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
In my case, I would think SP after SF is the closest comparison. TND after GE is another one. Both seriously deflating experiences after what came before.
I guess what I'm saying is that those viewers who saw certain Bond films at the point of release will always look at them more critically perhaps, because their first impressions were impacted by the expectations of the time. Other viewers who come to the film later can view it without such pressures, and just enjoy it more casually in the context of the 24 film series. When viewed in that fashion, MR is a very enjoyable and lavish spectacle. Perhaps SP can be viewed similarly...in time.
Some other Bond films are trend followers, yes, but none as bad as MR; they actually dropped FYEO at the time to do it, and I still don’t like the Bond in space idea.
The sets and score are decent. Like I said, I didn’t think Moore was bad, but it was his most autopilot and least unique IMO. The film just gets to be a bit much too often, and has more issues than the average Bond film for my tastes, so I have to rank it low.
I suppose the biggest sin of MR is that it is a film that is seemingly aimed predominantly at schoolchildren. That goes against everything Bond stands for and I can understand why, from that perspective, older Bond fans really dislike it.
At least other "family" orientated Bond films (like Goldfinger and Live and Let Die) had a rougher, more adult edge to them in places. Moonraker is a full-on cartoon in live action form.
But I get where you're coming from. I mean, there's a huge difference between plucking an old Bond title off the shelf that you haven't seen before and waiting all-of-how-many-seconds it takes you to slot in the next adventure you haven't seen, apposed to having to physically wait years to see the next one. Again, it's difficult to judge how a future fan will approach SP. If they've seen all the original Connery ones first then they're going to be a little nonplussed as to why Blofeld has suddenly become his step-brother in SP and that Q has become a total twerp, but I think that's a digression from the topic.
PS. Sorry. I've just reread your post, and I agree with you about your comparisons of those being "deflating experiences". Sorry. I misread your original points.
As much as I liked that centrifuge scene - which Moore sold well - the effects quickly disappeared and he was back smirking and seducing Corrine in the very next scene.
Loved it a huge epic event movie.
I grew up a Bond fan practically from birth. My uncle had all the novels and gum cards and the family would see each new film as they were released and the many rereleases. TMWTGG was the first I didn't see on original release and on the day I was supposed to see TSWLM I was instead given to chance to go to a Cincinnati Reds baseball game. As they were world champs at the time I opted for that and was kind of bummed I didn't go to the film and didn't see it until its ABC TV premiere in 1980.
As such, MR felt totally fresh to me as I didn't see TSWLM before. I was one of the many kids blown away by Star Wars and Close Encounters and to see Bond go into space seemed like the coolest thing, especially since I was 12 then. The Bond films were often shown on network TV back then and I recall that spring FRWL was shown and I hardly cared. Yet it was that July 1979 matinee of MR that made me the Bond fan I am today. The gadgets, spectacle and locations all just clicked.
My brother and I went home after that screening and assembled our own Bond gadgets out of GI Joe (original) accessories. I bought the fan magazine and later the Corgi die-casts and novel adaptations. Bond films became not just required buy mandatory for me when they were on cable or network.
And to prove it wasn't just the gadgetry that appealed, when OHMSS was shown a Friday evening in March 1980 it immediately became one of my favorites in the series, showing you could have different variations of Bond films that could be enjoyed equally.
I do remember a family friend the time complaining that MR was childish and nothing like the old films, which seemed like the attitude of the time. Once I finally saw TSWLM on TV I wasn't impressed and to this day it still doesn't qualify as one of my favorites. Makes me wonder if I had seen it on release if it would rank higher and MR would be lower. I was also less than excited by FYEO and it's polar opposite reaction to MR.
It wasn't until then that a lot of people seemed to turn on MR. I was surprised in late '81 getting the updated James Bond in the Cinema by John Brosnan and The James Bond Films by Stephen Jay Ruben looked down on the film as slapstick and a bad mistake for the franchise. Moore was also looked down on and Connery elevated even higher.
It felt like you needed to feel guilty in liking MR and I didn't pay a lot of attention to it for years, but with threads like this on Bond sites it was okay to say MR is fun and a worthy addition to the series again. You don't have to dislike it just because you think films like FRWL, SF, CR and OHMSS are the pinnacle. I personally like the diversity of films I'm able to enjoy in different ways.
John Brosnan was the first author to do a study on the Bond films through DAF with the first edition coming out in 1972 and the update through MR in '81. Not sure if there were any Bond sites that ever interviewed him, but I'm amazed he was not only licensed to use a lot of the official stills from the films but also level a lot of criticisms at the films. Especially in light of the hell Ruben went through in doing his book that Eon tried to block.
For years Brosnan also had a regular column in Starburst Magazine. Sometimes he came off as very cranky and it seemed like readers either loved or hated him as evidenced by the letters page.
I had always hoped he'd do an updated version of the book, but he passed away several years ago, not sure when. When you consider the tons of Bond books out there now it's probably hard to imagine how great James Bond in the Cinema was to have back in the day.
That's fair. With LALD, it's understandable that they made the film in the blaxpoitation era as that has relation to the source material. That said, I would say The Man With The Golden Gun is just as bad as MR. The trend might've been less overt, but they completely shoved in irrelevant film trends like Eastern martial arts — the entire scene was pointless and just there because it was big at the time. The solar energy subplot was also just taken from the times; both detracted from the actual premise of the story which was Bond being sent out to assassinate Scaramanga. At least MR actually set its plot around something in space.
Can't disagree with the general silliness though. I guess I've just desensitised myself to most of it.
TMWTGG and MR are both two of the series’ weakest IMO, and the worst of Moore’s tenure. They each have some good stuff, but against the others, must come lower.