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
Can someone help me identify the breed of this dog?
What type of dog breed is this?
Thank you :)
I agree. It knows it’s supposed to be a bit goofy. That’s the fun of it though. Bond would probably resign after falling out of the plane at the beginning with P and W writing. Go off without MI6’s involvement. Moonraker is pure escapism at its finest.
I think Tarantino is absolutely right there: Moore would have been a great fit for OHMSS, much better than Lazenby. The story suits his strengths which we saw emerge in his films: he's a more human, even kind, Bond than the rest. And as I often say, the opening of OHMSS is basically an episode of The Saint anyway.
Man, we're talking here the falling in love aspect of the character, Moore for me, yes, while he showed some aspects of being human like getting afraid, wounded.
For me, he's still basically a playboy who played with women and not taking their feelings seriously, I don't buy him falling in love.
OHMSS is a love story, and I don't see him falling in love.
Granted, he would've carried the Piz Gloria scenes (sophistication and womanizing), but the romance aspect, man, it's hard to see Moore in it! He's not taking any women seriously, he's basically an immature playboy, who played with women's feelings then leave them.
I mean, I can't see him as the man who would let his guard down and starts falling in love with a woman deeply, seriously and for real.
He's just not like that, the way he'd treated those Bond Girls in his era clearly shows that, the later Moore entries? He's playing more of a paternal type than a lover.
I'm even a hard time seeing him settling down!
Stop with this "putting or imagining a Bond
actor in other Bond films" nonsense!
Granted, he can play fear and uneasiness, but imagining Moore here was like imagining him in The Living Daylights (particularly
those Kara scenes)!
Vulnerability? Yes, Romantic? That sincerity aspect? Definitely, no.
I can't even imagine Moore in those scenes with M!
Like the resignation scene and that line of "Blofeld is a something of a must with me"! (I can't imagine him delivering that line).
He's Bond had some hints of vulnerability probably moreso than Craig as I've argued, but not the romantic type of Bond who would take love seriously.
He's more vulnerable in even Moonraker (see the centrifuge scene where he's very shaken, even angry at Goodhead) than Connery was in pretty much all of his.
And I'd say if you look at the warm relationship he has with, say, Octopussy, it's not hard to imagine his Bond falling in love. I think I actually buy them as partners who are genuinely fond of each other more than I do TimBond and Kara in TLD, and they're supposed to have more of a bond.
I also think there's little doubt that Moore and Rigg (if she were still to be in it) would have worked very well together also: they both had that twinkle.
Well, I've edited my post about the vulnerability thing, as I've argued before, he's a lot more human than Craig (because he showed fear, whereas Craig was more confident in dangerous situations), my mistake for that.
But the romance thing...... I'll still stand by it.
Because for me, the Bond and Tracy relationship was really serious, and realistic, not just a fun fling, it should be sincere, complex and grounded, not just a fun love like he did with Octopussy, compared to the Bond and Tracy romance, it's still not that serious and realistic.
Yes! I've actually found the word: Matured! That's the type of romance that Bond and Tracy had, there's the aspect of deep understanding towards each other, sharing of feelings and yes, like what I'm saying, sincerity.
The way that Tracy and Bond's relationship was established was similar to that of Vesper and Kara, it's serious and deep, required of sincerity.
I can see Moore Bond's treatment of Kara as a bit more paternal, because of his age, if he's cast in TLD, and given Kara's characterization (naive and a bit girlish), so he would likely to treat her the same way as he treated Solitaire, Melina or Stacey.
Or let's make it the most possible, can you imagine Moore's Bond falling in love with Vesper?
Because that's the closest to the Bond and Tracy relationship.
Granted he and Rigg would have great chemistry, but in terms of narrative, could he make it believable?
I don't find the relationship in OHMSS to be terribly realistic anyway, it's mostly just dealt with in a montage and the barn scene; he could easily have dealt with that. Plus he'd be much stronger throughout the rest of the film. No there are no direct comparisons with other relationships which are exactly the same, that's why it requires a little imagination. If you'd only seen Lazenby in a Kung Fu film I doubt you'd be able to imagine him pulling it off either (and to be fair, you'd be right! :) )
That's why can you imagine Moore pulling it off?
Can you imagine Moore's Bond romancing Vesper?
But no doubt, I easily see Moore's Bond in the Poker scenes, probably it would be less boring with him in the role, as I'll admit, I do find those Poker scenes a bit boring, but with Moore as Bond in those scenes, with his quirks, his witty one liners and dialogues, he would add a bit touch of lightheartedness into it, and would make those watch more entertaining.
Exactly. Moore got his Tracy in OP, yet another reason why that movie should have been Moore's send-off. It all comes down to chemistry.
I meant there's no direct comparison in Moore's movies. Regardless, he is one of the warmer and more human Bonds and has no trouble with the romantic stuff (arguably he's much more comfortable with that than he is with the action); I don't see it being an issue.
Do you mean Eva Green? That's obviously a harder leap as the style of film is quite different, and I've never said he should be in CR as it was made in 2006, so I'm not sure it proves much.
I've always thought that Green was miscast for that role anyway: the train scene is written for a witty, twinkling actor like Diana Rigg and Green can't pull it off if you ask me- Craig is having to carry the repartee side of it.
I think they could certainly have made a version of CR during Roger's years, but it would have been pretty different to the one we got.
Having both aspects spread throughout 25 films is what keeps this franchise going. Not every film needs emotional drama/baggage.
On the flip side, not every film needs to be silly popcorn entertainment. And in between we have a great mixture such as GoldenEye. For every MR/TSWLM, we have a SF and NTTD. And I love them all, well besides 2 of the 25 films.
The franchise has provided an outstanding balance of films that can suit our different moods when it comes to choosing a Bond film.
@Last_Rat_Standing I’m curious about which two you don’t like? I like them all, in one way or another.
FYEO and LTK. There are moments in both that I enjoy such as the warehouse raid and the keel hauling sequence. LTK i enjoy from when Bond arrives in Isthmus to when Bond is taken to Sanchez's factory.
Anything outside of that is ideas, concepts, scenes that I particularly don't find appealing to my taste in Bond films so I typically don't reach for these films when I'm in a Bond film mood.
Watching MR recently I found myself realizing how poorly written Holly Goodhead is as a character. I need to be clear I rather like how Lois plays her, but her character on the page is poorly written.
Holly is largely there to provide geeky space facts for the audience and dump exposition at the audience. Her character arc is problematic. Maybe we could be generous and say that she is able to redeem herself in the eyes of Bond, who is rather dismissive of her from the beginning.
Holly is capable, and is okay with challenging Bond. The question is why? Why is a NASA or CIA agent antagonistic with a British agent? Why would Bond and her engage in a pissing contest and battle to find out what dastardly deeds Drax is dealing. She hides info as does Bond. Occasionally this causes a waste of time in the mission.
In TSWLM it made sense for Bond to battle Anya. They were with rival firms and as such Anya would want to hide info from Bond. But here a US agent battles a British agent when they are allies? Also interesting that we don't ever see Goodhead's boss.
What do you folks think about Holly Goodhead, well written character? Or are there some problematic issues with her character in the film.
Sure she can fight, she's got a good comeback when slagged. But she is really a poorly written out character. I don't get her motivation for wanting to beat Bond to the clues or to the schemes. Also interesting that Drax wouldn't want Goodhead for his master race. She seems to match up. Why not infiltrate Drax organization even more? Finally, what exactly is her role at Drax Industries? She seems to just stop working for him about a quarter of the way through the movie. Wouldn't it make more sense that she stay close to Drax???
I better stop has MR was the first Bond film I saw on the big screen. Watched it with my family at a drive-in during the summer of 79. It was paired with Corvette Summer starring Mark Hammil. Great memories!
Holly Goodhead wasn't antagonistic with Bond, it's Bond who had trust issues with her, because again of Chang, that coincidentally wherever Holly Goodhead was there, Chang was there and was attacking Bond.
Holly Goodhead was purely innocent of whatever Bond's thoughts of her, actually, it's Holly Goodhead who doesn't care at Bond, she doesn't mind Bond, she's purely doing her own business and just happened that Bond came up to her mission late, and she's already ahead of him.
She's doing it, the problem was Bond seemed to interfere with her mission, if not for Bond, she's already finished with her mission.
The problem was Bond always following her, wherever she is, there's Bond always following her, distracting her, she couldn't proceed and focus to her mission because of Bond, he's always following her every moves.
In this film, it's clear that Bond was pretty dependent on Holly Goodhead regarding of gathering some information, sure there's Bond sneaking into the laboratory, but that's also because he's following Holly Goodhead all the time.
@mtm she should be more angry at Bond? Isn't Bond trying to uncover the problem? Besides what was Holly even doing deep undercover at Drax's org? Clearly the US government wanted to keep tabs on Drax and she had the perfect job to do just that. However after California she jets sets and leaves her post. Effectively putting a target on her head.
I'm sorry but she's a poorly written character with unclear motivations. Her main role in the film is to be a space expert to dump facts to the audience (thru Bond). I don't see a well written character here.
She could've stayed her undercover, but again, there's Bond, this was shown in the centrifuge scene, Holly was trying to keep her cover, but there's Bond who already messed up when Chang decided to sabotage him in that Centrifuge to die, and Holly was the one who's assigned to it, in fact, Holly Goodhead was the one who's assigned to assist Bond, so there's Bond doubting Goodhead already about her allegiance with Chang, and that's where Bond starts to investigate such things.
If she stayed her cover, Bond would've likely to keep his thoughts of Holly Goodhead being an enemy and would do all to interrogate her, to the point of foiling down her mission and plans.
Actually, Holly was still maintaining it, but it's Bond who's very insistent, to the point that he sneaked into her hotel room, and started playing with her gadgets.
Holly Goodhead couldn't keep her cover for long.
And again, not even Hugo Drax knew what's she's doing, it's just revealed to Drax himself that Holly was working against him almost in the third act when she's caught with Bond.
This was answered as Drax was already moving (in the Rio De Janeiro scenes), and besides, if she stayed in California, she wouldn't likely to get information from just there alone, and in fact, even Chang, or maybe the other staffs of the Drax Industries are also going abroad, so, Goodhead was also doing the same, maybe in her free time when there's a time to investigate, she would investigate, but still keeping her cover as one of the employees of Drax's industries.
For me, all of the things that she's doing was purely reasonable as I've watched the film many times (it's one of my favorites, I'll admit), so it's really rewatchable for me.
For me, she's just an agent doing her job, there's no wrong with that, in fact, Bond was also in the same situation as her, their motivations was to follow the orders and directives given upon them.
I didn't see anything wrong with it, whatever wrong with Holly or the motivations was clearly depending on how the plot of the film was written in general (to which, I'll admit had many flaws).
Sure, she's not a perfect character, she could've been written much better (as the majority of the Bond Girls in the series barring Tracy and Vesper), but she's not poorly written.
In fact, again, Anya was not even that better than Holly, either:
1. How she could've forgotten the revenge about her boyfriend in the end? (Okay, Bond seduced her and that's all?)
2. Despite of her rivalry with Bond, I don't get the jealousy she felt against Naomie, who's Stromberg's secretary, like Bond just found Naomie more sexier than her and suddenly she's jealous?
3. How did she suspect Bond of killing her boyfriend by just seeing the lighter alone? (Bond didn't stole it either, so, if she saw Bond holding an Austrian keychain or if she saw an Austrian Painting hanging on Bond's wall in his house, would she have the same thought?)
4. Why did she decided to go with Stromberg, again in the final act? (She went with Stromberg to his lair then she's kept there as a damsel in distress?)
5. When she saw Jaws hiding in that closet, why she slapped him with the hanger instead of using her skills that she'd learned in that Siberia training, considering that she's a Military Trained Agent? And considering too that she'd met Jaws in Egypt already, considering she knew his face (or what he looked like) already, why was she creeped out when she saw him again in that closet? In that train scene, I've felt that I'm watching a different version of Anya from the one that's in the Egyptian scenes.
6. And why Anya was taken as a damsel in distress in the final act either? I thought she had gadgets akin to Bond (hence, she'd even knocked Bond out with her sleeping drug induced cigar), so was that the gadget that she had? Or maybe even just a gun to defend herself, Is it that meant to show how fool and stupid was KGB to not provide Anya with any gadget or a gun? And how did she end up there as a damsel in distress either? Was she knocked up by Stromberg or Jaws then she's tied to the recliner? Then she's weak if that's the case.
Anya Amasova had a great premise, but it's just disappointing, it's not liven up to the full potential, what I've seen in the film was a contradiction of her premise or her concept.
It's just opposite, she's just there, very passive, she didn't do anything to advance the plot either, if I remove Anya in that film, I think Bond could've easily finished the mission, it's just so quick.
She's an eye candy.
She consistently gives some of the flattest line readings like when Bond exits the centrifuge or when they escape the cable car. Acting-wise, the worst is the reaction when Bond catches up to her in Venice. She actually shined during the fight sequence on the space station.
I was amazed years later when Chiles showed up in James L. Brooks' Broadcast News with a lot of heavyweight actors and did fine. If anything, it just showed what Bond movies of the time asked for out of actresses.
Solitaire - A good actress in Jane Seymour, but the character was just passive and didn't do much, mostly a damsel, she's good at cards, sure, there's that angle in her of being torn between working with her boss (Kananga) or working with Bond, mainly conflicted, but in the general sense of the character (just like of how she functioned in the book, she's mainly a trophy girl for Bond), still a let down compared to the Bond Girls of the 60's.
Mary Goodnight - Very inept for an agent, almost dumb, got knocked off to the car boot, locked inside a wardrobe, and when her rear end pressed the button that enabled the Solex Agitator, Ekland was a decent actress hampered by a bad writing.
Anya Amasova - The only interesting in her was her grieving the death of her boyfriend (which was not that well utilized or executed in the film), but that's where it ends, she never did anything to prove how skillful she was, mostly a damsel too (Bond saved and rescued her many times), while not as inept or dumb as Goodnight, she's not convincing or believable as a well trained Military Agent, she's pretty incompetent, added by Barbara Bach's wooden delivery and silly fake Russian accent.
Holly Goodhead - The only time they've proved a liberated Bond Girl who's tough as Bond, although as some of you have said here, she's poorly written, mainly because of some plot contrivances (in some ways, she's also a bit similar to Octopussy, comparable, I will explain that later on).
Melina Havelock - Interesting woman with a crossbow who's hungry for revenge, but is that executed well? No, because everytime that she's there, Bond always barring her from taking a revenge by teaching her some sort of "moralities", so, as a result, she's mostly in the background, and she's later shoe horned as Bond's lover when in the the rest of the film, they're almost have this paternal relationship, this one is really a missed opportunity, she could've been the best of this Era's Bond Girls, if not for some shortcomings.
Octopussy - A female boss, okay? That's interesting, Maud Adams was great in the job and had a good chemistry with Moore, but honestly, I've forgotten her importance to the plot, I mean, she's hampered by the convoluted writing of the plot (she suffered the same fate as Holly, in this case, a victim of the overall writing of the film), it's only Maud Adams' performance that elevated the character (but honestly, she's also poorly written, her motivations and involvement in the plot was convoluted), and again, the way she's kidnapped by Kamal Khan, I felt was too quick.
Stacey Sutton - Pretty much like Goodnight, very clumsy for a State geologist, she's Christmas Jones long before Christmas Jones (her ancestor 😅), she screamed a lot, a blimp that literally sneaked up on her, helpless and just not that interesting of a character, and it's really obvious in the character the way of Tanya Roberts' acting (that's how she really acted).
Most of Moore's leading ladies don't have a character arc. They start the film and then remain basically the same by the end of the film. With OP Adams was given a character that grew and changed. She is fooled by Orlov and Khan, and then goes about gaining revenge. Her indecision to back up Bond when the bomb is ticking away is a great piece of character development. She is torn, is Bond telling the truth, or is he about to bring the smuggling to a complete halt. Her look of relief and yet anger when it's revealed as a bomb and she realizes she's been the fool is another great character development. Adams plays is wonderfully in that whole sequence.
Of all the other leading lady characters they seem to merely exist to make Bond look good, or provide exposition to the audience, or both. There was an attempt to give some character development to Anya but the actress wasn't skilled enough to make it satisfying. Her pointing the gun at Bond is the escape sub should have us feeling like she's going to pull that trigger, but we never do. Can't blame the editing as Gilbert and Glen do a nice job of ratcheting up the suspense.
Melina starts off from an interesting place with her parents death. But the script seems to put it on the back burner, by the end of the film we have forgotten that Melina is on this quest for revenge. It also comes off as rich that Bond would lecture her on revenge. If Melina had acted out a bit more on the boat while being tied up, or if her and Kristantos had a scene together alone it might have helped.
Goodnight, for example was meant to be a British agent (with the exception of Strawberry Fields or Miranda Frost), she's the only primary/main Bond Girl who's working behalf of Bond and MI6, but failed it.
Sutton, was also meant to be a smart geologist with a vendetta against Zorin, but it's never came fully to the screen, and what we've seen was this damsel in distress who's always screaming Bond's name.
Anya too, I think, the way they've wrote the character, it's too much for the film to chew, like yes, there's the revenge for her dead boyfriend thing (which was interesting), but on the other hand, she's meant to be Bond's Russian Equivalent, a capable, tough, well trained Military Agent, but she'd never showed it, instead there's Bond who always saving and rescuing her, and there's the rivalry between her and Bond, yet broke it off when they had Anya got jealous over Naomi (Stromberg's secretary).
Melina Havelock, great premise, she wants a revenge for her dead parents, but it's never fully realized on film, she's mostly on the background.
I think these characters are way given too much for their respective films to take.