Why I like Moonraker better than SF

24

Comments

  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,175
    Skyfall has plenty of cool action setpieces - which aren't ruined by comedy

    We all have films that we're quite fond of. That's understandable. I love Goldeneye but - shock and horror - I'm going to admit that Skyfall is better.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,051
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Skyfall has plenty of cool action setpieces

    Plenty? It had one of the coolest PCS and the showdown at SF. The fistfights, Bond chasing Silva in the tube and the shootout at the enquiry don't count in my book. For the same reason I didn't mention Bond's fight with Chang and Bond fighting Drax's pet python.

    Cool stunts/fast moving vehicles/explosions - you get the idea!
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 87
    Delete
  • Posts: 87
    Moonraker is really cheesy and crap. MR has better sets than SF, and the score by John Barry beats SF, but there it ends.
    All Bonds have better music than Skyfall, especially Moonraker. By the way, today John Barry was born!

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Zekidk wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Skyfall has plenty of cool action setpieces

    Plenty? It had one of the coolest PCS and the showdown at SF. The fistfights, Bond chasing Silva in the tube and the shootout at the enquiry don't count in my book. For the same reason I didn't mention Bond's fight with Chang and Bond fighting Drax's pet python.

    Cool stunts/fast moving vehicles/explosions - you get the idea!

    How do they not count?

    Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but it wasn't even Moore who ruined MR for me. It was Bond trying to be like Star Wars.
  • While I enjoy MR - its an enjoyable romp with plenty of cool sets, great music and exotic locations it is no where near the quality of SF. SF is a brilliant Bond film with some of the best action set pieces in the series. Add to that great performances, brilliant direction and first class craftmanship all round and SF for me is definately the better film...
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,051
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    BAIN123 wrote:
    Skyfall has plenty of cool action setpieces

    Plenty? It had one of the coolest PCS and the showdown at SF. The fistfights, Bond chasing Silva in the tube and the shootout at the enquiry don't count in my book. For the same reason I didn't mention Bond's fight with Chang and Bond fighting Drax's pet python.

    Cool stunts/fast moving vehicles/explosions - you get the idea!
    How do they not count?
    Like I said: My defintion of an action setpiece is not a fistfight (unless it takes place in some ludicrous place, like on top of a moving train, on top of a cable car or an exploding Ken Adam set)
    SF for me is definately the better film...
    No one here is arguing that MR is a better film, but here are the main reasons for me being a Bond-fan in the first place. I want:

    - action set pieces
    - gadgets
    - cool and funny one liners
    - a great villain (preferably educated)
    - a great score
    - Bond travelling to exotic locations

    For this, MR delivers in spades.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited November 2012 Posts: 3,497
    Let's see.

    - Action set pieces: Silva's island, train crashing, Silva's escape from his cell, the destruction of Skyfall lodge, the shootout at M's hearing, the casino fighting at Macau.

    - Gadgets: a tracking device, a palmprint walther ppk, some tributes to the AM from GF.

    - Cool & funny one liners: Q/007 banter, Moneypenny/007 banter, "I never liked this place",...

    - A great villain: Well, Silva looks & acts like he was created by Fleming himself. And I don't think he's not educated. He has a great taste in whisky.

    - A great score: I've heard better than SF, but I do like the title song, especially when seen together with the ts.

    - Bond travelling to exotic locations: we have Turkey, that weird island (the scenes on the island were filmed at Pinewood, but the island itself exists) Macau & Shangai.

    Yep. Not a Bondfilm at all.

  • Posts: 3,051
    @JamesCraig

    I don't agree with you. SF is indeed a Bondfilm. And a very good Bondfilm, mind you ;-) It's just not one of my personal favorites.

    And again: Stuff like "Silva escaping from his cell" is - for me - not an action setpiece.
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    edited November 2012 Posts: 4,404
    actonsteve wrote:

    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.


    If Moonraker had some careful editing. I.e. most of the stuff I put in bold...
  • Posts: 2,745
    Zekidk wrote:
    Like I said: My defintion of an action setpiece is not a fistfight (unless it takes place in some ludicrous place, like on top of a moving train, on top of a cable car or an exploding Ken Adam set)

    No one here is arguing that MR is a better film, but here are the main reasons for me being a Bond-fan in the first place. I want:

    - action set pieces
    - gadgets
    - cool and funny one liners
    - a great villain (preferably educated)
    - a great score
    - Bond travelling to exotic locations

    For this, MR delivers in spades.

    The gadgets in MR ruin the movie, as do the `funny' one-liners. The action set-pieces are ok, but not a patch on how action scenes are filmed these days. Other than PTS in Moonraker, much of what happens later in the film looks terrible. The cable car scene is extremely naff now when watching it, not just the awful back projection, but the way it is choreographed too.

    A great villain, exotic locations and a great score is the only bits I can agree with. Everything else you highlighted as plus points I find to be the worst points.

    Give me Bond chasing Silva on the London underground any day of the week. It may not be an action scene on top of a studio-built cable car with a back projection screen, but it is much more enjoyable and exciting to watch.

    Most of the action scenes in Moore's films actually ruined his movies, as did the gadgets.





  • Not all of the Moonraker cable car sequence was filmed with a back projection screen, as the stuntman Dickie Graydon would later recall, he could very easily have died during the filming of that scene. The stunt team of Moonraker, from the PTS onwards deserve the greatest amount of respect. They were, quite simply, the best in the business.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    to me, action just for the sake of action is dumb... granted, we are talking Bond here, and he's had his fair share of action - which i don't mind - but i think it works best when it's properly set up.... MR i felt was one of those Bond films where they just based certain locations around what they could get away with in terms of action set pieces (not to mention about half of them were convoluted)... i'll take a tad less action, if there is a driving story at the heart - which is why i really like FRWL... the action is minimal compared to the rest of the franchise, but it works because it is a beautifully crafted cat and mouse suspense tale.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 27
    I allways liked Moonraker. It's beautiful in all it's nonsense.
    It's easy to watch it all over again like all happy light bonds. Who doesn't like laughing and smiling? The Wilson/Gilbert/Wood commentary track is so funny!
    Well it's far far far away from Fleming. And it somehow doesn't suite to be compared with a film like Skyfall. It's like comparing a beautifully made comic with some beautifully written contemporary bestseller-drama. Why do you compare uncompairable?
    I'm sure Jean Tournier and Roger Deakins would like each other immensly. Absolutely superb work both of them. Just look at those pictures!
    And both Arnold and Newman could learn from Barry: pace of the music should be like the pace of the action, not faster, for it slowers the movie.
    Why are you comparing Skyfall and ... Moonraker?
  • DRESSED_TO_KILLDRESSED_TO_KILL Suspended
    Posts: 260
    Moonraker is not a Bond film


    Amen /\

    Moonraker was a disgrace to the bond franchise and especially to Ian Fleming. Cubby and the producers clearly cashed out on the whole space idea because Starwars was setting the trend at the time.

    As much as I respect Roger , and I really do believe he is a very nice humble man. His 007 tenure to me is a joke, and I cannot take any of his outings seriously. He just never was Bond to me, he will always be the Saint in my eyes.
  • Posts: 7,652
    Roger Moore and Moonraker are the best reasons why we have a site devoted to 007 and his movies. Both came from a time were they were considered to be the cinematic happening of the year. Both were needed in the continuation of this great franchise. Denying one of the important faces and movies of the franchise makes you less of a Bondfan but more of a actorsfan.
    For me Roger Moore is an important part of the franchise, and he of all actors who played the agent is the best ambassador for the franchise ever.
  • Not two films I would want to compare but I do think Drax makes for a much better villain than Silva but that has a lot to do with Drax wanting to be god and Silva being a disgruntled employee.
    Also agree the music is better in MR
    Both films look beautiful to me

    I currently like MR more but have seen it far more times than SF which is I have to admit is a better film from a technical viewpoint.

  • Posts: 2,341
    MR is a crapload of dirty smelly cow dung with horse manure thrown in for good measure. The movie is so over the top and just reeks of shit. It is basically a bad remake and rehash of the previous film, TSWLM. At least the earlier film was kinda fun, but MR so slipped into slapstick and I was bored to tears.

    I was swearing off Bond films after seeing this train wreck. Only after seeing the posters and hearing that EON was going back to basics did I go and see FYEO.

    MR had some good locales. The PST is tops but that was the only part of the film I enjoyed.
    How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 7,652
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.

    Easy, some people prefer MR over SF because they feel that the current 007 does not represent their taste in 007ness.

    And SF has enough flaws itself mostly the fact that 007 gets his boss killed and the baddie wins. The fact that SF won some oscars does not mean the movie is better.

  • Posts: 2,341
    SaintMark wrote:
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.

    Easy, some people prefer MR over SF because they feel that the current 007 does not represent their taste in 007ness.

    Maybe its just me and those who have their own idea of 007ness is entitled to that. I prefer my Bond to be human not some superman that Roger played in MR. I want to see him fall down, get hurt, feel some heartache. Bond is a flawed character and we rarely got that with Moore's Bond.
  • OHMSS69 wrote:
    MR is a crapload of dirty smelly cow dung with horse manure thrown in for good measure. The movie is so over the top and just reeks of shit. It is basically a bad remake and rehash of the previous film, TSWLM. At least the earlier film was kinda fun, but MR so slipped into slapstick and I was bored to tears.

    I was swearing off Bond films after seeing this train wreck. Only after seeing the posters and hearing that EON was going back to basics did I go and see FYEO.

    MR had some good locales. The PST is tops but that was the only part of the film I enjoyed.
    How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.

    Another shining example of why I feel my fellow originals are both the wisest and most knowledgeable Bond fans :) =D>

    About the only areas that MR can compete with Skyfall is in the music (superior) and cinematography (both awesome). After that it's all SF. Better Bond, vastly better villain (Jaws has become a joke like the rest of the film and Bardem could out act Lonsdale in his sleep), easily better looking women (who can actually act), and a compelling, original story compared to a half baked Star Wars/TSWLM ripoff.

    Bottom line for me- folks who genuinely can't see why SF is so much more Bondian and better, probably need a lobotomy followed by extensive re-training in the films. MR better than DAD I get. Better than any of the rest? Nope, don't get it and never, ever will. I do find the whole notion rather amusing for sure, and appreciate the unintended laughs :)


  • edited February 2013 Posts: 11,175
    At least neither Naomi Harris nor Dame Judi shout "Jaaaammmes" really unconvincingly when she is reunited with him ;)
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 2,015
    About the only areas that MR can compete with Skyfall is in the music (superior) and cinematography (both awesome).

    Yes, the cinematography of MR is underrated...

    And, well :

    269381sfmr.jpg

  • About the only areas that MR can compete with Skyfall is in the music (superior) and cinematography (both awesome).

    Yes, the cinematography of MR is underrated...

    And, well :

    269381sfmr.jpg

    I like this comparison. Derek Meddings, Paul Wilson and John Evans were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for MR, although for cinematography I do believe it was snubbed.

  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,253
    I was very young the first time that I saw Moonraker so perhaps my judgement is a bit clouded but I think its actually pretty good. Skyfall is a better film though. I can understand people's disdain for MR because it pushed the boundaries of what a Bond film is and perhaps took it too far into camp and fantasy territories. For my money though, there are far worse Bond movies. It manages to stay entertaining throughout and has both a great score and wonderful cinematography as others have mentioned. I also think that Michael Lonsdale gave a wonderful performance as Drax but I know that I'm in the minority there.
    If the current producers tried to make a movie like this today it would be a total disaster but somehow Cubby made it all work. In a movie series that spans over 50 years sometimes you have to do something different. I'm glad that they have mixed it up and taken chances over the years. Whenever they stray too far from the original Fleming concept people will have mixed reactions but I think it worked here. With that said I don't think it would work again in this day and age.
  • Posts: 2,341
    Let us not forget that during the MI6 survey when all the 22 films were rated. MR finished DEAD LAST. 'nuff said.
  • CIACIA
    Posts: 120
    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!

    Whoa. Actually, this is a fair analysis. I prefer Skyfall far more than MR but I can respect your justifications. Well, except for the sets. MR had better sets than Skyfall?????



  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,245
    I hate MR with a burning passion. But I paid to see it back in 1979.
  • CIACIA
    Posts: 120
    It seems silly that MR would be a more important mission than Thunderball. What's a couple of stolen nukes compared to the destruction of the human race by a eugenicist.
  • MR is one of those u either love or hate. SF had something for everyone although. It may try too hard to be from the Connery era when DC already established his own Bond in CR. Watching it for fun eye candy, MR is sure to entertain. It was it's own movie despite the presence of Jaws. It took its own risks and did not try to copy previous Bond flicks despite following the formula.
Sign In or Register to comment.