It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Oh way before that! YOLT, nothing like the book, DAF, nothing like the book, LALD, nothing like the book! And I'm just talking about the general plots, some character names remain but mostly so far from the books you wouldn't recognise the 'source' material.
Change the whole damn thing except the score,RogerBond actually spying,the centrifuge and the pheasant shoot scene with Corinne's death.
You know I can get on board with that last part. The Amazon base is one of the more underrated sets in the franchise. Especially the area in which Bond and Drax are discussing the orchid. I played the Aztec level in GE before I'd seen the film so I already fell in love with that set piece. Too bad that they never spent more time there considering the amount of man hours put into it.
All this talk makes me want to watch MR tonight
Just slap MR in your bluray player, sit back, indulge yourself and smile. It's impossible not to have a good time watching MR.
Glad I'm not the only one who think that. A set like that had deserved more.
MR the movie with Roger Moore is a brilliant and well executed movie that is both comic and well made and makes later 007 movies look poor in the Special department. Sure it could be tweaked here and there but mostly it was Roger Moore in his prime and best.
DAD did run with the Drax persona, him being Korean compared to German in the book. Their idea of a killer satellite makes more sense than a rocket on London.
If somebody would make a movie based upon the book it would be a snorefest as the best action is the lack of it. Flemings skill writing an exciting card game is difficult to film. Look at the effort they had to make the card game in CR as exciting, they did with all the skill they had. The rest of the book is just so outdated and already done in various movies I would not touch the story with a large pole.
As a literary Fleming fan I do enjoy the book a lot but recognize its limitations being transferred to the medium movie.
Many thanks! It was an extremely fun challenge to rework the book into a 1979 Moore-era blockbuster that meet the needs of Fleming-fans and the casual moviegoer. Adaptation is a terrifically interesting subject, especially the issue of being true to the spirit of the original even when deviating from its letter. The films of GF and OHMSS did this beautifully and are a great template for anyone devising "new" adaptations of the other books.
Go for it.
Agreed. I remember watching MR after a very bad day and it provided the exact escape from a sad reality that I needed at that moment.
Clearly an optional accessory for any considering this travesty remotely representative of Fleming’s fabulous novel.
This is the point. Of course cinematic licence is not only permissible but indeed desirable when it comes to screen interpretations.
Look what a fabulous job David Farr did adapting Le Carre’s ‘Night Manager’ for the BBC. He gave it the elan and modernity needed for a TV audience but respected completely the source.
PussyNoMore would opine that this was done with DN, FRWL, GF,TB & OHMSS to good effect.
If we ignore the fact that Sir Roger was sadly miscast, he never benefited from a decent adaptation and this one was a particularly sad affair particularly given how good and relevant the book is.
As PussyNoMore has consistently pointed out, there is a market for this spoof nonsense. Even the ‘67 CR movie had its fans but surely even the most strident fantasist has to admit that these movies have nothing to do with Fleming’s Bond?
It looked great with the round table and seats that came out of the floor,almost reminicent of King Arthur and the round table.
And the fact that Moonraker 5 was sitting right above it was impressive.
Such a wasted moment.
Agreed. For me, MR is a classic example - maybe the classic example - of EON's tragic flaw of leaving no ideas on the cutting room floor.
I've said this before, but consider the gondola chase. The double-taking pigeon is (rightly) ridiculed, but watch that scene again and note that there are also double-taking:
-musicians
-sailor
-tourist
-painter
-waiter
-dog
And they cap it off with one of the henchmen pratfalling into the water.
Any single one of these wouldn't have to be fatal, but together they're too much. I feel like I'm babysitting a 7-year-old who keeps resorting to more and more outrageous antics to get my attention. What's that, Bond's on a horse? 4 bars of the 'The Magnificent Seven' theme, obviously.
No, dammit! Just relax and have faith that everyone involved 'gets it' without having to flail the damned thing until it's lifeless.
The Pussy thinks this shows a remarkable lack of imagination as to how the novel could be adapted.
Mark you, if this is a book Has put somebody to sleep, there might not be a lot of light at the end of their particular tunnel.
As to the time line, DN,FRWL & GF were all written in the ‘50s and made great transitions to the screen.
The fact of the matter is that Sir Roger’s Bond movies had little to do with Fleming’s novels save the titles and the names of some of the characters.
I've read all of the Fleming novels and Moonraker was the only one that couldn't be adapted properly. It's easy to transition from the 50s to 60s because films were still slower back then. Outside of war films, the blockbuster era hasn't come into fruition yet.
I think it's worth noting that if you watch the original trailer for MR. You know, the one we all saw before buying our tickets, then you'll notice that there's zero indication that the movie is going to be a puerile spoof. The tone of the trailer is quite serious using musical cues taken from DAF and Dr. No with no hint of Bond being the butt of the jokes.
I'll post the original trailer below to remind you of how we, the audience, were suckered into believing the tone of this movie wouldn't be a total take-off...
Perhaps I should give it another shot then. 10 pm start time for books is a recipe for sleep.
Either that or a shot at the vet office. Easy choice.
Well put. Star Wars brought the youth audience to the fore, so perhaps they were trying to keep the kids going back and back to the theater. (Most kids in '79 would not have seen The Magnificent Seven, though.)
I don't think anyone's suggesting a film of the book verbatim. But it could have followed the story a lot closer and not been so silly as it was. And Gala Brand is a (so far) wasted Bond Girl. To me she's one of the most memorable and I'd love to see her on the big screen, but…
Camille at the end of QoS reminds me of Gala Brand at the end of the Moonraker novel though. Both women don't hook up with Bond.
Yes, it's more upmarket than Holly Goodhead. ;)
I think they were going to in DAD, but decided against it, and thought Miranda Frost was a way better name…go figure.
Yes, I recall that. They'd have ruined the character anyway by making her a traitor as opposed to an ally so I'm glad they didn't use it in DAD. It would've been like what they later did with Mathis in CR. DAD is a very loose adaptation of the Moonraker novel.
I loved that at the end of Quantum too. Would have made no sense for them to just jump into bed together after what they had been through.
What about the ol yeller route?