Why I like Moonraker better than SF

13

Comments

  • Posts: 1,394
    Notorious T.R.O.L.L :D

    POWER EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEME > : (
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    Zekidk wrote:
    - 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.

    SF also had the Shanghai elevator and Patrice fight, the casino fight in Macau and the parliamentary committee shootout and subsequent chase!
  • The odd thing is, MR is silly but the sombre moments: death of Corinne, Bond nearly dying in the centrifuge scene, work better for me than similar attempts in SF. They hit home. SF doesn't fart in bed but all the same is a less fun evening all round.

    Would like a SF with John Barry's music from that film pasted over it.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 174
    @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.
  • Posts: 229
    Tracy wrote:
    Notorious T.R.O.L.L :D

    POWER EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEEEME > : (
    Obviously another person in need of attention by creating this topic.
  • AliAli
    Posts: 319
    I can't comment as I actually love both for very different reasons. SF for it's Flemingness (despite a few too many self reverential nods) and MR because I was 8 when I saw it, it was my first cinema Bond and I absolutely loved it!
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 90
    The odd thing is, MR is silly but the sombre moments: death of Corinne, Bond nearly dying in the centrifuge scene, work better for me than similar attempts in SF. They hit home. SF doesn't fart in bed but all the same is a less fun evening all round.

    I really have to agree that the death of Corrinne and Bonds near death experience in the centerifuge are both very moving scenes. One of the things I always liked about MR is that it had one of the only scenes in any of his outings as Bond where Roger really looked like he was peril and close to death.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    MR is not what Bond is about. He doesn't belong in space imho.

    And those self reverntial nods? what is that? the car? the old office? Please.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,497
    Ali wrote:
    Zekidk wrote:
    - 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.

    SF also had the Shanghai elevator and Patrice fight, the casino fight in Macau and the parliamentary committee shootout and subsequent chase!

    How anyone can say that there aren't enough big action pieces in SF is beyond me. If they had included more it would've been "TOO MUCH ACTION". The only action sequence I didn't like was Shangai, the cgi looked terrible.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,497
    @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.

    To me, this still doesn't answer the question why you put SF at the bottom of your list, if it's a good "film".
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.

    To me, this still doesn't answer the question why you put SF at the bottom of your list, if it's a good "film".

    Some film viewers can recognize that a film is good or even great and not like it. I don't like the Exorcist but I know its its a great film and would never put it down
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.

    To me, this still doesn't answer the question why you put SF at the bottom of your list, if it's a good "film".



    I should update that list and put SF at 16 just behind CR. I made that list after watching SF for the first time.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,497
    JamesCraig wrote:
    @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.

    To me, this still doesn't answer the question why you put SF at the bottom of your list, if it's a good "film".

    Some film viewers can recognize that a film is good or even great and not like it. I don't like the Exorcist but I know its its a great film and would never put it down

    Saying that a movie is good or great but not rating it high is strange. I like Taxi Driver very much, and it's in my top ten of all times. Putting it at the bottom of my movie list would mean that I dislike it as much as 10,000 bc or Batman & Robin.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    He doesn't rate SF. Simple as.
  • edited February 2013 Posts: 90





    I didn't think any of us were talking about putting SF at the bottom of our movie list. We are talking about enjoying one movie more than another. I don't think any one said SF is the worst film that they saw or even that MR is the worst film that they saw. We all come to the films wanting different things and even the Bond I rate as the worst(in my case AVTAK) is far far better than any of the films I hate.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    I just wondered why SF was so low, seeing as he didn't really dislike it.

    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>
  • Posts: 1,052
    JamesCraig wrote:
    @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.

    To me, this still doesn't answer the question why you put SF at the bottom of your list, if it's a good "film".

    Some film viewers can recognize that a film is good or even great and not like it. I don't like the Exorcist but I know its its a great film and would never put it down


    The Exorcist is poo, there I said it!
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    I just wondered why SF was so low, seeing as he didn't really dislike it.

    He appreciated SF was a good film but didn't have what he was looking for in a Bond film. There's different criteria.

    EG- Using some of my favourite films as examples, I wouldn't knock points of Rocky because it doesn't have a gunbarrel and I wouldn't knock points off Die Hard because Mcclane didn't go to enough exotic locations.

    But even if a Bond movie doesn't have what your idea of Bond is, you can still think it's a good film.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>

    Yeah, you may have him here. Perhaps he'll back down and agree with you that it's the best Bond ever.
  • @Zekidk

    You are absolutely correct that MR is easier to watch than SF. It is fun and thats what Bond is all about to me, and you I think
    I can watch MR at any time of the day and I enjoy the escapism that it and all the Moore Bonds give. SF on the other hand is much harder going and is a movie that I could only watch at night or when I have set time aside.
    As I have said before SF is a better movie but MR is better 'bond' movie.

    To me the books and the movies are not the same and that is why I enjoy the whole bond universe so much. If the movies were just exact copies of the books where would we be now? We would have less movies and no Roger Moore :((

    I like the fact when I pick up a novel it won't be exactly the same as the movie, meaning that I can use my imagination more than if I have images from the movies in my head.

    Again it's just personal preference when it comes to Bond, which is why its so successful.

    Naturally, I understand that some people like yourself prefer "fun" in a Bond film. Moonraker however stretches it out way too far. This is why, DAF aside, I always preferred the Connery era to all and still do. A perfect blend of seriousness with a liberal dose of humor that is relevant to the situation. A Bond film should never contain the sound and sight gags that were prevalent in the Moore era, these were shoehorned in for the sake of humor alone and added nothing whatsoever to the narrative, just cheap and juvenile. Imitating CR67 and Matt Helm is far less Bondian to me than anything presented thus far in the Craig era, which is exactly why any statement that MR is more "Bondian" than SF is, for argument's sake, as far out as MR.

    Bond definitely should not be in outer space either, playing laser tag.

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>

    Yeah, you may have him here. Perhaps he'll back down and agree with you that it's the best Bond ever.

    First of all, I never said that. My favorite Bondmovies is still FRWL.

    Secondly, stop following me around like a ten year old or I'll report you. Again.


  • JamesCraig wrote:
    I just wondered why SF was so low, seeing as he didn't really dislike it.

    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>




    And I will. :)

    Basically what I am trying to say is that my idea of a good Bond movie is different to my idea of a good movie.
    I have a varied taste in movies and I don't believe I would have this if all movies had to offer the same.
    Pre CR the vast majority of Bond movies were light hearted and easily digestible. You could watch them any time of the day at a drop of a hat. CR and SF however are much more of an effort, which isn't a bad thing, and therefore aren't movies you can watch as often.
    GF is the standard that I go by when it comes to Bond movies. SF and CR just don't sit well with GF.
    They belong alongside FRWL and DAF as being 'unique' Bonds. I am not saying DAF is the same btw just unique.

    So, the reason SF is low on my list is because it is a Bond list not a movie list.
    I suppose you could say that I see Bond as a category much like thriller or comedy categories. If that makes sense. :-??
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    edited February 2013 Posts: 3,497
    No problem with your opinion, Baron.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>

    Yeah, you may have him here. Perhaps he'll back down and agree with you that it's the best Bond ever.

    First of all, I never said that. My favorite Bondmovies is still FRWL.

    Secondly, stop following me around like a ten year old or I'll report you. Again.


    Ouch, you've been back five minutes and it's like you never left. Things have changed, we can all take a joke here, or at least some of us can.
  • JamesCraig wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>

    Yeah, you may have him here. Perhaps he'll back down and agree with you that it's the best Bond ever.

    First of all, I never said that. My favorite Bondmovies is still FRWL.

    Secondly, stop following me around like a ten year old or I'll report you. Again.


    JC, I think I understand you perfectly on this.

  • People go on about the humor element or absurdities of Moonraker, but what about last year ?

    Skyfall is the better release but they're both equally as enjoyable from this perspective. Moore isn't as good a Bond as Craig, but 1979 saw a damn fine release and Lonsdale was the better villain than Bardem. Chiles' Goodhead was a disaster, but I didn't take too much to Moneypenny in Skyfall, and as with Dufour, Severine was only on screen for a brief time, and also didn't survive to the end

    Moonraker has some truly great sequences and maybe the best background scores of the series, and while it's maybe not as good an overall release as the other, I enjoy it enough with each viewing. Both in the stop six at time of writing

  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    RC7 wrote:
    JamesCraig wrote:
    And I think he's the one to answer it, thank you. :>

    Yeah, you may have him here. Perhaps he'll back down and agree with you that it's the best Bond ever.

    First of all, I never said that. My favorite Bondmovies is still FRWL.

    Secondly, stop following me around like a ten year old or I'll report you. Again.


    Ouch, you've been back five minutes and it's like you never left. Things have changed, we can all take a joke here, or at least some of us can.

    You have this bizarre attitude to completely ignore the criticisms I have about SF & pop in in every thread whenever I "defend" it.

  • RC7RC7
    edited February 2013 Posts: 10,512
    I don't know what you're talking about. I haven't even seen you on the board for months so I'm certainly not popping in every thread you're in, don't flatter yourself. Besides, my comment was merely sarcasm aimed at your insistence on someone having to justify their opinion directly to you. Lighten up.
  • JamesCraigJamesCraig Ancient Rome
    Posts: 3,497
    Of course you don't know.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    JamesCraig wrote:
    Of course you don't know.

    I distinctly remember you acting like this last time your were around, accusing people of being trolls, or leaving single line denouements because you're all out of opinion. If you can't be arsed to discuss, don't clog up the threads.
Sign In or Register to comment.