Why I like Moonraker better than SF

edited November 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 3,045
I thought SF was a great, great movie, but as part of the Bond-canon, I find it so-so. So here it goes:

- MR has far better sets than SF, IMO. Ken Adam really outdid himself here.
- The score by John Barry is one of my favorites. I don't like the generic soundtrack by Newman.
- MR had five huge actionsetpieces - the PCS, the gondola chase, the cable car, the speedboatchase and the space-station battle, whereas SF only had two- the PCS and the climax at Skyfall. I'm a sucker for huge action setpieces. Without them I wouldn't be a Bond-fan.
- Hugo Drax vs Silva? Tough one. Drax had so many great one-liners, but Silva is a more interesting character.
- Jaws vs Patrice. Both the "silent types". I prefer Jaws. An alltime classic henchman.
- Moore vs Craig. Craig wins this one, of course.

So, there you have it. Flame away!
«134

Comments

  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,395
    I agree!



    No, I don't. ;-)

    You're right about the first two points you made; Adam and Barry outdid themselves with Moonraker.

    And the gondola? That was more overt/spectacle/humorous scene, not an action set piece.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    I don't agree.

    The only thing I like about Moonraker is Drax. The huge action set pieces only make it worse imho. Bond in space is a bad idea and I hate what they did with Jaws.

    The sets in Skyfall look Bondian, but not too over the top.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Moonraker is one of my least favourite Bond films. Comparing it with Skyfall is like saying Asti Gancia is superior to Don Perignon but that's just my opinion, some people happen to like Asti Gancia!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,592
    Moonraker is really cheesy and crap. MR has better sets than SF, and the score by John Barry beats SF, but there it ends.

    Anyone who thinks double-taking pigeons, Magnificent Seven/Close Encounter themes, Jaws falling in love, lazer fights in space is what Bond is all about, is truly on a different planet.

    Go and read the books, then you may learn what Bond should be all about, and you will find Skyfall much closer to the novels than Roger Moore mincing around in space with a Star Wars lazer gun.

    Next you will be telling me you like DAD too, in which case I will be too disgusted to respond anymore.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I must say that the soundtrack is very good. It ends here.
  • Posts: 2,592
    JamesCraig wrote:
    I must say that the soundtrack is very good. It ends here.

    Exactly. Well said JamesCraig.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    JamesCraig wrote:
    I must say that the soundtrack is very good. It ends here.

    Exactly. Well said JamesCraig.

    Except the title song which is in my opinion one of the weakest from the series.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 553
    Well I thought it was a brave thread to start. Cannot agree in the slightest, but well done for an opinion you have tried to back up
  • I was sure Silver was gonna put in Jaws gnashers when he took his dentures out.
  • With the greatest respect: No, no, no, no. A silly, silly film, though I agree that Barry and Adam excelled themselves, and Derek Meddings and his team deserve a nod for their clever model work.

    But everything else is dreadful. The plot is just TSWLM repackaged, IN SPACE! Drax is just Stromberg with a beard and a dye job, IN SPACE! Jaws is ruined forever by falling in love, IN SPACE! And the final battle between Drax's forces and the surprisingly well-trained space marines should never have happened, in or out of space. But it was IN SPACE! And they arrived in all of about six minutes, if I recall. For all Cubby's talk of "science fact", I think we can safely say 33 years on that it was all bullcrap. Even by Bond standards, the fantasy went too far on this occasion.

    It was just nonsense, perfectly summed up by the entire Bondola sequence and the double-taking pigeon.
  • CR 67 is better than Skyfall
  • Posts: 2,592
    craigrules wrote:
    CR 67 is better than Skyfall

    Go back to sleep.
  • @Zekidk: Considering how much I detest MR, I was surprised to find myself agreeing with the first two points in your post. And while I heartily disagree with your opinion, I appreciate the fact that you backed it up with salient points instead of just posting this thread for trolling and provocation.
  • I had a dream a crap film was getting rave reviews zzzzzzzz
  • Moonraker is not a Bond film
  • Posts: 2,592
    craigrules wrote:
    I had a dream a crap film was getting rave reviews zzzzzzzz

    And then you woke up and found out it was just a dream. Die Another Day getting rave reviews would be enough to give anyone nightmares......
  • Whatever you are smoking then I would like lots of it. Skyfall is classic Bond, Moonraker is Sir Rog and we like him here but c'mon is this a joke? LTK is still the master.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,045
    Moonraker is really cheesy and crap. MR has better sets than SF, and the score by John Barry beats SF, but there it ends.

    Anyone who thinks double-taking pigeons, Magnificent Seven/Close Encounter themes, Jaws falling in love, lazer fights in space is what Bond is all about, is truly on a different planet.

    Go and read the books, then you may learn what Bond should be all about, and you will find Skyfall much closer to the novels than Roger Moore mincing around in space with a Star Wars lazer gun.

    Next you will be telling me you like DAD too, in which case I will be too disgusted to respond anymore.
    I can watch Moonraker over and over again. Can't say the same thing about SF. Every damn frame in MR is like a nice framed photo. Love Gilbert and Tourniers work. They really made every frame look absolutely wonderful. Pure widescreen joy.

    Again: I'm not saying MR is a better movie, just that I personally find it an entry in the Bond canon that I would prefer for a ninth or tenth viewing, unlike SF. The script, sets, the many creative one-liners from Bond and Drax, the soundtrack, the action, the wonderful use of locations. It's a fun movie to watch. The double-taking pigeoen? That lasts like two seconds. Not enough to spoil my viewing experience.

    I can see by some reactions here btw, that some people think they can argue with taste. Jetsetwilly: You mention the novels. Do I need to remind you, that Gilbert saved the franchise by not following the TSWLM-novel closely?
  • I think the point is you have tried to outline why you enjoy it more, NOT why it's better. That isn't up for debate. I.e. am sure most of us enjoy at least one iffy Bond film; mine is TWINE. Skyfall is better than both, but we like what we like. Full respect
  • Posts: 2,592
    Zekidk wrote:
    Moonraker is really cheesy and crap. MR has better sets than SF, and the score by John Barry beats SF, but there it ends.

    Anyone who thinks double-taking pigeons, Magnificent Seven/Close Encounter themes, Jaws falling in love, lazer fights in space is what Bond is all about, is truly on a different planet.

    Go and read the books, then you may learn what Bond should be all about, and you will find Skyfall much closer to the novels than Roger Moore mincing around in space with a Star Wars lazer gun.

    Next you will be telling me you like DAD too, in which case I will be too disgusted to respond anymore.
    I can watch Moonraker over and over again. Can't say the same thing about SF. Every damn frame in MR is like a nice framed photo. Love Gilbert and Tourniers work. They really made every frame look absolutely wonderful. Pure widescreen joy.

    Again: I'm not saying MR is a better movie, just that I personally find it an entry in the Bond canon that I would prefer for a ninth or tenth viewing, unlike SF. The script, sets, the many creative one-liners from Bond and Drax, the soundtrack, the action, the wonderful use of locations. It's a fun movie to watch. The double-taking pigeoen? That lasts like two seconds. Not enough to spoil my viewing experience.

    I can see by some reactions here btw, that some people think they can argue with taste. Jetsetwilly: You mention the novels. Do I need to remind you, that Gilbert saved the franchise by not following the TSWLM-novel closely?
    Give me the novel TSWLM over the film any day of the week. No comparison.

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,045
    @jetsetwilly

    That would probably have been the end of the franchise. The novel didn't have any action-scenes, IIRC, and in 1975 they really had to come up with something new (according to Broccoli), after the lowpoint, TMWTGG.

    So they hired Wood and Gilbert who did a completely different take on TSWLM. A smart choice, since it's widely regarded as Moore's best. Personally I prefer what Wood and Gilbert did with MR, though.
  • Zekidk wrote:
    I thought SF was a great, great movie, but as part of the Bond-canon, I find it so-so. So here it goes:

    - MR has far better sets than SF, IMO. Ken Adam really outdid himself here.
    - The score by John Barry is one of my favorites. I don't like the generic soundtrack by Newman.
    - MR had five huge actionsetpieces - the PCS, the gondola chase, the cable car, the speedboatchase and the space-station battle, whereas SF only had two- the PCS and the climax at Skyfall. I'm a sucker for huge action setpieces. Without them I wouldn't be a Bond-fan.
    - Hugo Drax vs Silva? Tough one. Drax had so many great one-liners, but Silva is a more interesting character.
    - Jaws vs Patrice. Both the "silent types". I prefer Jaws. An alltime classic henchman.
    - Moore vs Craig. Craig wins this one, of course.

    So, there you have it. Flame away!

    Moore was for the '70 and served them well
    Craig is 30 years later it's natural to NOT be the same
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Zekidk wrote:
    Moonraker is really cheesy and crap. MR has better sets than SF, and the score by John Barry beats SF, but there it ends.

    Anyone who thinks double-taking pigeons, Magnificent Seven/Close Encounter themes, Jaws falling in love, lazer fights in space is what Bond is all about, is truly on a different planet.

    Go and read the books, then you may learn what Bond should be all about, and you will find Skyfall much closer to the novels than Roger Moore mincing around in space with a Star Wars lazer gun.

    Next you will be telling me you like DAD too, in which case I will be too disgusted to respond anymore.
    I can watch Moonraker over and over again.

    I was having this discussion with someone online the other day. I said I wasn't sure whether SF will be as rewatchable as some of the other films. His response was:

    "the fact is it's heavier subject matter, more drama driven tone and longer runtime don't make it as easily watchable as others in the series. OHMSS and "From Russia" with Love" don't have the rewatchability of "Goldfinger" or "Spy Who Loved Me", that doesn't make them any less great".

    As silly and cringy as MR is part of me does enjoy it. BUT Skyfall IS the better (Bond) film - fact!!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,045
    @Bain123

    Good point.' Schindlers List' is also a much better movie than 'Jurassic Park', but choosing between a repeat viewing of Spielberg's dinosaurs and holocaust-victims, I would go with the T-rex.
  • What a strange little discussion we have here. Attempting to compare the latest Bond movie with randomly a much older movie that is no way similar in plot. What's the point?
  • St_GeorgeSt_George Shuttling Drax's lovelies to the space doughnut - happy 40th, MR!
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,699
    What a strange little discussion we have here. Attempting to compare the latest Bond movie with randomly a much older movie that is no way similar in plot. What's the point?

    It's a Bond forum. ;)

    I love MR in many ways, but would only throw it into the old DVD player for a viewing if I were in the right mood. May turn out the same way for SF actually. Who knows?

    Think it's fair to say SF may just be the better movie of the two, mind... :p
  • @Zekidk Whatever you've been smoking, set me some of that.
  • Posts: 224
    Zekidk wrote:
    I thought SF was a great, great movie, but as part of the Bond-canon, I find it so-so. So here it goes:

    - MR has far better sets than SF, IMO. Ken Adam really outdid himself here.
    - The score by John Barry is one of my favorites. I don't like the generic soundtrack by Newman.
    - MR had five huge actionsetpieces - the PCS, the gondola chase, the cable car, the speedboatchase and the space-station battle, whereas SF only had two- the PCS and the climax at Skyfall. I'm a sucker for huge action setpieces. Without them I wouldn't be a Bond-fan.
    - Hugo Drax vs Silva? Tough one. Drax had so many great one-liners, but Silva is a more interesting character.
    - Jaws vs Patrice. Both the "silent types". I prefer Jaws. An alltime classic henchman.
    - Moore vs Craig. Craig wins this one, of course.

    So, there you have it. Flame away!

    Moore was for the '70 and served them well
    Craig is 30 years later it's natural to NOT be the same

    You are spot on. That's what some who criticize Rog's Bond, don't get. The 70s called for a charming, suave, elegant, wise-cracking, lovable rogue to play Bond. That was Roger Moore. Nobody could have played that type of Bond better....no pun intended.
  • Lancaster007Lancaster007 Shrublands Health Clinic, England
    Posts: 1,874
    Zekidk wrote:
    @jetsetwilly

    That would probably have been the end of the franchise. The novel didn't have any action-scenes, IIRC, and in 1975 they really had to come up with something new (according to Broccoli), after the lowpoint, TMWTGG.

    So they hired Wood and Gilbert who did a completely different take on TSWLM. A smart choice, since it's widely regarded as Moore's best. Personally I prefer what Wood and Gilbert did with MR, though.

    Actually Fleming stated that they could use the title of TSWLM but not the plot as he had had so much bad press over this 'experiment'. So the film-makers decided to re-do YOLT but on a grander scale - and then of course re-do TSWLM in outerspace and call it Moonraker a travesty of a great novel.
  • Posts: 1,492
    Zekidk wrote:
    I
    - MR had five huge actionsetpieces - the PCS, the gondola chase, the cable car, the speedboatchase and the space-station battle, whereas SF only had two- the PCS and the climax at Skyfall. I'm a sucker for huge action setpieces. Without them I wouldn't be a Bond-fan.
    !

    Oh Zehdik. What are we going to do wuth you?

    I love MR but...

    Those five action set pieces come close to destroying the film. To be fair, they do..

    - parachute chase, ends with Jaws falling on a circus tent
    - Bondola chase, ends in the infamous double taking pigeon in piazza san marco
    - the glass museum fight, ends with a silly joke involving a piano.
    - Sugarloaf schenanigans, ends with the infamous Jaws and Dolly love scene
    - Amazon boat chase, ends with Jaws going over a waterfall pulling a silly face.


Sign In or Register to comment.