"Attempting re-entry", Moonraker appreciation thread

1246718

Comments

  • Posts: 11,425
    BAIN123 wrote:
    MR is quite fun but, seriously, anyone who thinks it's, in ANY WAY, superior to CR quality-wise needs their head examined ;)

    CR is the better movie
    MR is the better Bond movie

    In my humble opinion

    As much as I may dislike the more camp aspects of MR, I think you have a very strong point here. I never felt that CR or QoS were true Bond films because the character wasn’t fully formed yet. Hopefully that’s different with Skyfall.

    Agreed. CR and to a lesser extent QoS lacked truly Bondian touches. MR might not be top notch but it is unmistakably a Bond movie.
  • Posts: 44
    It's a guilty pleasure....simple
  • Posts: 11,175
    CR has class with a touch of brutality.
    MR has silliness with a touch of class.

    Which is better?
  • Posts: 297
    Not directly a question of better or worse. It's a different Bond and it depends which Bond you are more comfortable with, easy.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Getafix wrote:
    Believeability is all very well, but I do think the real skill in crafting a Bond movie is walking the line between fantasy and reality and - within the laws of Bond - making it 'feel' right. I think MR just about gets away with it, although it's far from being one of my favourites.

    Very good point. I think MR does pull this off whereas DAD goes too far.

    Lets not forget that space shuttles actually existed and flew hundreds of missions. Even 10 years on the invisible car isnt even close to being realised as it is in the film.
  • Posts: 11,175
    Lets face it. Both MR & DAD are "fantasy" Bond films. BUT with MR you got the sense it was made by filmakers who were genuinely skilled at what they were doing.

    Lewis Gilbert had done TWO Bond films previously so he was no stranger to the series. Likewise Cubby had done 10 films previously so he again was no stranger.
  • BAIN123 wrote:
    Lets face it. Both MR & DAD are "fantasy" Bond films. BUT with MR you got the sense it was made by filmakers who were genuinely skilled at what they were doing.

    Lewis Gilbert had done TWO Bond films previously so he was no stranger to the series. Likewise Cubby had done 10 films previously so he again was no stranger.

    Also, there were no risks to the Bond formula in MR as such.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Lets face it. Both MR & DAD are "fantasy" Bond films. BUT with MR you got the sense it was made by filmakers who were genuinely skilled at what they were doing.

    Lewis Gilbert had done TWO Bond films previously so he was no stranger to the series. Likewise Cubby had done 10 films previously so he again was no stranger.

    Let's not forget that prior to his 3 epic fantastical Bond outings, Gilbert was most know for more serious dramas and thrillers.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Lets face it. Both MR & DAD are "fantasy" Bond films. BUT with MR you got the sense it was made by filmakers who were genuinely skilled at what they were doing.

    Indeed. Can you imagine Derek Medddings signing off on the parasurfing sequence? Even back in the 70s Derek wouldve pissed all over those Gameboy quality CGI effects.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Getafix wrote:
    Believeability is all very well, but I do think the real skill in crafting a Bond movie is walking the line between fantasy and reality and - within the laws of Bond - making it 'feel' right. I think MR just about gets away with it, although it's far from being one of my favourites.

    i dont think MR gets away with it. The line with the humour was crossed repeatedly and it did go OTT I am afraid.

    I love it anyway, but am aware of its faults.

    But I do like the scene where they slam on the spacestation brakes and everyone goes flying into walls, falls over etc

  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited May 2012 Posts: 3,204
    actonsteve wrote:
    But I do like the scene where they slam on the spacestation brakes and everyone goes flying into walls, falls over etc

    Great moment. Barry, as usual, underscores it nicely.

    I've never understood the OTT or lack of realism complaints. Seeing the following poster:

    http://www.publispain.com/posters/moonraker.jpg

    pretty much made it clear that realism was never one of MR's goals. It aims no more than to be a fun, escapist diversion for 126 minutes and completely succeeds at its ambitions. Moore's in his prime before his age started to show and it also has one of my 3 favorite female supporting casts(along with TB and OHMSS) in the series. I consider it to be the best of the Bond films that are not faithful to their Fleming literary source.
  • Like I said earlier, Moonraker is incredible. I fear for anyone's sanity who doesn't take a liking to the film. Grumpy old men or either people who easily fall prey to all these ridiculous DARKER, MORE SERIOUS reboots of late. Look up the definition of fun and next to it is a picture of Roger Moore being suave in space!

    =)
  • Like I said earlier, Moonraker is incredible. I fear for anyone's sanity who doesn't take a liking to the film. Grumpy old men or either people who easily fall prey to all these ridiculous DARKER, MORE SERIOUS reboots of late. Look up the definition of fun and next to it is a picture of Roger Moore being suave in space!

    =)

    Hit the nail firmly on the head =D>
  • Posts: 11,425
    Like I said earlier, Moonraker is incredible. I fear for anyone's sanity who doesn't take a liking to the film. Grumpy old men or either people who easily fall prey to all these ridiculous DARKER, MORE SERIOUS reboots of late. Look up the definition of fun and next to it is a picture of Roger Moore being suave in space!

    =)

    Hit the nail firmly on the head =D>

    Bravo!
  • Like I said earlier, Moonraker is incredible. I fear for anyone's sanity who doesn't take a liking to the film. Grumpy old men or either people who easily fall prey to all these ridiculous DARKER, MORE SERIOUS reboots of late. Look up the definition of fun and next to it is a picture of Roger Moore being suave in space!

    =)


    :))
  • ChevronChevron Northern Ireland
    edited May 2012 Posts: 370
    I've just been listening to the music posted a bit farther up the page. God, it's gorgeous. Are there any contenders for better Bond music by Barry or otherwise? It also reminds me of his Black Hole music out the same year.

    Anyway, here's a question. What if Bond had not gone into space at the end? What if the story had been the same up to being captured by Drax and then he had stopped Drax's plot in the Amazon base, perhaps by blowing something big up. Would you like the movie more or less?
  • PrinceKamalKhanPrinceKamalKhan Monsoon Palace, Udaipur
    edited May 2012 Posts: 3,204
    Like I said earlier, Moonraker is incredible. I fear for anyone's sanity who doesn't take a liking to the film. Grumpy old men or either people who easily fall prey to all these ridiculous DARKER, MORE SERIOUS reboots of late. Look up the definition of fun and next to it is a picture of Roger Moore being suave in space!

    =)

    Well put, Our_Man_Flint. Very cool and appropriate username, BTW. MR is very much in the spirit of the Flint pictures(and I mean that as a compliment to both MR and to the Flint pics).
    Chevron wrote:
    Just been listening to the music posted a bit farther up the page. God, it's gorgeous. Any contenders for better bond music by Barry or otherwise? It ALS reminds me of his Black Hole music out the same year.

    Anyway, heres a question. What if Bond had not gone into space at the end? What if the tory had been the same up to being captured by Drax and then he had stopped Drax's plot in the Amazon base, perhaps by blowing something big up. Would you like the movie more or less?

    Less. Because we more or less already had the Bond almost goes into space plot in YOLT.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Less. Despite the space sequence being silly, it is also very well executed.
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    Like I said earlier, Moonraker is incredible. I fear for anyone's sanity who doesn't take a liking to the film. Grumpy old men or either people who easily fall prey to all these ridiculous DARKER, MORE SERIOUS reboots of late. Look up the definition of fun and next to it is a picture of Roger Moore being suave in space!



    Well put, Our_Man_Flint. Very cool and appropriate username, BTW. MR is very much in the spirit of the Flint pictures(and I mean that as a compliment to both MR and to the Flint pics). =)

    Exactly one of the biggest problems I have with MR. If I watch a Flint or a Helm movie, I expect parody and spoofing involving Bond and the spy genre in general. Those you enjoy on a different level because homage is being paid, same as Austin Powers. MR is a case in too many places of Bond parodying these type of movies, as well as Star Wars, instead of setting new trends.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    The most disappointing trip to the cinema - really felt this was the end to Bond - half expected it to have the sub-title 'Carry On James'. Felt the same after AVTAK.
  • The most disappointing trip to the cinema - really felt this was the end to Bond - half expected it to have the sub-title 'Carry On James'. Felt the same after AVTAK.

    I totally understand that, although I didn't think quite that way about AVTAK because I knew it was Moore's finale as Bond and all I could do was hope the next actor would bring a more serious portrayal closer to Sir Sean. I love the insanity Walken and Willoughby Gray bring as the villains and at least I was infinitely more entertained. Thankfully we got FYEO and Dalton/TLD in response.

  • My first trip to the cinema to see a Bond movie was TWINE when I snuck in with my dad underage so I'm guessing with my theory.

    But surely those who saw the Connery pics at the cinema were more disappointed with QOS than MR, simply because with MR, you knew what you were getting kind of? QOS was built up and hyped so much, it failed to deliver big time?

    Just a theory I'm putting out there
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    edited May 2012 Posts: 1,874
    Amen to that! (response to SirHenryLeeChaChing).
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 3,494
    My first trip to the cinema to see a Bond movie was TWINE when I snuck in with my dad underage so I'm guessing with my theory.

    But surely those who saw the Connery pics at the cinema were more disappointed with QOS than MR, simply because with MR, you knew what you were getting kind of? QOS was built up and hyped so much, it failed to deliver big time?

    Just a theory I'm putting out there

    Since I was fortunate/old enough to see Connery when he was still the only Bond, I think the exact opposite. I already knew the minute that the writer's strike occurred that there might be issues with QOS, made real when I learned that the script hadn't been completed and that they were behind schedule. I've always said that what I hoped for QOS to do is to tell me more about Vesper and this unnamed "organization", and to see Bond continue to grow and learn and come to grips with losing Vesper and what his job entails. So despite the casualties of the strike (lack of character development for all others, the hiring of Bourne crew members who obviously seem to think that all spy movies should be filmed the same way, and the resulting time constraints), it mostly accomplished answering the questions I had. I would have liked to see Bond revealing more about his feelings and perhaps even breaking down but then that might be too out of character. So overall I wouldn't say I was more than mildly disappointed, it's a victim of circumstances and it is what it is.

    I think I have more than explained my disdain for MR in comparison to the story I expected to see. There are some good things in there, a great soundtrack and performance from Sir Roger and beautiful locations, but that's about all and only DAD I find to be worse.



  • My first trip to the cinema to see a Bond movie was TWINE when I snuck in with my dad underage so I'm guessing with my theory.

    But surely those who saw the Connery pics at the cinema were more disappointed with QOS than MR, simply because with MR, you knew what you were getting kind of? QOS was built up and hyped so much, it failed to deliver big time?

    Just a theory I'm putting out there

    Since I was fortunate/old enough to see Connery when he was still the only Bond, I think the exact opposite. I already knew the minute that the writer's strike occurred that there might be issues with QOS, made real when I learned that the script hadn't been completed and that they were behind schedule. I've always said that what I hoped for QOS to do is to tell me more about Vesper and this unnamed "organization", and to see Bond continue to grow and learn and come to grips with losing Vesper and what his job entails. So despite the casualties of the strike (lack of character development for all others, the hiring of Bourne crew members who obviously seem to think that all spy movies should be filmed the same way, and the resulting time constraints), it mostly accomplished what I was looking for.



    Definetly fortunate enough!

    I did think QOS was very weak and wasn't that good. It just seem muddled to me. I didn't think we learnt enough about Quantum and think the producers are making a mistake by not addressing it in SF. It wasn't like SPECTRE in DN/FRWL where them two films established the group sufficiently so Goldfinger could be a non-SPECTRE Bond film. I just felt it was a weak film and is the second worse entry into the series (after DAD). Vesper's death, if the truth be told, was as much ignored in QOS as Tracy's death was in DAF.

    Every Bond film I have seen in the cinema from TWINE, DAD, CR and QOS has disappointed me in some way cause they have felt almost unBondian to me. Why I love MR so much is because it doesn't pretend to be something it's not.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    I bought Moonraker from the charity shop, the book that is. Took it home I started reading it only to realise it was the film adaptation. gutted. when I finally read the proper Fleming I really enjoyed it.
    I dont recall alot of Roger Moore films, I've been trying to forget them so I can rewatch them.
    I do recall feeling somewhat cheated on Nightfire the video game though as it started so well then boiled down to a moonraker action remake.
  • oo7 wrote:
    I bought Moonraker from the charity shop, the book that is. Took it home I started reading it only to realise it was the film adaptation. gutted. when I finally read the proper Fleming I really enjoyed it.
    I dont recall alot of Roger Moore films, I've been trying to forget them so I can rewatch them.
    I do recall feeling somewhat cheated on Nightfire the video game though as it started so well then boiled down to a moonraker action remake.

    I'd love to read the film adaptation of Moonraker...would be enjoyable. The fleming version of Moonraker is more related to DAD

    Nightfire is an amazing game, bettered only by Goldeneye on the N64
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    Nightfire was superior to Agent underfire but i felt it jumped the shark shortly after you take off from the snowy alpes(best part of the whole thing). I look forward to this years bond game it should be good, whats it called Hitman Absolution, yeah thats the one.
    If you want I can type up the film adaptation of Moonraker a page a post.
  • oo7 wrote:
    Nightfire was superior to Agent underfire but i felt it jumped the shark shortly after you take off from the snowy alpes(best part of the whole thing). I look forward to this years bond game it should be good, whats it called Hitman Absolution, yeah thats the one.
    If you want I can type up the film adaptation of Moonraker a page a post.

    yea the plot was muddled slightly. But the multiplayer was amazing...played on it for hours when I was living out at university with my mates. That's not a Bond game is it?

    Ah that's nice of you but would take ages! I'll buy a 1p copy off Amazon. Thanks anyway!
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,534
    Agent under Fire was much better than Nightfire... IMO of course :)
Sign In or Register to comment.