29 June - Moonraker - James! Bond! - in SPACE!
- A good idea, well executed
- A good idea, poorly executed
- A bad idea, poorly executed
- A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be
0 voters
Good idea.
Drax’s scheme in Space was good, but it’s obviously executed to make it looked more like cashing in Star Wars, the idea was good.
I don’t know if it’s good or bad, but given the cinematography and set designs? but as I’ve been said, the space was made as an attempt to cash in on the Star Wars success.
I think it’s good in execution, but again, the Star Wars thing still lingers my mind when it comes to Bond in space.
I’m not sure if it’s good or bad, but one thing is for sure, it’s a good idea, at least for Cubby Broccoli’s “Science Fact!”
Actually I liked Moonraker and felt it was an improvement over TSWLM for me, at least in my opinion:
-
Hugo Drax was a more livelier villain than Stromberg, Drax had more personality and more wittier than Stromberg, Stromberg on the other hand was just dull, he just kinda sits and commands his men, meanwhile, Drax showcased his personality through his firing range, his collections of antiques and his fashion.
-
Holly Goodhead was more competent than Anya, we’ve seen Holly helping Bond in his mission, even saving Bond with her gadget (the poisonous pen), the cable car fight was also an evident of this, and especially the fight at the shuttle, where she punched and kicked those bad guys that made even Bond impressed with her skills, she’s independent, she doesn’t need to be at Bond’s side per minute, she worked on her own, and even more ahead of Bond with her almost getting the first to know of Drax’s schemes, I also liked how she dominates Bond in every scene like instead of Bond, after that cable car, she’s the one who kissed him (women’s liberation?), She’s the one who seduced Bond instead of Bond seducing her just to take him away from her mission, I liked how Holly distracted Bond from her investigation by playing with him.
And I liked the development of their dynamic, from Bond underestimating Holly because she’s “a woman”, from Holly earning Bond’s praise when she proved herself to him, and the distrust thing with if Holly was working with the villains or not.
Anya on the other hand, never do anything, she’s just at Bond’s side for most of the time, she’s even rescued by Bond many times, she’s not that believable as a well trained agent, the scene in the train where Anya slapped Jaws with a hanger killed off her credibility to me, and Jaws knocked her unconscious very easily, then she’s saved by Bond once again in the climax where she’s literally tied to a chair waiting for Bond to save her, I’ve never even saw her fought her way out, her full potential, her skills and what she can do, she failed to show it, she can’t convinced me about her training in Siberia? Laughable, she’s not just believable because she didn’t showed it, she’s mostly a damsel in distress, and dare I say it, useless.
Holly Goodhead was more competent than Anya.
- Moore’s performance in Moonraker was a lot more livelier and natural than in TSWLM, because he’s more reactive to his surroundings and had more facial expressions in Moonraker, I felt that he’s a lot more comfortable in the role in Moonraker than in TSWLM where I felt his performance in it was a bit ‘by the numbers’, it’s not natural, it’s a bit stiff
In Moonraker, he had a chance to show his range, think of that Centrifuge scene, the scenes with Manuela after he saved her from Jaws’ attack, there’s a sense of humanity.
In TSWLM, it’s like Moore’s acting wasn’t natural, more like he’s just reading the script, he doesn’t have much facial expression, it’s like more even that he’s just phoning it in.
And the cinematography in Moonraker was a lot more impressive and even the set designs compared to TSWLM.
1 Like
I would say QOS
Huh- for me
I think it works. People usually say an Earth bound finale would’ve been better, but I like that the writers fully expressed what had been building up for over an hour. We see where the glass is made for the globes, and where the toxic plants grow - then we see them in action once they’re launched. Anything else in a film of this nature would’ve been an anti climax.
5 Likes
Now that space has become more accessible and truly is the playground of power-mad billionaires, I would think MR seems a tad less fantastical. In 1979, it made for an amazing spectacle and I would maintain it remains the last truly epic-scaled production in the franchise. Bear in mind I was 14 when I first saw it so I’ll never be able to shake the giddy thrill of nostalgia when considering the film. Was it a good idea from the POV of fealty to Fleming? Probably not. But from the POV of delivering the biggest and most spectacular entertainment experience possible? Yes. And from the POV of competing on equal footing with blockbusters of the day like Star Wars, CEOT3K, Superman, Alien, Star Trek: TMP and even Disney’s The Black Hole? Yes.
In terms of execution, what Derek Meddings does in this film is still nothing short of miraculous. From the early days of Gerry Anderson’s marionation shows through UFO and Space: 1999 to Moonraker, he had developed into an absolute genius at movie model work and to this day I’m more impressed with the effects in MR than all the computer-generated mannequins battling each other in colorful cartoon fantasylands in modern flicks. And John Barry shows that bombastic/militaristic isn’t the only way to do “space music” with one of his best scores, ever.
On the other hand, there is that gaping plot hole wherein an entire space station escapes detection from Earth (which only works if the radar jamming device was turned on first and then had the station built around it, and even then you’d think someone would notice the many, many “off the books” shuttle launches required to construct that monstrosity) and the crazy left turn into Earth-B (for Bond) where there is such a thing as the US Space Marines. Maybe it would’ve worked better if Bond had gotten up there, wrecked the place and got back on his own without the space cavalry and all those pew-pew lasers (with Moneypenny refusing to believing he’d ever gone, completing the film’s running gag), but then it wouldn’t be Moonraker, the Bond film that refuses to ask “how much is too much.” I love over-the-top Bond and you can’t get much further over the top than outer space.
MR goes all in on everything, and so will I: it’s a great idea, brilliantly executed. And despite OP’s claims, it’s Bond’s true all time high.
6 Likes
Wonderfully stated.
The bad reputation MR got at the time and up to this day were mainly due to a narrow view of what Bond was supposed, even allowed to be.
Was MR, at least the finale, a shameless piggybacking of the space opera trend Star Wars kicked off during the late 70‘s? Absolutely.
Did it work? Totally. EON knew this is the way to keep Bond alive after the franchise rescue by TSWLM: capture the kid and teenage audience, and repeat what worked last time as well, mix it and make everything even grander.
Believability had been thrown out the window after TB at the latest anyway. So why not go all in?
I will always love MR, and the double hit with TSWLM ensured Bond could continue through the 80‘s.
4 Likes
Never been a fan of MR, but not because of its epic, sci-fi scope. Don’t have a problem with Bond going to space, don’t have a problem with a space laser battle, don’t have a problem with anything that might fall into the OTT category. Because the magic of Bond is that it can be tense and taut and almost “small” in nature (FRWL) and can also be wide and epic and OTT (TB and OP).
My issue with MR remains the humor - the double-taking pigeons, the domestic life of Jaws the hitman, the fact that the humor, rather than defusing some of the darker moments in the fashion of the series prior (“they were on their way to a funeral”), instead almost wants to apologize for the epic nature of the film. “This is all faintly ridiculous so let’s all have a laugh” is the vibe that I get from MR and that’s just not the vibe I want from Bond.
Gilbert made the same film three times. Ok the first time around (I find YOLT very lethargic at times), perfect the second (TSWLM is epic Bond. Never been topped, perhaps can’t be topped), and the 3rd almost an apology.
Do I think MR could have been better than TSWLM? I’m sure they started out with that in mind. But somewhere along the line they gave up and instead decided to send the whole thing up and just take the p*&s. No, other people are welcome to do that to the series but the series should never do that to itself.
MR is a good idea, it’s just badly executed.
And the third time was the charm.
Also, it is a triumph for Sir Roger and his take on Bond.
1 Like
While in terms of plot, both MR and YOLT can’t topped TSWLM.
But in terms of characters and acting, MR (and even YOLT) did.
TSWLM for me, had a strong plot but with weak characters and stiff, “by the numbers” performances.
30 June - No Time to Die - James! Bond! … dies
- A good idea, well executed
- A good idea, poorly executed
- A bad idea, poorly executed
- A bad idea, but executed as well as it was ever going to be
0 voters
1 Like
Good idea, Poorly executed.
I have no problem with the concept of Bond dying, just to prove his humanity, it may be a risk taking decision, but if handled well, could’ve been memorable and truly great for such a unique idea.
The problem was the execution, that’s exactly.
It led to a many series of contrived events which obviously was written backwards, as the scriptwriters had the idea of Bond dying, but didn’t know how to make it or where to start, and how would they do it? Or what would be the most reasonable thing to have him killed?
So as a result, they’ve made a lot of contrivances that there’s no other way other than to lead it to Bond getting killed.
All of the scenes happened in the film, as I’ve sensed were all leading to that, without actually happening it naturally.
The ending was the amalgamation of all the problems within the film itself: too overstuffed, disjointed subplots, and plot contrivances, in short, poorly handled.
No Time To Die is a film that had a lot of potential to become a unique entry a la OHMSS or CR or even Skyfall (those films that ended on a downer note), but it’s botched.
It reminded me of The World Is Not Enough, it also had the potential idea of having Bond’s lover become a villain and Bond would kill her off but it’s botched by the messy execution of a plot.
Watching NTTD made me already smelled Bond’s death coming miles away because the film, since from the start showed some signs of it, and since the trailer told us that “It will change everything”, I’m prepared for it, and I’m excited at how they would do it, but I was so disappointed when I’ve seen the film, because it’s not earned.
And now, watching the film many times, I’ve realized that if I could take the plot as a whole (if I’m going to remove all the contrivances) that there’s actually no reason for Bond to die, and just because the writers couldn’t provide a solid cause, they’ve decided to write some plot holes and contrived things just to make it happened.
Bond’s death was just written without creating a strong backbone that could support that idea, it’s just that “What if we killed Bond? Okay, Let’s do it!” and what they’ve done was just glossed the story all over.
They have the idea, but they don’t have a concrete and solid story or plot to support it, and that’s the main problem with NTTD.
I’ve explained my side about this many times in the other sub, other discussions and etc. And while I couldn’t replicate and think that this may not be my best explanation, but at least there’s my main point of having my decision well told.
2 Likes
I thought it was a bad idea when I first heard it, but when I watched the film I got their (Craig’s) point. You have a start (Casino Royale) and a middle (Skyfall) so an ending is needed, and this particular run had two things as running themes - a yearn for family and everyone in this choice of life dies. Once they have pointed that out, No Time To Die’s ending is inevitable.
3 Likes
Sideswipes has brought out the worst of my prevaricative tendancies…
I didn’t necessarily think it was the worst idea, unlike Orion, but I didn’t think it was a good one. More, an untidy one. In that where does the series go next. But once you cross the rubicon of “We just start over” (and in that moment igniting either a centuries’ worth of continuity discussions or ending them forever), then it suddenly became a better idea.
That said, as filmed, the ending lacks the punch that I felt a moment of this magnitude should have had. Maybe because you know it’s coming, maybe because it has to be “telegraphed” to an extent over the last thirty minutes, but ultimately I don’t think the film quite pulled it off as a “gob smack” moment. No, you couldn’t do it like Fleming in FRWL - that would have been too “WTF didn’t see that coming is he dead???”
Now to be fair I have never found the Madeline relationship that convincing. I didn’t buy it in SP, and so to have her return didn’t feel as momentous as it needed to be. And perhaps the kid should have been in tow from earlier in the runtime. And Safin was an underwhelming adversary at best, but it just felt that the plot had too obviously positioned things to get to the big ending rather than evolving in a more organic manner.
Probably not making sense here and I don’t think it was badly done - just not done as well as a twist of this magnitude deserved (see SF, OHMSS and CR, though the latter pair with the benefit of the source material).
1 Like
Props for the check
Provided we put “James Bond” in quotes, this was a good idea. Since Craig’s take on Bond was liberated from any pretense of continuity with Classic Bond and got to start fresh with CR, it makes perfect sense that his unique and separate story arc should get a definitive ending as well, and moreover that his successors should not be obligated to adhere to any plot elements or precedents established during his run. He got his own beginning, so he should get his own ending. Besides which there was no way this version of the character was going to ride off into the sunset and live happily ever after.
With that said, the “execution” (the most appropriate use of that word in this thread so far) was a mess. Having spent four films establishing Craig’s Bond as the down-to-Earth model, his demise involves a sci-fi plot element as daft as anything in DAD. And then for good measure he’s killed multiple times, like some kind of cinematic Rasputin. He’s infected with the nano-whatsits (“they’re tech…except when they aren’t tech”), then fatally shot, then nuked. So Craig ends his tenure as he began it, as the T-800 model Bond from Cyberdyne Industries.
To milk all the possible drama, Craig says his prolonged goodbyes via the ever-present earpiece microphone, despite having held his EMP watch mere inches from his ear when zapping Cyclops in a chokehold, which should have disabled the earpiece for sure. And though shot full of holes, he climbs a ladder with apparent ease so he can see his death coming (which makes him the last one, as the rest of us could see it from the second reel).
Both Wolverine and Iron Man beat 007 to the “die to save my daughter and the world” scene, and both did it better. But it’s an ending, and I’ll take it. I had my share of fun with the Craig era, but for me the most important part was that it occur in total isolation from anything that went before or that will come after. Death achieves that, so I’m cool.
Good idea, poorly (and excessively, and repeatedly) executed.
1 Like
I agree. I’ve said enough elsewhere on the topic. I like it for Craig’s Bond, but it shouldn’t be done again. I think what I like the most about NTTD is not necessarily the death itself but knowing the man we’re watching is going to die. It gives him a particular aura the others don’t have.
1 Like
Any updates on this? @Jim
Or maybe can I add my own? 
For July?
Okay, as of now, I will (temporarily) add one for now:
July 6 - Tomorrow Never Dies - Elliot Carver doing a Karate/Martial Arts Impression
- A Good Idea, well executed
- A bad idea, but executed as it was ever going to be
- A bad idea, poorly executed
- A good idea, badly executed
0 voters
Not sure if I can rank its idea or execution in any way either than “vaguely racist”?? 
So as an homage to OP, I would say well executed…
Carver is racist or at least arrogant, making fun of the martial arts capabilities… until he is shown what the people want.
In general, I think the villains can be racists, just to show them how their ideas end up.