But there is so much in MR that disturbs my sensibilities that it inevitably lands in my lowers (currently #22 of 24, behind NSNA and DAD, until SP officially pushes it down to #23):
I will like to see your ranking .... may be you could re-post your ranking in "that" thread for the benefit of new members
My current, pre-SP rankings are on page 39 of that thread -{
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Anyone ever read "James Bond and the Moonraker"?-the novel by the screenplay writer of the movie, Christopher Wood. It's a fun little read. I recommend to anyone who loves the movie.
It really is. What about the part where they float through an area full of naked boys and girls aboard the space station. Or is that Christopher Wood being randy again?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
"Hostile takeovers. Shall we?"
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
So as I continue my Bond marathon next up was Moonraker. Once again you have to remember this film was made in the 1970's, and was made in front of For Your Eyes Only "to "piggy back" the success of the Star Wars movies that were also in cinemas at this time. This proved to be a succesful move by the Producers as this film was very succesful at the box office, I know I went to the cinema numerous times over the years to see it until it began being shown on the TV
Other notable movies released in 1979 were, Star Trek The Movie, Alien, Warriors, Apocalypse Now, Mad Max and Rocky 2, all of which I saw in the cinemas.
For me as others have said this film is a re-hash of TSWLM. It's far more camp than any of the previous Bond movies, full of one liners and innuendo, which as I have grown older now irritate me I have to say.
There are some really good stunts in this movie though, but your sense of imagination is pushed to the limits to think that they are believable.
How many times for example does Jaws survive what in real life would be "fatal" situations.
In my opinion the opening PTS and the parachute stunts with Bond pushed out of the plane are fantastic. However it is spoilt by the intervention of Jaws in such a comic book way.
I can go along with most of it, but why didn't he just open his parachute and float down to earth instead of falling into the circus tent. Likewise I feel the whole scene of him going over the waterfall unbelievable as well unless they wanted to kill him, which obviously they didn't.
They had written a great way for Bond to survive and I think they should have done the same for Jaws.
However having said all that you have to give credit though as this film introduced the World to what would become a common sight of "The Space Shuttle", back in 1979 no-one knew about it's existance as far as I can remember and the first one didn't launch until 1981. They even showed how the Space Shuttle was transported on the back of a 747, which was a sensation back in 1979.
I love the Astronaut centrofuge scene, and is actually one of my all time favourite Bond scenes out of all the 24 movies.
So I'm not sure how I felt after my lastest viewing of the film, Moonraker is definately a "curates egg". It has some really great scenes and then some not so good.
Did I enjoy it, of course I did I love all the James Bond films.
Will I be watching it again any time soon? Well some Bond movies I can just watch over and over again I'm thinking of FRWL, OHMSS, CR, SF, TLD, LTK, less so with MR.
However having said that, I will be repeating this marathon in a few months time when my Bond blu ray collection is complete. I currently own 9 of them, so within a few months I should have bought them all.
This film in my opinion is the 2nd worst of the Moore Bond films, next up is FYEO.
I just picked up the Bond 50 collection on Bluray today and have just finished watching Moonraker.
The film gets a lot of flack for being outlandish and cashing in on the Star Wars phenomenon. While I can understand this point of view, especially from those who cling to the edgier, more realistic Bonds, I feel it's an underrated entry into the series. The sci-fi elements come across as believable and most concepts are based in reality.
Ken Adams' set design is marvelous and awe inspiring, especially the launch base sets. This is his best work in the entire series. The model work is fantastic, especially the space station. John Barry's soundtrack underscores everything with a dark and ominous tone and the title song is one of my favourites, with a chilling departure from the usual brassy affairs.
Moore gives a performance almost on par with TSWLM. His reactions in the centrifuge and lab scenes are fantastic. Drax is a great, if dry, villain, while Holly Goodhead is a great, capable Bond woman. The dialogue between Bond and Goodhead seems overly dry, however, and lacks the warmth of their growing relationship. In fact, a lot of the one liners are a bit on the nose in this film. Corrine, while beautiful, is a poor actress, but her death scene is wonderfully filmed. The Jaws and Dolly love story is cute but unnecessary and there is a huge amount of product placement in the film, particularly in Rio.
Gilbert's trilogy of Bond films all have epic battles in the finale. While it worked well in YOLT and, to a lesser degree, TSWLM, the battle between Drax's space men and the USA troops was just ridiculous. Still, the film's action sequences are great, with the PTS and the Venice fight with Chang being the standouts.
In the end, Moonraker is a great entry into the series with a similar plot to YOLT and TSWLM but different subject matter. It's a fun and enjoyable adventure, like most of Moore's entries.
I watched Moonraker yesterday ,first time in a couple of years with the BR upscaled to 4K. I really enjoyed it but what grabbed me was the model work it has to be the best I have seen in ANY movie, the detailing was fantastic even down to the individual tiles on the shuttle models.
You guys are 100% right, the model work and set design is outstanding. The production value of the film is one of the reasons I love it so much - plus it's so damn entertaining.
If it didn't have Bondola and didn't have the cable car + ambulance scene I think the film would be a bit tighter. There are a few tacked in scenes - something TSWLM doesn't have.
One can see why it was nominated for an Oscar for the special effects.
"to "piggy back" the success of the Star Wars movies
I would agree it was a smart move to release it ahead of FYEO since the concept of space was popular. Imagine how dumb EON would feel to miss such an opportunity. (The box office results proved them right on that one)
Why should Star Wars hold the copyright on anything space related? I don't hear Alien (1979) ever been called a Star Wars imitator.
I watched Moonraker yesterday ,first time in a couple of years with the BR upscaled to 4K. I really enjoyed it but what grabbed me was the model work it has to be the best I have seen in ANY movie, the detailing was fantastic even down to the individual tiles on the shuttle models.
I'm glad Moonraker is being appreciated on modern Blu-ray and HD televisions. I thought it was a solid film on VHS so seeing all this extra detail work is just icing on the cake for me.
One of the reasons I strongly object to MR being labeled as the "worst" Bond film is that title implies (to me) shoddy craftsmanship and general lack of effort of everyone involved. Quite the opposite is true in MR as it's the biggest and most impressive looking Bond of all. The story and writing is rock solid too, although very similar to Lewis Gilbert's previous two Bonds.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
They had written a great way for Bond to survive and I think they should have done the same for Jaws.
However having said all that you have to give credit though as this film introduced the World to what would become a common sight of "The Space Shuttle", back in 1979 no-one knew about it's existance as far as I can remember and the first one didn't launch until 1981. They even showed how the Space Shuttle was transported on the back of a 747, which was a sensation back in 1979.
I love the Astronaut centrofuge scene, and is actually one of my all time favourite Bond scenes out of all the 24 movies.
I give Jaws the benefit of the doubt for surviving any situation as he seems to be indestructible. A bit of sly humor to show his cloths soaking wet in the next scene.
Honestly, I didn't even believe the shuttles were actually transported on 747's like that until a recent trip to an Air & Space museum. I was like, "Whoa, Moonraker was both surprisingly accurate and ahead of its time."
The centrifuge scene is also one of my favorites in the series. -{
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
One of the reasons I strongly object to MR being labeled as the "worst" Bond film is that title implies (to me) shoddy craftsmanship and general lack of effort of everyone involved. Quite the opposite is true in MR as it's the biggest and most impressive looking Bond of all. The story and writing is rock solid too, although very similar to Lewis Gilbert's previous two Bonds.
The fans who don't like Moonraker object that it's literally and figuratively "not on this planet". I think that's a fair enough reason to not like it.
Even as much as I love MR, it has its flaws and that's its overindulgence at times - something that quite a few of the big Bond films suffer from. TSWLM IMO is the only which doesn't.
The fans who don't like Moonraker object that it's literally and figuratively "not on this planet". I think that's a fair enough reason to not like it. The films I can't figure out why others really hate is QoS and TWINE.
That's a pretty weak reason considering only the final battle takes is set in space. Even then, being aboard the space station is not all that different from being inside a volcano base or a super tanker. Just a little less gravity.
Anyway, those fans should make a distinction that Moonraker is their "least favorite" Bond film, because it's certainly not the worst.
Even if MR came out in 1981 or even 1983 it would have still been released in the wake of the Star Wars sequels, so I'm not sure why it gets so much flak for being pushed ahead of FYEO. It was bound to happen at some point. Bond has been flirting with space travel since Connery tried to board the rocket in YOLT. Do you think Lewis Gilbert's MR would have been more faithful to the Fleming novel if Star Wars didn't exist? I kinda doubt it.
Hating on QoS and TWINE = total mystery to me as well
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Do you think Lewis Gilbert's MR would have been more faithful to the Fleming novel if Star Wars didn't exist? I kinda doubt it.
Yeah I agree. Despite the popularity of SW - there were plenty of other space movies around that had that 70s space aesthetic.
One of the great things about the SFX in MR is that it's clear and bright (not just on BluRay!) so you can see the detail of everything - almost all the space shots are works of art. Many of the other films made it darker on purpose to hide the imperfections.
Because the BluRay copies are so clear at times you can see the strings/arms that support the models - which is a bit of a shame because the lack of quality on other formats hid them...
One of the great things about the SFX in MR is that it's clear and bright
How do you rate MR compared to Kubrick's Space Odyssey ?
Nice! Yeah the brightness of the models (which is not entirely accurate) is one of the reasons I think 2001 is so impressive also.
For me 2001 is in a different league to any of the Bond films. I have my top normal films and then I've got my favourite Bonds. Different worlds for me really.
One of the great things about the SFX in MR is that it's clear and bright
How do you rate MR compared to Kubrick's Space Odyssey ?
Nice! Yeah the brightness of the models (which is not entirely accurate) is one of the reasons I think 2001 is so impressive also.
For me 2001 is in a different league to any of the Bond films. I have my top normal films and then I've got my favourite Bonds. Different worlds for me really.
)
I concur. It's the same for me to. 2001 is one of the greatest films ever made (my opinion anyway ) and there's no way that i could compare it with a Bond film. I always say that Bond films are best compared with other Bond films.
What stood out to me was the author's closing remarks about how a fan can still enjoy the novel and film versions as totally separate works. I would encourage any Fleming purists out there to keep that in mind and give the Moonraker film a fair chance for what it is.
"The safest thing to do is to remember movies and novels serve different purposes when telling stories. It's totally possible for fans to enjoy the hell out of Jack Nicholson's balls-out nutty caretaker in the Kubrick film and still dive deep into the King novel again—they're equally awesome if you love both art forms. "
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I always say that Bond films are best compared with other Bond films.
Yep, quite right.
Because it's a series I think that plays into it too. Some films you can get away with, but you don't hear SW fans saying the best movie ever made is the Phantom Menace...or a Harry Potter fan saying the 4th one...etc.
What stood out to me was the author's closing remarks about how a fan can still enjoy the novel and film versions as totally separate works. I would encourage any Fleming purists out there to keep that in mind and give the Moonraker film a fair chance for what it is.
"The safest thing to do is to remember movies and novels serve different purposes when telling stories. It's totally possible for fans to enjoy the hell out of Jack Nicholson's balls-out nutty caretaker in the Kubrick film and still dive deep into the King novel again—they're equally awesome if you love both art forms. "
Ah forgive me. I thought you meant the films themselves and not the effects and model work. In regards to that then, I would say that 2001 has the wood on it, however Moonraker's effects and models are very, very good and definitely hold their own. So they're pretty close in quality. Also I love how King hated Kubrick's film, it drives him nuts ) He got the tv adaption happening yet it bombed and Kubrick's film is now a bona fide classic. Apparently Kubrick liked the story but didn't think that King was a good writer )
What stood out to me was the author's closing remarks about how a fan can still enjoy the novel and film versions as totally separate works. I would encourage any Fleming purists out there to keep that in mind and give the Moonraker film a fair chance for what it is.
I would hardly call the Moonraker film an adaptation of Fleming's book anyway. They share a title and a villain and nothing more. It's not like the 2006 Casino Royale, which took a Fleming story and butchered it. The film Moonraker put a completely new story to an old Fleming title.
Why should Star Wars hold the copyright on anything space related? I don't hear Alien (1979) ever been called a Star Wars imitator.
Alien was an original story, with no preexisting expectations ... well, it is Jaws in Space, and has a lot of Hitchcockian suspense, but those are stylistic influences. The plot really only works in the context of space travel (actually, I could see it working 100 years previously as a Conan Doyle/Haggard/Buroughs type of Lost World fantasy, but since those empty spaces in the map have long since been filled in extraterrestrial exploration is needed to find a new lifeform that weird)
and when it came out, Alien was very distinct from Star Wars and its many imitators, because of its ideas (more hard scifi with the biological lifecycle) and tone (aimed at grownups), it was quite original for its time Star Wars on the other hand was a pastiche of Flash Gordon serials, John Ford westerns, Errol Flynn swashbucklers, and WWII dogfights, with very little science underneath all that genre fiction (at least til decades later when Lucas tried to explain The Force as a type of mitochondria)
there were a lot of blatant Star Wars imitations at the time: Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, the Flash Gordon film with the Queen soundtrack ... Alien was notably different than all that stuff, and that's probably why we still remember it today
Bond by contrast is an established series of spy adventures, fantastickal but bound by a certain set of genre conventions, that's why the Star Wars trendhopping was so noteworthy ... again, at the time, the influence is probably less conspicuous now, decontextualized
to be fair the Bond films always were spy-fi rather than pure espionage, what with Q's gadgets and the villains schemes, but Moonraker at its time was a major deviation from expectations and the reason was obvious, every damn thing was Star Wars influenced for the next couple of years
.
.
.
what I always wonder is why Moonraker was left til last? even scheduled to be adapted after the book of short stories?
it seems like Diamonds are Forever used more of Fleming's Moonraker plot than Moonraker did (popular zillionaire industrialist turns out to be villain hiding in plain sight) ... did they figure theyd already used the story therefor there was nothing left to adapt?
I would hardly call the Moonraker film an adaptation of Fleming's book anyway. They share a title and a villain and nothing more.
I would also say Holly Goodhead is essentially Gala Brand except she works for the CIA instead of Scotland Yard. Goodhead's placement within the villains operation, scientific expertise, and departmental rivalry with Bond all parallel Brand's role in the book
movie Drax however is very different than book Drax. the revelation of book Drax's true identity is key to the plot, movie Drax doesn't really have a backstory except he's very very very very rich. Fleming gets a lot out of the fact Drax is boorish new money, and therefor M suspects him. Movie Drax has impeccable manners and taste, he appears very old money. I think the Willard-Whyte-is-secretly-Blofeld revelation is much closer to book Drax than movie Drax is.
the V2 style rocket of the book is inescapably dated however, both technologically and also because the memory of London's experience during the War is no longer so recent. one way or another that had to be updated.
I would hardly call the Moonraker film an adaptation of Fleming's book anyway. They share a title and a villain and nothing more.
I would also say Holly Goodhead is essentially Gala Brand except she works for the CIA instead of Scotland Yard. Goodhead's placement within the villains operation, scientific expertise, and departmental rivalry with Bond all parallel Brand's role in the book
100% agree. Also the concept that Drax is posing as a benefactor while his actual motives are sinister, plus the scene where Drax tries to incinerate Bond and Gala/Holly beneath the Moonraker.
Pros:
.Moore is great as usual.
.The title sequence.
.Impressive stunts.
.The score.
.The cinematography.
.The locations, especially Rio, are beautiful and exotic.
.Drax is a good villain.
.Holly Goodhead.
.The fight with Cha.
."His names Jaws. He kills people".
.The special effects are great for their time.
Cons:
.Just too damn silly.
.All the action scenes end with a bad joke. They're tarnished by awful greenscreen too.
.Jaws falling in love. He is kind of a buffoon too.
.I'm not a fan of sci-fi.
I've had an awakening. Yesterday, I watched TSWLM and MR. My thoughts on the former are the same. It's a classic.
However, my thoughts on MR have changed. I have a lot more respect for it.
Now I'm still not a sci-fi fan but I dug it this time.
The movie is ridiculous but its just so f*****g entertaining that I don't really care anymore.
It actually might be above TMWTGG now. For 9 years I've had MR on the bottom. How opinions change.
7.5-8/10
-{
I've had an awakening. Yesterday, I watched TSWLM and MR. My thoughts on the former are the same. It's a classic.
However, my thoughts on MR have changed. I have a lot more respect for it.
Now I'm still not a sci-fi fan but I dug it this time.
The movie is ridiculous but its just so f*****g entertaining that I don't really care anymore.
It actually might be above TMWTGG now. For 9 years I've had MR on the bottom. How opinions change.
7.5-8/10
-{
I always really disliked MR but I read a really good interview with RM and what he was going for finally clicked. I have to admit I was actively trying not to like any of his films. MR is going into my regular Bond rotation.
Comments
My current, pre-SP rankings are on page 39 of that thread -{
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It really is. What about the part where they float through an area full of naked boys and girls aboard the space station. Or is that Christopher Wood being randy again?
Yes, I seen to remember Bond looking at a couple having some " Sexy times " in a
weightless room.
New 2020 ranking (for now DAF and FYEO keep their previous placements)
1. TLD 2. TND 3. GF 4. TSWLM 5. TWINE 6. OHMSS 7. LtK 8. TMWTGG 9. L&LD 10. YOLT 11. DAD 12. QoS 13. DN 14. GE 15. SF 16. OP 17. MR 18. AVTAK 19. TB 20. FRWL 21. CR 22. FYEO 23. DAF (SP to be included later)
Bond actors to be re-ranked later
Other notable movies released in 1979 were, Star Trek The Movie, Alien, Warriors, Apocalypse Now, Mad Max and Rocky 2, all of which I saw in the cinemas.
For me as others have said this film is a re-hash of TSWLM. It's far more camp than any of the previous Bond movies, full of one liners and innuendo, which as I have grown older now irritate me I have to say.
There are some really good stunts in this movie though, but your sense of imagination is pushed to the limits to think that they are believable.
How many times for example does Jaws survive what in real life would be "fatal" situations.
In my opinion the opening PTS and the parachute stunts with Bond pushed out of the plane are fantastic. However it is spoilt by the intervention of Jaws in such a comic book way.
I can go along with most of it, but why didn't he just open his parachute and float down to earth instead of falling into the circus tent. Likewise I feel the whole scene of him going over the waterfall unbelievable as well unless they wanted to kill him, which obviously they didn't.
They had written a great way for Bond to survive and I think they should have done the same for Jaws.
However having said all that you have to give credit though as this film introduced the World to what would become a common sight of "The Space Shuttle", back in 1979 no-one knew about it's existance as far as I can remember and the first one didn't launch until 1981. They even showed how the Space Shuttle was transported on the back of a 747, which was a sensation back in 1979.
I love the Astronaut centrofuge scene, and is actually one of my all time favourite Bond scenes out of all the 24 movies.
So I'm not sure how I felt after my lastest viewing of the film, Moonraker is definately a "curates egg". It has some really great scenes and then some not so good.
Did I enjoy it, of course I did I love all the James Bond films.
Will I be watching it again any time soon? Well some Bond movies I can just watch over and over again I'm thinking of FRWL, OHMSS, CR, SF, TLD, LTK, less so with MR.
However having said that, I will be repeating this marathon in a few months time when my Bond blu ray collection is complete. I currently own 9 of them, so within a few months I should have bought them all.
This film in my opinion is the 2nd worst of the Moore Bond films, next up is FYEO.
"Do you expect me to talk? "No Mister Bond I expect you to die"
The film gets a lot of flack for being outlandish and cashing in on the Star Wars phenomenon. While I can understand this point of view, especially from those who cling to the edgier, more realistic Bonds, I feel it's an underrated entry into the series. The sci-fi elements come across as believable and most concepts are based in reality.
Ken Adams' set design is marvelous and awe inspiring, especially the launch base sets. This is his best work in the entire series. The model work is fantastic, especially the space station. John Barry's soundtrack underscores everything with a dark and ominous tone and the title song is one of my favourites, with a chilling departure from the usual brassy affairs.
Moore gives a performance almost on par with TSWLM. His reactions in the centrifuge and lab scenes are fantastic. Drax is a great, if dry, villain, while Holly Goodhead is a great, capable Bond woman. The dialogue between Bond and Goodhead seems overly dry, however, and lacks the warmth of their growing relationship. In fact, a lot of the one liners are a bit on the nose in this film. Corrine, while beautiful, is a poor actress, but her death scene is wonderfully filmed. The Jaws and Dolly love story is cute but unnecessary and there is a huge amount of product placement in the film, particularly in Rio.
Gilbert's trilogy of Bond films all have epic battles in the finale. While it worked well in YOLT and, to a lesser degree, TSWLM, the battle between Drax's space men and the USA troops was just ridiculous. Still, the film's action sequences are great, with the PTS and the Venice fight with Chang being the standouts.
In the end, Moonraker is a great entry into the series with a similar plot to YOLT and TSWLM but different subject matter. It's a fun and enjoyable adventure, like most of Moore's entries.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
If it didn't have Bondola and didn't have the cable car + ambulance scene I think the film would be a bit tighter. There are a few tacked in scenes - something TSWLM doesn't have.
One can see why it was nominated for an Oscar for the special effects.
"Better make that two."
I would agree it was a smart move to release it ahead of FYEO since the concept of space was popular. Imagine how dumb EON would feel to miss such an opportunity. (The box office results proved them right on that one)
Why should Star Wars hold the copyright on anything space related? I don't hear Alien (1979) ever been called a Star Wars imitator.
I'm glad Moonraker is being appreciated on modern Blu-ray and HD televisions. I thought it was a solid film on VHS so seeing all this extra detail work is just icing on the cake for me.
One of the reasons I strongly object to MR being labeled as the "worst" Bond film is that title implies (to me) shoddy craftsmanship and general lack of effort of everyone involved. Quite the opposite is true in MR as it's the biggest and most impressive looking Bond of all. The story and writing is rock solid too, although very similar to Lewis Gilbert's previous two Bonds.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I give Jaws the benefit of the doubt for surviving any situation as he seems to be indestructible. A bit of sly humor to show his cloths soaking wet in the next scene.
Honestly, I didn't even believe the shuttles were actually transported on 747's like that until a recent trip to an Air & Space museum. I was like, "Whoa, Moonraker was both surprisingly accurate and ahead of its time."
The centrifuge scene is also one of my favorites in the series. -{
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
The fans who don't like Moonraker object that it's literally and figuratively "not on this planet". I think that's a fair enough reason to not like it.
Even as much as I love MR, it has its flaws and that's its overindulgence at times - something that quite a few of the big Bond films suffer from. TSWLM IMO is the only which doesn't.
In the analysis of all the members rankings Moonraker was the 17th ranked film and its most common ranking was 11. For all the crap it gets, it doesn't perform that badly. http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/48909/ultimate-members-rankings-spectre-to-2017/
The films I can't figure out why others really hate is QoS and TWINE.
"Better make that two."
That's a pretty weak reason considering only the final battle takes is set in space. Even then, being aboard the space station is not all that different from being inside a volcano base or a super tanker. Just a little less gravity.
Anyway, those fans should make a distinction that Moonraker is their "least favorite" Bond film, because it's certainly not the worst.
Even if MR came out in 1981 or even 1983 it would have still been released in the wake of the Star Wars sequels, so I'm not sure why it gets so much flak for being pushed ahead of FYEO. It was bound to happen at some point. Bond has been flirting with space travel since Connery tried to board the rocket in YOLT. Do you think Lewis Gilbert's MR would have been more faithful to the Fleming novel if Star Wars didn't exist? I kinda doubt it.
Hating on QoS and TWINE = total mystery to me as well
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Yeah I agree. Despite the popularity of SW - there were plenty of other space movies around that had that 70s space aesthetic.
One of the great things about the SFX in MR is that it's clear and bright (not just on BluRay!) so you can see the detail of everything - almost all the space shots are works of art. Many of the other films made it darker on purpose to hide the imperfections.
Because the BluRay copies are so clear at times you can see the strings/arms that support the models - which is a bit of a shame because the lack of quality on other formats hid them...
"Better make that two."
How do you rate MR compared to Kubrick's Space Odyssey ?
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Nice! Yeah the brightness of the models (which is not entirely accurate) is one of the reasons I think 2001 is so impressive also.
For me 2001 is in a different league to any of the Bond films. I have my top normal films and then I've got my favourite Bonds. Different worlds for me really.
"Better make that two."
I concur. It's the same for me to. 2001 is one of the greatest films ever made (my opinion anyway
I totally agree. I just meant the space-related special effects and models comparison.
Speaking of Kubrick, I was just reading this article about how Stephen King still hates the film version of The Shining
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/stephen-king-hating-stanley-kubrick-the-shining-2017-2
What stood out to me was the author's closing remarks about how a fan can still enjoy the novel and film versions as totally separate works. I would encourage any Fleming purists out there to keep that in mind and give the Moonraker film a fair chance for what it is.
"The safest thing to do is to remember movies and novels serve different purposes when telling stories. It's totally possible for fans to enjoy the hell out of Jack Nicholson's balls-out nutty caretaker in the Kubrick film and still dive deep into the King novel again—they're equally awesome if you love both art forms. "
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Yep, quite right.
Because it's a series I think that plays into it too. Some films you can get away with, but you don't hear SW fans saying the best movie ever made is the Phantom Menace...or a Harry Potter fan saying the 4th one...etc.
"Better make that two."
Ah forgive me. I thought you meant the films themselves and not the effects and model work. In regards to that then, I would say that 2001 has the wood on it, however Moonraker's effects and models are very, very good and definitely hold their own. So they're pretty close in quality. Also I love how King hated Kubrick's film, it drives him nuts
I would hardly call the Moonraker film an adaptation of Fleming's book anyway. They share a title and a villain and nothing more. It's not like the 2006 Casino Royale, which took a Fleming story and butchered it. The film Moonraker put a completely new story to an old Fleming title.
and when it came out, Alien was very distinct from Star Wars and its many imitators, because of its ideas (more hard scifi with the biological lifecycle) and tone (aimed at grownups), it was quite original for its time
Star Wars on the other hand was a pastiche of Flash Gordon serials, John Ford westerns, Errol Flynn swashbucklers, and WWII dogfights, with very little science underneath all that genre fiction (at least til decades later when Lucas tried to explain The Force as a type of mitochondria)
there were a lot of blatant Star Wars imitations at the time: Battlestar Galactica, Buck Rogers, the Flash Gordon film with the Queen soundtrack ... Alien was notably different than all that stuff, and that's probably why we still remember it today
Bond by contrast is an established series of spy adventures, fantastickal but bound by a certain set of genre conventions, that's why the Star Wars trendhopping was so noteworthy ... again, at the time, the influence is probably less conspicuous now, decontextualized
to be fair the Bond films always were spy-fi rather than pure espionage, what with Q's gadgets and the villains schemes, but Moonraker at its time was a major deviation from expectations and the reason was obvious, every damn thing was Star Wars influenced for the next couple of years
.
.
.
what I always wonder is why Moonraker was left til last? even scheduled to be adapted after the book of short stories?
it seems like Diamonds are Forever used more of Fleming's Moonraker plot than Moonraker did (popular zillionaire industrialist turns out to be villain hiding in plain sight) ... did they figure theyd already used the story therefor there was nothing left to adapt?
I would also say Holly Goodhead is essentially Gala Brand except she works for the CIA instead of Scotland Yard. Goodhead's placement within the villains operation, scientific expertise, and departmental rivalry with Bond all parallel Brand's role in the book
movie Drax however is very different than book Drax. the revelation of book Drax's true identity is key to the plot, movie Drax doesn't really have a backstory except he's very very very very rich. Fleming gets a lot out of the fact Drax is boorish new money, and therefor M suspects him. Movie Drax has impeccable manners and taste, he appears very old money. I think the Willard-Whyte-is-secretly-Blofeld revelation is much closer to book Drax than movie Drax is.
the V2 style rocket of the book is inescapably dated however, both technologically and also because the memory of London's experience during the War is no longer so recent. one way or another that had to be updated.
Ever seen "It! The Terror From Beyond Space"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHr0Q7I0m2E At least 50% of Alien comes from that.
100% agree. Also the concept that Drax is posing as a benefactor while his actual motives are sinister, plus the scene where Drax tries to incinerate Bond and Gala/Holly beneath the Moonraker.
Pros:
.Moore is great as usual.
.The title sequence.
.Impressive stunts.
.The score.
.The cinematography.
.The locations, especially Rio, are beautiful and exotic.
.Drax is a good villain.
.Holly Goodhead.
.The fight with Cha.
."His names Jaws. He kills people".
.The special effects are great for their time.
Cons:
.Just too damn silly.
.All the action scenes end with a bad joke. They're tarnished by awful greenscreen too.
.Jaws falling in love. He is kind of a buffoon too.
.I'm not a fan of sci-fi.
It's gotten much better.
8/10 -{
However, my thoughts on MR have changed. I have a lot more respect for it.
Now I'm still not a sci-fi fan but I dug it this time.
The movie is ridiculous but its just so f*****g entertaining that I don't really care anymore.
It actually might be above TMWTGG now. For 9 years I've had MR on the bottom. How opinions change.
7.5-8/10
-{
{[]
Good to see!
"Better make that two."
"Better make that two."