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
We all have films that we're quite fond of. That's understandable. I love Goldeneye but - shock and horror - I'm going to admit that Skyfall is better.
Plenty? It had one of the coolest PCS and the showdown at SF. The fistfights, Bond chasing Silva in the tube and the shootout at the enquiry don't count in my book. For the same reason I didn't mention Bond's fight with Chang and Bond fighting Drax's pet python.
Cool stunts/fast moving vehicles/explosions - you get the idea!
How do they not count?
Obviously, you're entitled to your opinion, but it wasn't even Moore who ruined MR for me. It was Bond trying to be like Star Wars.
No one here is arguing that MR is a better film, but here are the main reasons for me being a Bond-fan in the first place. I want:
- action set pieces
- gadgets
- cool and funny one liners
- a great villain (preferably educated)
- a great score
- Bond travelling to exotic locations
For this, MR delivers in spades.
- Action set pieces: Silva's island, train crashing, Silva's escape from his cell, the destruction of Skyfall lodge, the shootout at M's hearing, the casino fighting at Macau.
- Gadgets: a tracking device, a palmprint walther ppk, some tributes to the AM from GF.
- Cool & funny one liners: Q/007 banter, Moneypenny/007 banter, "I never liked this place",...
- A great villain: Well, Silva looks & acts like he was created by Fleming himself. And I don't think he's not educated. He has a great taste in whisky.
- A great score: I've heard better than SF, but I do like the title song, especially when seen together with the ts.
- Bond travelling to exotic locations: we have Turkey, that weird island (the scenes on the island were filmed at Pinewood, but the island itself exists) Macau & Shangai.
Yep. Not a Bondfilm at all.
I don't agree with you. SF is indeed a Bondfilm. And a very good Bondfilm, mind you ;-) It's just not one of my personal favorites.
And again: Stuff like "Silva escaping from his cell" is - for me - not an action setpiece.
If Moonraker had some careful editing. I.e. most of the stuff I put in bold...
The gadgets in MR ruin the movie, as do the `funny' one-liners. The action set-pieces are ok, but not a patch on how action scenes are filmed these days. Other than PTS in Moonraker, much of what happens later in the film looks terrible. The cable car scene is extremely naff now when watching it, not just the awful back projection, but the way it is choreographed too.
A great villain, exotic locations and a great score is the only bits I can agree with. Everything else you highlighted as plus points I find to be the worst points.
Give me Bond chasing Silva on the London underground any day of the week. It may not be an action scene on top of a studio-built cable car with a back projection screen, but it is much more enjoyable and exciting to watch.
Most of the action scenes in Moore's films actually ruined his movies, as did the gadgets.
It's easy to watch it all over again like all happy light bonds. Who doesn't like laughing and smiling? The Wilson/Gilbert/Wood commentary track is so funny!
Well it's far far far away from Fleming. And it somehow doesn't suite to be compared with a film like Skyfall. It's like comparing a beautifully made comic with some beautifully written contemporary bestseller-drama. Why do you compare uncompairable?
I'm sure Jean Tournier and Roger Deakins would like each other immensly. Absolutely superb work both of them. Just look at those pictures!
And both Arnold and Newman could learn from Barry: pace of the music should be like the pace of the action, not faster, for it slowers the movie.
Why are you comparing Skyfall and ... Moonraker?
Amen /\
Moonraker was a disgrace to the bond franchise and especially to Ian Fleming. Cubby and the producers clearly cashed out on the whole space idea because Starwars was setting the trend at the time.
As much as I respect Roger , and I really do believe he is a very nice humble man. His 007 tenure to me is a joke, and I cannot take any of his outings seriously. He just never was Bond to me, he will always be the Saint in my eyes.
For me Roger Moore is an important part of the franchise, and he of all actors who played the agent is the best ambassador for the franchise ever.
Also agree the music is better in MR
Both films look beautiful to me
I currently like MR more but have seen it far more times than SF which is I have to admit is a better film from a technical viewpoint.
I was swearing off Bond films after seeing this train wreck. Only after seeing the posters and hearing that EON was going back to basics did I go and see FYEO.
MR had some good locales. The PST is tops but that was the only part of the film I enjoyed.
How dare you compare that train wreck MR to the oscar winning Skyfall.
Easy, some people prefer MR over SF because they feel that the current 007 does not represent their taste in 007ness.
And SF has enough flaws itself mostly the fact that 007 gets his boss killed and the baddie wins. The fact that SF won some oscars does not mean the movie is better.
Maybe its just me and those who have their own idea of 007ness is entitled to that. I prefer my Bond to be human not some superman that Roger played in MR. I want to see him fall down, get hurt, feel some heartache. Bond is a flawed character and we rarely got that with Moore's Bond.
Another shining example of why I feel my fellow originals are both the wisest and most knowledgeable Bond fans :) =D>
About the only areas that MR can compete with Skyfall is in the music (superior) and cinematography (both awesome). After that it's all SF. Better Bond, vastly better villain (Jaws has become a joke like the rest of the film and Bardem could out act Lonsdale in his sleep), easily better looking women (who can actually act), and a compelling, original story compared to a half baked Star Wars/TSWLM ripoff.
Bottom line for me- folks who genuinely can't see why SF is so much more Bondian and better, probably need a lobotomy followed by extensive re-training in the films. MR better than DAD I get. Better than any of the rest? Nope, don't get it and never, ever will. I do find the whole notion rather amusing for sure, and appreciate the unintended laughs :)
Yes, the cinematography of MR is underrated...
And, well :
I like this comparison. Derek Meddings, Paul Wilson and John Evans were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects for MR, although for cinematography I do believe it was snubbed.
If the current producers tried to make a movie like this today it would be a total disaster but somehow Cubby made it all work. In a movie series that spans over 50 years sometimes you have to do something different. I'm glad that they have mixed it up and taken chances over the years. Whenever they stray too far from the original Fleming concept people will have mixed reactions but I think it worked here. With that said I don't think it would work again in this day and age.
Whoa. Actually, this is a fair analysis. I prefer Skyfall far more than MR but I can respect your justifications. Well, except for the sets. MR had better sets than Skyfall?????