De Fer smackdown on Emilio. How does Emilio respond here? With a pumped fist sporting that idiotic octo-ring. Scary!).

8. And while we're on the subject: the totally ridiculous habit of SPECTRE folks always wearing those silly octopus rings. Look kids: cartoon-like evil on the big silver screen! It's just as ridiculous as having the bad guys dressed in black. Wait a minute!

9. The Bad Bond Girl spouting inane lines that are only there to answer criticisms of the previous Bond film's sexual antics. Fiona's obvious and contrived speech only further highlights the insipid plot contrivance involving Bond's turning of Pussy Galore.

10. Largo and his henchman bringing a nuclear bomb to one of their coastal targets in BROAD FREAKING DAYLIGHT! Fleming's novel didn't make this error. This is just a contrived bit of nonsense so the filmmakers could film during the daylight hours. Largo and his gang had always acted under the cover of night in all of the previous bomb handling scenes in THUNDERBALL. Why scrap nighttime stealth in the end? Because the filmmakers forced the script to suit certain circumstances. (I really liked the dark underwater stuff in NSNA, plus the underwater cavern solved this "broad daylight" problem quite well).

11. The ludicrous underwater jet pack. 'Nuff said!

12. The ridiculous sped up footage involving Largo's boat that completely cripples the film's climax. Peter Hunt -- what in the Sam Hill were you thinking, eh!??! Actually, Peter Hunt sped up the footage of the exterior hydrofoil footage to match the pace of the fight (some of which is also sped up) within this boat ... and it ruins everything. To cite John Brosnan from his book James Bond in the Cinema, it looks like the Disco Volante is about to reach escape velocity.

The above items are only a sampling of what annoys me while watching EON's THUNDERBALL and which takes me totally out of the film's narrative. The alternatives that NSNA offers to all of the above items clearly illustrates a more cohesive narrative when compared to THUNDERBALL. Does that mean NSNA is perfect on this particular front? No, due to the fact that we have to contend with the insipid Nigel Small-Fawcett character. However, NSNA compensates with a clever and charming James Bond (not a crude and cavalier one), a deliciously evil villainess in Fatima Blush (only EON's Xenia Onatopp comes close here), a disturbingly psychotic Largo (not just a pirate wannabe like Emilio), and no hyper-kinetics that grind the narrative to a complete halt (which really has been plaguing the Bond film series since YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE).

But at least neither NSNA or THUNDERBALL are saddled with anything like the colossal idiocy of Jaws and his ladylove in EON's MOONRAKER, which only helped to derail that film to the point of no return. To continue on here, didn't that crippled crock of crap called DIE ANOTHER DAY prove that EON's current over the top action sequences, with their hyper-kinetic editing, are definitely not the direction the Bond films should be taking? Aren't most Bond fans clamoring for a more solid bit of storytelling like in FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE? I know that's what I've been hearing. Personally, that's what I'm craving in future installments in the James Bond film series. What I truly want is a return to Ian Fleming's type of Bond stories, not another tired and formulaic EON Bond template. The very fact that NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN wasn't an EON Bond production turned out to be a real blessing in the end.