Jump to content


The forums are moving

Please head over to our new forums at https://quarterdeck.commanderbond.net/ as these forums will soon be converted to a read only archive.



Photo

Favorite Roger Moore James Bond Film


  • Please log in to reply
788 replies to this topic

Poll: Favorite Roger Moore James Bond Film (678 member(s) have cast votes)

Favorite Roger Moore James Bond Film

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#781 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 29 March 2017 - 09:01 AM

Part of Bond's appeal is how he uses his strengths to compensate for his limitations. And at the end of the day, isn’t that what Bond is all about? A flawed human with no superpowers who uses his skills and intellect to level the playing field against impossible odds.

 

I absolutely agree.  And what you describe is exactly why I like Bond so much.  And why he is important in an age in which heroes have become muscle-monsters who don´t use their intellect but only their strength in order to defy gravity and easily fight on despite the most devastating blows which would send a human being into the hospital for months.



#782 Mr_Wint

Mr_Wint

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2406 posts
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 29 March 2017 - 04:56 PM

So much of this movie feels like just going through the motions, from "let's get Roger again" to "let's find another variation on Oddjob" to "let's borrow the villain's plot from 'Goldfinger'" to "hey, it worked last time to hang Bond from a plane, this time let's make it a blimp."  There is no life or spark to AVTAK, and the living, breathing avatar for that sense of tiredness is poor old Roger.  A new Bond might have led to some energy on other levels as well. But if you're going to put Rog in the movie, don't pretend he's still 30.  It's not fair to him or anyone else.

 
The movie didn't say anything about Bond's age. Why not pretend that Roger Moore is playing a 57-year old James Bond?
 
As for the rest of the movie. To me it is just not believable that EON would intentionally decide to make a "subpar" movie as you imply here. Let's not forget that this is by far one of the most expensive films made in 1985. The idea that some "lazy" filmmakers would wander around the set not knowing what they are doing is just absurd. The intention with this film (and every other Bond movie...) must have been to make the best one yet.
 
In AVTAK, they put more emphasis on the villain and his scheme. I guess they were inspired by Brandauer's Largo in NSNA. The importance of the villains caper was frequently mentioned in several interviews. Bond is also less reliant on gadgets and forced to rely on his own wit. The female character is more developed than what we have seen before. The action is more advanced than anything previously seen if you take the locations into account. Just imagine the bureaucracy nightmare of jumping from the Eiffel Tower and filming chase scenes in Paris and San Francisco. Let's burn up the City Hall while we are at it. Overall, I think it is evident that plenty of hard work went into the script to tie it all togheter. As an example, Zorin has several reasons to burn up the City Hall... get rid of Bond, Stacey, Howe and all the investigations stored in the City Hall archive. Compare that kind of writing to SPECTRE, with Blofeld randomly popping up in London to blow up the MI-6 building...

Oh, and the 007 stage completely rebuilt to film the most advanced set we have seen since perhaps MR.



#783 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 March 2017 - 05:45 AM

Good arguments.  

 

For my taste, AVTAK mostly suffered from the timing of its release.  It came after the two-Bonds-in-one-year-period (OP and NSNA) and after INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM drove action cinema to a new excess.

 

It also was the summer of RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART TWO, and people became accustomed to a much bloodier and brutal muscle hero.  Bond seemed to be to refined, too old-fashioned, and with Moore´s approaching age the media wanted to tear down the aging Bond films with it.

 

So it became easy to pummel AVTAK for all its weaknesses and to ignore all its strengths.  It was just time to call Bond out of touch with the zeitgeist, and after its incredibly long series of success it probably was overdue for that treatment.

 

Still, AVTAK is not a bad Bond film at all.  IMHO.



#784 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 30 March 2017 - 08:25 PM

 

 

The movie didn't say anything about Bond's age. Why not pretend that Roger Moore is playing a 57-year old James Bond?

 

 

Well, that's what I did, obviously.  But it took a lot of pretending.  The trouble with the 80s films (and again, keep in mind this is coming from a guy who counts Moore as his favorite Bond and hasn't enjoyed a Bond film tremendously since 1983) is that even as Moore was evolving into an older, wiser 007 (his acting got better as he aged), the films were becoming more and more a showcase for physically demanding stunts.  Thanks to competition from Indiana Jones and other quarters, the emphasis was increasingly on things like hanging from aircraft, running along the tops of trains, etc whereas at the start of Moore's tenure, Bond was not a character who demanded the physical prowess of a circus acrobat, parkour practitioner or extreme sports athlete.  Connery never had to do that kind of stuff, but by the time Brosnan showed up, the one-upmanship had progressed to the point where they had to cheat with CGI to pull off the superheroic stunts.

 

 

 

The idea that some "lazy" filmmakers would wander around the set not knowing what they are doing is just absurd. The intention with this film (and every other Bond movie...) must have been to make the best one yet.

 

"Lazy" isn't my word, so don't imply it with the quote marks.  I know these guys were expert and talented technicians and they put forth their best efforts.  The point is there comes a time when everyone's been at it too long without a break, and when that happens -- and yes, IMHO -- you get a film like AVTAK.  Roger couldn't help getting older -- we all do, if we're lucky -- and he gave as much to AVTAK as he did to any film.  But...and again I freely admit this is my opinion...for once his patented schtick felt past its sell-by date.  Similarly, the script, the direction, the stunts, all of it felt to me like it had been done before and better, and so it lacked the energy for me that it had before.  I will concede that I have seen many fans on this board for whom AVTAK was their first Bond, so they love it, since they didn't bring the baggage I did.  So a lot of it's in the eye of beholder.  But I really feel like the re-casting of the lead gave the whole team a creative shot in the arm with TLD.

 

For my taste, AVTAK mostly suffered from the timing of its release.  It came after the two-Bonds-in-one-year-period (OP and NSNA) and after INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM drove action cinema to a new excess.

 

 

It always seemed to me that with the exception of OP, which got a lot of free press from a media looking to gin up a rivalry with NSNA, all the 80s Bonds were poorly marketed.  I almost missed the TV campaign for FYEO entirely, and I looked at a lot of (too much, even) TV in 1981.  AVTAK likewise was lost in the shuffle, and when TLD came out, the kid behind me in the theater kept asking his dad when each new face appeared, "Is THAT the new Bond?" so obviously the campaign to promote Dalton hadn't been too vigorous.

 

Oh, and Temple of Doom was another film that cast a wet blanket over AVTAK for me at the time.  I know the mine sets were very well done, but when I saw them, all I could think was, "Gee, I wonder where they got THAT idea?"

 

 

 

So it became easy to pummel AVTAK for all its weaknesses and to ignore all its strengths.  It was just time to call Bond out of touch with the zeitgeist, and after its incredibly long series of success it probably was overdue for that treatment.

 

 

I think history shows that if there's one thing people love more than putting heroes on a pedestal, it's knocking them off that pedestal into the dirt.  I'm betting a lot of the same people who whined "get Connery back" for decades would've been among those saying, "this series is so tired out" if he had indeed stayed on for another four or five films.  The key for the actors is knowing how to quit while they're ahead, and the key for the producers is, similarly, to know when it's time to change gears.  And that's preferably before the rest of the world is telling you to do it.  But not too soon before.  I admit it's a hard line to walk.  Generally, they get it right.

 

And again, for the record, I'm not an AVTAK hater, even if I think it's Roger's weakest entry.  I'd still take it over anything that's come since, with the possible exceptions of TLD and CR.



#785 Eskyfall

Eskyfall

    Midshipman

  • Crew
  • 69 posts
  • Location:New Orleans

Posted 07 April 2017 - 06:27 PM

The Spy Who Loved Me. It's still the most fun Bond film for me.



#786 Professor Pi

Professor Pi

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1430 posts

Posted 12 April 2017 - 01:35 AM

I wonder how AVTAK would be viewed with a new Bond, say Sam Neil, in it?  FYEO addressed Moore's age more than the successive two.  Indeed, Tanya Roberts was half Moore's age (I think he was older than her mother.)  Maud Adams seemed age appropriate for Moore, and OP should have been the sendoff.  They'd considered replacing Moore since Moonraker, but for one reason or another (contracts, Connery), he kept on for another three Bonds.  Though Spy was my first Bond, I count FYEO and Octopussy as my favorite Moore Bonds.  OP resonated with me as a kid (trains!), and FYEO resonates with me as an adult, filled as it is with treacherous people pretending to be allies, but also friends worthy of one's trust.



#787 DaveBond21

DaveBond21

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 18026 posts
  • Location:Sydney, Australia (but from the UK)

Posted 13 April 2017 - 05:31 AM

I wouldn't want it to become the norm, but an older Bond doesn't really bother me that much. Part of Bond's appeal is how he uses his strengths to compensate for his limitations. And at the end of the day, isn’t that what Bond is all about? A flawed human with no superpowers who uses his skills and intellect to level the playing field against impossible odds.

 

I know people hate NSNA, but that's their business. I've always enjoyed it. It has cracking dialogue and some enjoyable set pieces. I like to pretend its in Connery universe canon because it does give an ending of sorts to his portrayal. We see that's he's older and he finally seems to have settled down. Highlighting Bond's age makes things better in terms of ending an era in my opinion. 

 

I quite like the idea Bond went to Shrublands as a young agent in 1965 for health issues. Because he would never give up his lifestyle, he's back at Shrublands in 1983 and the problem is now a lot worse. Renaming characters such as Fatima Blush allows for a suspension of disbelief, and I can just pretend SPECTRE are giving one of their old extortion attempts another go. 

 

As for AVTAK, my appreciation for it has really grown over the years, along with Octopussy. I wouldn't give up AVTAK for anything, but I do wish it had a similar ending to Octopussy, where Moore's Bond goes off into the sunset with his woman. It was a downgrade to go from that to kissing Stacey Sutton in a shower. But that's history.

 

The ending of AVTAK also features Moneypenny crying, believing Bond to be dead. Not a great final scene for Lois Maxwell.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________



#788 David_M

David_M

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1064 posts
  • Location:Richmond VA

Posted 13 April 2017 - 01:12 PM

 

 

The ending of AVTAK also features Moneypenny crying, believing Bond to be dead. Not a great final scene for Lois Maxwell.

 

Come to think of it, this doesn't make a lot of sense.  Bond is presumed dead, and gets the Order of Lenin "posthumously" from Gogol while Moneypenny weeps.  

 

BUT...you have to think having a blimp destroyed in a fiery explosion would've attracted the attention of motorists on the bridge, San Franciscans looking out the windows of their offices and homes, the SF Police, Fire and Rescue, the local media, etc...

 

For Bond and Stacey to have somehow climbed down off the bridge unnoticed seems highly unlikely.  Their whereabouts should not be a mystery to MI-6.  Quite the reverse, they should be struggling with how to downplay such a public and visible finish to a "secret mission," and trying to hide Bond and Stacey away until things cool down.



#789 SecretAgentFan

SecretAgentFan

    Commander

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9055 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 13 April 2017 - 02:23 PM

Well, there is mostly thick fog surrounding it, so...

 

Then again, if you´ve been to the Golden Gate Bridge you´ll probably ask yourself how one can ever climb down from there.

 

Don´t ask.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users