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
MR is still one of the better spectacle/action movies from that era and had no competition in BO terms. SW was a different genre after all.
In minutes, Moonraker did a complete 180. Impressive, but in a very sad way. I think MR is one of the biggest missed opportunities in the franchise.
But you are right about the 180. There was almost a serious Bond movie in there somewhere...
but I do love it for what it is!
But GoldenEye was perfect the way it was! Dalton did deserve a third film though, but GoldenEye was fine the way it was.
Agree with the thesis. MR would have stayed truer to the novel back then.
Agree.
I like Moonraker the way it is, if you can cut out the damn nonsense near the end with Bond going into space, blatant cash in on the Star Wars boom of the time, You Only Live Twice went near this in 1967, when space exploration was a big event, but stopped short of actually sending Bond into the heavens, it was the right decision in hindsight. I haven't read all of the novel, but it would of been more faithful on a movie basis if they had done it in the 1960s (Moonraker) I can't argue with thesis on this one
Hmmmm. I just tried to picture Sean in the Bondola; shudder!! The MR we got had some potential but just got swamped in silliness. I know some fans love it. I'm just not one of them.
Couldn't agree more. I wish it had been so, they should have done it with Connery instead of YOLT.
As i have not read the novel? I can only look upon others here who have. Seem to be the case that the thesis is correct.
Absolutely 1000% agreed with thesis. And 1000% better too. Terence Young would have seen to that. Every part of the MR novel ever properly recreated as a scene in other movies works perfectly. The space bomb concept, as noted by Kerim, works better in GE than in DAF for sure. MR is utter Star Wars ripoff B.S or something out of a Helm/Powers flick except for a few California scenes such as the centrifuge and Corinne's death. But I'll say one good thing for it. It plays well to children. No, scratch that. My son saw the film when he was 10 and he knows crap when he sees it :-&
<font color=blue size=7><b>No matter what the future brings, Craig's Bond career will be remembered as the one with Bond's most personal missions.</b></font>
Agreed, but don't you think that three films out of ? will be enough to make people remember Craig like that? ;-) After all, certain things are almost always said about Moore's and Connery's Bonds as well that aren't true for every single one of their films. :)
True, but for all we know, a future Bond could do even more personal films than Craig. We just don't know. Craig will be remembered as a Bond with personal missions, but we can't really say if he'll be remembered in the future as the one with the most personal missions.
QOS was a personal mission for Craig, Royale wasn't, we still have yet to see the full picture of what Skyfall will eventually become, so at this point, Craig's Bond has only had one hitherto personal mission so to speak. I'm saying thesis is incorrect
Disagree. CR was about him starting out as a double o, second was pure revenge. And as it stands? We do not really know how Skyfall will play out? And ofcourse we have no idea about the next 2 movies? However? I feel that Quantum will be involved? As they need wrapping up like Connery did with Spectre during his tenure.
DISAGREE:
We have no idea what is in store next. It could get much more personal, but it is justhard for us to imagine that now.
I agree with you @DarthDimi
Like I said on another thread, if Bond falls in love with every girl he shags or gets upset over every death of an ally he causes, we'll lose what made the character popular. I'm exaggerating, but you get my point.
That's one of my worries about SF, that it might be too persoal with a story focusing on Bond and M. Pretty much every film since LTK has been personal in some way, it's getting boring.
I'd have to mildly disagree. We've got to see the end of the Craig era before we can properly judge that.
Bond stories have had some personal aspect regarding revenge or other motives that personally invest him in a mission. Going all the way back to DN where he states that revenge is something that interests him regarding Quarrel's death. He's pissed over Jill's death in GF and the callous, sadistic manner in which it was done. Even Tibbett's death in AVTAK sets him off. What comes in varying degrees is the way he handles each situation.
<font color=blue size=7><b>Lazenby's Bond comes closest to Fleming's Bond as written in the novel of the same name.</b></font>
Agree. As many faults as his performance had, intesity was not one of them, and the Bond of the novel OHMSS was quite intense, much more so than he had been before.
As i understand it? I would have to agree with the thesis. Having not read the novel? I do not know how faithful the movie is to the book?
Agree, but only because Dalton never got to do a movie that was super-close to the books