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
=D>
That said, my favorite Moore film happens to be LALD. There was enough going on that Moore was less of a distraction in that film than those that followed. I didn't care for his interpretation of Bond, nor the direction the series was going--parody of the series itself, raising the level of comedy, cheesy gags.
From a business point of view, staying with RM until he was no longer credible was a smart move. He was big box office, the series reached new heights, and for the Bond, the Next Generation generation, he was Bond. SC was some old guy (albeit younger than RM) they knew little about.
So why not replace Moore in 1980? It wouldn't have made business sense.
One is a conveyance for the other. But Silva's Joker-like omniscience doesn't particularly impede Mendes's ability to tell a damn good yarn.
Interesting. After seeing this particular exchange, I looked up the difference between plot and story. Based on the Wiki definition, it appears that SF had a good plot after all. It was the story (which is meant to be more detailed and link everything together) which was awful.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_(narrative)
We can discuss semantics all day. Bottom line is Silva's clairvoyance is absolute bollocks.
On that we are definitely in agreement.
Which critics though? doubleohdad only worships the gospel according to Rotten Tomatoes - all others are infidels.
No but the more grounded they are, the more they thrive. The bigger the bond movies got, the more ridiculous they got.
Nonsense! The series didn't need saving in 95. What happened is that we were denied a third movie from the man-god that is Timothy Dalton and were plunged into a decade of dreary drek!
Thank God they didn't replace Rog in 81 - we would have been denied the masterpiece that is OP!
Sadly they did replace Dalton in 95 and we got the abysmal Brosnan.
You're right, yet the stories still tanked.
Get,
I'll have to check where the Dalt and Broz films rank on rt and compare them. I'd opine that GE was a close call over the Dalt films, which in turn were them far better than Broz last three pictures.
Good idea. Because that will end any debate once and for all.
You really are beyond parody mate. You're like the ayatollah intoning we all live by sharia law as sent down from the prophet Rotten Tomato (PBUH).
Perhaps you could start your own caliphate that adheres to the strict teachings of Rotten Tomatoes and cuts the head off anyone who likes Roger Moore?
Certainly you feel like you have to insult rather than debate.
Sticks and stones, mate.
I've given you the benefit of the doubt a couple of times and attempted 'debate', but your rhetoric is just a slew of repetitive conjecture that you mistakenly assume is fact.
you have consistently stated that Moore's films are the worst in the series, both by your standards, and the standards of critics (citing Rotten Tomatoes).. but if thats the case, then how come 4 out of his 7 films have solid "Fresh" ratings?
Live and Let Die - 66% - (critic consensus) While not one of the highest-rated Bond films, Live and Let Die finds Roger Moore adding his stamp to the series with flashes of style and an improved sense of humor.
The Spy Who Loved Me - 78% - (critic consensus) Though it hints at the absurdity to come in later installments, The Spy Who Loved Me's sleek style, menacing villains, and sly wit make it the best of the Roger Moore era.
Moonraker - 62% - (critic consensus) Featuring one of the series' more ludicrous plots but outfitted with primo gadgets and spectacular sets, Moonraker is both silly and entertaining.
For Your Eyes Only - 73% - (critic consensus) For Your Eyes Only trades in some of the outlandish Bond staples for a more sober outing, and the result is a satisfying adventure, albeit without some of the bombastic thrills fans may be looking for.
by comparison, 3 of Brosnan's 4 films are rated worse than the ones above..
Yeah, I dunno, I'e given credit to the Moore stuff when due. I certainly don't feel like I have to alert the mods simply because I don't like their opinions. Debate when polite is a healthy thing, as opposed to cheerleading.
8-|
All these films are rated what they are rated, I accept that, and if your definition of a cinematic triumph is a c+, more power to you. I've been pretty clear about the last three Broz films not being any good. They are what they are, both Broz and Moore, pretty uninspired excursions into Bond filmmaking. Except for GE. That one EASILY is the best of the Moore/Broz bunch.
Please don't go @chrisisall.
When did that ever happen? One 6 word post along the lines of 'The PTS in OP is good' just to try and get the mods off your back hardly makes up for the infinite repetition of 'Moores films arent very good. Dont take it on trust - look its on Rotten Tomatoes so it must be true'.
You claim you want debate but youve got absolutely nothing in your locker apart from your 3 stock phrases.
But see... now your changing your argument.... you went from "they are not good." to "they are not cinematic triumphs".... which one is it?... No one is arguing that they are cinematic masterpieces, we are arguing against your original statement that "All of Moore's films are terrible"... which, even according to the numbers that you love so much, they are not... but now, your definition of a good and entertaining Bond film is that it has to be a cinematic masterpiece?........ you sir would make a perfect politician.
if you don't like Roger Moore, thats your opinion, and no one is going to argue your opinion... but don't try and back your opinion with numbers and facts that simply aren't true.
A little debate is all it takes to get you to abandon ship?
Uhhhhhhh…….nope. I've stated the stuff that's good and bad for both the connery and moore films throughout these threads, it's just that there's so much more bad in the Moore films than the Connery films.
Blow up Katanga.
awful southern sheriff.
gondola gags that border on diabolical
to tiger: "Sit!"
Jaws drops a brick on his foot like daffy duck
old man moore hitting on far too young women
no memorable fights
Jaws FALLS IN LOVE
double-take pidgeon
godawful tennis match
godawful hockey match
I could go on and on….
If some of these films got a C- on RT, they should be grateful because they deserve far worse.
Bond as a clown
Bond in a gorilla suit
I think that was more than three, right?
Now, before anyone complains, I was responding to a previous question.