TSWLM v MR
markdown
Posts: 47MI6 Agent
having read many (though not all) threads on this forum it seems to me ( i may be mistaken) that the general consensus of opinion is that TSWLM is a great film while MR is not. this puzzles me slightly as to me they are basically the same film. they have many similiarities and i would suggest MR is a remake of TSWLM for the following reasons,
1.the central villains both want to destroy civiliasation and create their own utopian societies one from beneath the ocean and one from space.
2. bond has an initially frosty relationship with a foriegn agent (kgb/cia)which eventually leads to them working together.
3. in one film bond has a car that can function underwater in the other he has a boat that functions on land.
4. m moneypenny and q all appear on location in either a pyramid or on a brazilian ranch.
5. bond's inevetable conquest of his rival agent is witnessed by m and all at the films conclusion
6. the PTS for both films feature bond making an ecape using a parachute.
7. both villains have a treacherous personal assistant who they punish by feeding them to an animal.
8.jaws is in both films.
1.the central villains both want to destroy civiliasation and create their own utopian societies one from beneath the ocean and one from space.
2. bond has an initially frosty relationship with a foriegn agent (kgb/cia)which eventually leads to them working together.
3. in one film bond has a car that can function underwater in the other he has a boat that functions on land.
4. m moneypenny and q all appear on location in either a pyramid or on a brazilian ranch.
5. bond's inevetable conquest of his rival agent is witnessed by m and all at the films conclusion
6. the PTS for both films feature bond making an ecape using a parachute.
7. both villains have a treacherous personal assistant who they punish by feeding them to an animal.
8.jaws is in both films.
Comments
I don't think it matters wether or not MR is a remake of TSWLM. What I think is important is how the elements come together. IMO the elements (plot, script, performances, action scenes, girls etc...) came together perfectly in TSWLM to forge what I consider to be the single greatest non-Connery Bond film of all time. In MR, the elements came together far less successfully. While I enjoy MR, I think it pales in comparison to TSWLM.
TSWLM is among the very best Bond movies ever made. The elements fit together perfectly to create a masterpiece. Moonraker is, to me, the worst Bond ever made. Why? Because the script was terrible and disjointed, the humor was over the top and not funny, and they took one of the best villians in the entire series, Jaws, and turned him into comedy relief.
I have a full review of MR elsewhere in this forum, so I won't re-air my grievances with it here. In short, I think MR could have been great, but the end result was a total disaster, the worst film in the entire series.
Joel
Me thinks you are slightly exaggerating about Moonraker. I agree that the silliness, Jaws, his cringeworthy romance with Dolly, and the laser battle in space detract heavily from what could have been one of the best films in the series.
Yes, there's a lot wrong with MR, but to call it a total disaster is unfair, in my opinion. For example, the centrifuge scene, the pheasant shoot and Corinne Dufour's death are very worthy of any Bond film. Hugo Drax is one of the better villain's with some of the most memorable lines. The sets and location's combined are as good if not better than any Bond film. And John Barry's score is one of the best in the series.
As far as comparing MR with TSWLM. For me, TSWLM is the best Bond movie ever made. The elements do indeed fit perfectly to create a masterpiece. MR is at the low end of the scale, but not the worst film in the entire series.
The problem with Moonraker is that some of the elements are there, and it has a few good bits, but it is thrown together into one disjointed mess. I realize this opinion is not shared by many, but I find Drax to be a very poor villian. He reminds me of a fat gumby.
I love the pheasant shoot and the scenes in Brazil, the only place where Jaws is properly used (until the tram crash). The scenery is is spectacular, and I loved the reprise of the 007 theme from the early days (used in the boat chase). I have a particular fondness as well because I've been to Sugar Loaf, looked at the planes taking off from the airport, ridden that tram and eaten at the restaurant at the bottom (got a cheeseburger that included a fried egg).
I liked the scenes in venice, and liked the idea of the gondola that can drive out of the water. The problem is that what could have been a neat scene was destroyed by a lot of stupid humor instead of being a cool bond moment. In TSWLM when he drove out of the water it was neat because we had never seen it before. The very next movie they reuse the gag, pump up the humor, and it must be better right? Wrong.
It's interesting, because I had never noticed how many similarities there were between the two movies, and it makes me like Moonraker even less. Another poster said it right "It's just the same, but BIGGER and BETTER and FUNNIER" and it just doesn't work. This is proof that Bond is more than just a formula. Moonraker is proof you can't just plug a few good bits into a formula and have a great movie pop out the other end...
Joel
That being said, MR feels stuffed, in every way possible. Its the DAD of its day, yet Ian Fleming's James Bond 007 is nowhere to be seen. TSWLM, while more epic than either LALD or TMWTGG, but just as outlandish, still had a fairly humane character conflict between 007 and XXX, which Moore carried aptly. Also the threat of nuclear extinction is carried off better than it does in MR, which becomes farcical once it reaches Venice.
Basically, that's it. Bond films always had a tendency to comedy, but with MR it became borderline parodic. Despite being bigger in budget and scope, it was also toothless - which is odd, considering it had Jaws in it.
In MR, Bernard Lee's final dramatic scene for the franchise is a nice one (I mean the scene in Venice, not the comic wrap-up at the end) because it concludes with a rather touching moment of mutual understanding and trust between his M and Bond, an apt note for their relationship by that stage.