Moonraker : appreciation or hate?

1235711

Comments

  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    well if you are that into Moonraker go for it. I disigree Dcraig. the opening for nightfire was solid i only wish they kept the EA bond instead of reverting to Brosnans likeness.
    In saying that i think daniel craigs really thrown himself into the new games unlike brosnan whcih took 3 games in then they fired him for Sean.
    Hey we are on the wrong board.
  • Posts: 10,850
    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.

    Exactly. They no longer 'feel' like Bond movies, but just action films which happen to feature a character called James Bond. I'd say the trouble started with LTK (although it's still a Bond movie) and then rapidly went down hill from GE onwards. GE ticks every possible box but is much less than the sum of its parts. CR and QoS were at least decent movies, but were they Bond movies? I feel QoS is more Bondian than CR and am always surprised by the amount of hate it gets. Forster actually understood Bond better than any director since John Glen.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    Aw i dont know when bond was gonna put a bullet through both his and camilles head i dont really think that was very bondy
  • @Getafix we have similar views on the series and it's moment of decline

    People fail to distinguish between a good movie and a good Bond movie.
  • Posts: 10,850
    @Getafix we have similar views on the series and it's moment of decline

    People fail to distinguish between a good movie and a good Bond movie.

    They should have never let Roger retire. He could still pull it off even now!
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    Moore never left, hes just in the invisible car with the rest of them incase dan needs help
  • While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?
  • Posts: 10,850
    While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?

    Yes! Definitely! There's another couple of missions in him yet!
  • Moore tied to the chair in CR?

    He could have pulled it off!
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 11,168
    Getafix wrote:
    While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?

    Yes! Definitely! There's another couple of missions in him yet!

    No, his style wouldn't work now. Let's be honest.
  • Posts: 10,850
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?

    Yes! Definitely! There's another couple of missions in him yet!

    No, his style wouldn't work now. Let's be honest.

    He would have been perfect for the PTS free running sequence in CR and the close-hand combat stuff in QoS.
  • Posts: 10,850
    Moore tied to the chair in CR?

    He could have pulled it off!

    Roger is in prime physical fitness - the ladies would have loved it!
  • 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 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.

    I guess I was just lucky enough to have been born when Bond started. I was 2 months old when Dr.No started filming. Saw my first film in 1968, technically Sean wasn't Bond as his contract had expired, but neither had George been announced so it went like that.

    Regarding your bolded statement, I must say that I don't think you have seen or remember too much of QOS. Vesper is mentioned quite a few times by name and her death (Mathis says "she died for you" as an example) is far from ignored, Bond's motivation in part regarding Vesper is very clear, right down to where he tracks down and interrogates Kabira at the end. DAF doesn't mention Tracy by name or reference her death even one time. Watch both again and you'll see what I mean.

    I agree that QOS was muddled and the issues I mention were a contributing factor in a big way. It could have been much better, almost everyone agrees on that. It's funny though, the more you watch it, especially immediately after CR, the better it gets as far as understanding everything going on. I understand what you are saying about MR, but I still prefer rookie Bond to a parody and 30+ years later I still feel the way I did then, and you should definitely read the novel because MR could have been so much more.


  • Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?

    Yes! Definitely! There's another couple of missions in him yet!

    No, his style wouldn't work now. Let's be honest.

    He would have been perfect for the PTS free running sequence in CR and the close-hand combat stuff in QoS.

    However - I think his Lotus would have struggled on the dirt road in QOS...
  • Getafix wrote:
    @Getafix we have similar views on the series and it's moment of decline

    People fail to distinguish between a good movie and a good Bond movie.

    They should have never let Roger retire. He could still pull it off even now!

    :)) Scashy used to say the same things
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 10,850
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?

    Yes! Definitely! There's another couple of missions in him yet!

    No, his style wouldn't work now. Let's be honest.

    He would have been perfect for the PTS free running sequence in CR and the close-hand combat stuff in QoS.

    However - I think his Lotus would have struggled on the dirt road in QOS...

    It would great to see the old Lotus brought back for SF instead of the DB5, again!

    You could really see it looking great driving along the coast of southern Turkey, taking out the odd hovering helicopter.

    I don't think DC could pull off the fish out the window gag though - it takes real acting quality to do that.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    It's funny though, the more you watch it, especially immediately after CR, the better it gets as far as understanding everything going on.

    I heartily agree. Last time I watched them back to back and it all feels more coherent and lets face it, all QOS is is a coda to CR.

    Lets hope SF will stand alone properly.
    Getafix wrote:
    I don't think DC could pull off the fish out the window gag though - it takes real acting quality to do that.

    Truly classic Rog. Also love the 'out of order' sign on Kalbas body.
  • Posts: 1,082
    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!

    =)

    This is an amazing post! And Moore could have been Bond until 1993, and after that we have Brosnan, who retires in 2012.

  • Getafix wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Getafix wrote:
    While I really enjoy Sir Roger Moore as James Bond. Do you really think that today he could still pull it off...?

    Yes! Definitely! There's another couple of missions in him yet!

    No, his style wouldn't work now. Let's be honest.

    He would have been perfect for the PTS free running sequence in CR and the close-hand combat stuff in QoS.

    However - I think his Lotus would have struggled on the dirt road in QOS...

    It would great to see the old Lotus brought back for SF instead of the DB5, again!

    You could really see it looking great driving along the coast of southern Turkey, taking out the odd hovering helicopter.

    I don't think DC could pull off the fish out the window gag though - it takes real acting quality to do that.

    While it would be cool to see the Lotus back - the DB5 has a much more timeless classic quality. Its a better fit. The Lotus screams flares and disco music. I forgot to mention earlier that I appreciate MR. I know it has its problems and is incredibly bad in parts but it is also incredibly entertaining. It knows what it is. But I think the poor parts are far out numbered by the good parts - the same can't be said for the train wreck that is DAD. For me MR has - great music, great sets, a half decent crazed villain, beautiful locations and style.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    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!

    =)

    This is an amazing post! And Moore could have been Bond until 1993, and after that we have Brosnan, who retires in 2012.

    You gotta be sh*tt*ng me! Moore was past his sell buy by FYEO, which is his best, most Bondian performance! If only he had retired earlier (give him his due he did try, but Cubby kept offering more money), maybe the series wouldn't have gone so bad - AVTAK anyone?
  • Posts: 1,082
    I think that AVTAK is one of the highlights in the Bond series. And those facelifts made Moore look good/young enough for Bond. He looked the same in 1991/1993 as in 1985. Moore is the best and had a couple more films in him. Same for Brosnan.
  • Posts: 10,850
    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!

    =)

    This is an amazing post! And Moore could have been Bond until 1993, and after that we have Brosnan, who retires in 2012.

    Lord help us, no! They should have brought Roger back after Dalts dropped out for GE. Would have been brilliant.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    edited May 2012 Posts: 3,471
    Great Score and great sets but after that it's a complete embarrassment of a film and up there with Moore's worst, always much preferred SWLM which despite not having a Barry is score is better, yes it is a remake of YOLT but a better one. Moore was at his best here and it was all down hill from there on.

    Who's Stanley Kubrick?
  • edited May 2012 Posts: 643
    Shardlake wrote:
    Great Score and great sets but after that it's a complete embarrassment of a film and up there with Moore's worst, always much preferred SWLM which despite not having a Barry is score is better, yes it is a remake of YOLT but a better one. Moore was at his best here and it was all down hill from there on.

    Who's Stanley Kubrick?

    Agree very much on TSWLM though MR, FYEO, OP and AVTAK was far from downhill
  • Posts: 5,651
    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!

    =)

    This is an amazing post! And Moore could have been Bond until 1993, and after that we have Brosnan, who retires in 2012.

    A little late for April Fool's day humor isn't it, is he being serious with this

    Anybody who seriously wanted to have Moore as Bond until 1993, and even Brosnan until this year, well I don't know what to say really, words almost fail me

    This isn't even the 'controversial opinions' thread either

    For the benefit of Moonraker, and that's why we're here, Moore is still capable as James Bond and amid all the stupid nonsense that ensues, did not too bad a job, the G-force simulator is a classic example, one of the best Moore sequences of his tenure

    For Your Eyes Only was a great success, but for the 1000th time, it was time to go after that, the actor just embarrassed himself in his last two appearances, there can be no dispute



  • or Your Eyes Only was a great success, but for the 1000th time, it was time to go after that, the actor just embarrassed himself in his last two appearances, there can be no dispute

    Oh, I think there is a dispute about that. AVTAK was a step too far for Roger, in my opinion, but I thought Octopussy was superb. I wouldn't have wanted any other actor to play Bond in that film, either.
  • Posts: 1,082
    Based on his looks Moore could be Bond as late as 1993. He looked the same as in AVTAK. And Brosnan looks the same as he did in DAD when he colors his hair and has a shave.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "Better cold with them on, than dead with them off, I always say."Moderator
    Posts: 10,777
    Moore looked like something dug up from an Egyptian dig site in AVTAK, and it's not as if he aged any better into the late 1980's and early 1990's. Ideally he should not have been cast at all.
  • Posts: 1,082
    Moore looked like something dug up from an Egyptian dig site in AVTAK, and it's not as if he aged any better into the late 1980's and early 1990's. Ideally he should not have been cast at all.

    Ok, I know this is off-topic, but who would you have liked to see instead? Dalton from 1969-1999?

    And as I have said, I think MR is out of this world. Interpret that as you wish.
    And I like it more with the space scenes, those amazing space scenes... :P
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "Better cold with them on, than dead with them off, I always say."Moderator
    Posts: 10,777
    Ok, I know this is off-topic, but who would you have liked to see instead? Dalton from 1969-1999?

    It's all here:

    http://www.listal.com/list/my-ultimate-james-bond-timeline

    Though i'm still not quite 100% certain of Armitage.

Sign In or Register to comment.