106 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by JimmyBond


I'll agree that GE is the last well rounded Bond film. TND goes overboard with the action, TWINE goes overboard with the melodrama, and DAD just goes overboard

Doesnt mean I dont like them though, still going to insist that DAD is my favorite Brosnan Bond film

TWINE sucks....I saw it once in the theater and (although I have the DVD) I have never been able to sit through it again - I rank TWINE on about the same level as "Casino Royale" (1967).

[Ed King]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


TWINE sucks....I saw it once in the theater and (although I have the DVD) I have never been able to sit through it again - I rank TWINE on about the same level as "Casino Royale" (1967).

Oh, how can you say that? I love TWINE. It has one of the best (if not the best) villains ever, Elektra King. I love the plot, the pretitle sequence and the idea of M being kidnapped. I'm not going to say it's a perfect movie, as it has Renard and Christmas Jones, but I think that TWINE has a spy movie feeling, while GE and TND have an action movie feeling and DAD is just a high-tech mess.

[zencat]

TWINE...TWINE...TWINE. I still can't quite figure out how I feel about this one. I have to kind of tilt my head and look at it the right way to like it. I agree with Ed King that TWINE does have a "spy movie feel" that is missing from the other Brozzo Bonds. When I'm in the mood for TWINE, I like TWINE. I think of it as Brosnan's FRWL, or as a John Gardner book. When I'm not in the mood...GE or DAD goes in the machine. Or better yet...

MOONRAKER!

(Because isn't this a MR thread?)

[DLibrasnow]

I'm sorry Ed, I haven't been able to sit through TWINE since I saw it the first night it was out in the movie theater. I almost walked out in disgust then too...I promised a CBNer (who will remain nameless) that I would try and sit through it a couple of months back but I failed...I simply don't like it - I hold it in the same low regard as "Casino Royale" (1967).

[JimmyBond]

Thats cool DLibrasnow, I pretty much feel the same way about DAF as you do TWINE, which is why it's my least watched Bond film, I just can't stomach Connery in the film trying to emulate Moore, and looking pretty bad as well (I mean cripes! He looked more fit and in shape in NSNA, 10 years later!!!).

Back on topic for a minute. To anyone who saw MR in the theaters when it first came out. At what point did you realize that the movie was going too far with the humor?

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by JimmyBond

Back on topic for a minute. To anyone who saw MR in the theaters when it first came out. At what point did you realize that the movie was going too far with the humor?

I didn't....I was 7 or 8 at the time and I loved it....it was only years later when I saw it on TV that I realized the humor was too outlandish

[Turn]

I also didn't think MR was funny when I saw it in the theater. I was 12 and more interested in everything else going on, from the stunts and gadgets to the pyramid girl. It was a friend of my family who stunned me by saying he didn't like it, that it wasn't like Bond.

Then later on, others came to criticize it and as I grew older I noticed more of the humor. I credit seeing MR that summer as being the film that turned me into a hardcore Bond fan rather than a casual one I was before.

[David Somerset]

You know pretty much whats coming when Jaws starts flapping and then plunges into the circus tent. Mind you when I saw it in the theater, everyone started laughing when Bond catches up with parachute-guy and takes his chute off him. I didn't think that was meant to be a deliberate joke and I wondered why people laughed. Of course, I took Bond pretty seriously in 1979.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

There has been a bunch of 007 movies that at first I hated or just thought were average.. and now I love! they got better with age!!

Moonraker.. I wanted to hate it because of the ending.. but I bet like Star Trek the motion picture.. Moonraker had amazing FX back then!! But watching now.. I love 85% of the movie.. and the ending for me is fine

AVTAK.. I am starting to love this one more & more!

TLD.. I hated Timothy.. he just wasn't Roger. I never saw a change in bond.. I grew up when Roger was already going at it BUT now I love this movie..

LTK.. I thought it was a miami vice rip off back then.. NOW I love this one too, I think they made a different one in the vein of OYMSS

**** All these movies for me now.. I love! They all got better with time. I think the more movie's Pierce makes.. it makes EVERY 007 movie from Sean - Timothy almost 3 - 3 1/2 Stars... (so he is just helping the past average ones for me)

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by 4 Ur Eyez Only
I think the more movie's Pierce makes.. it makes EVERY 007 movie from Sean - Timothy almost 3 - 3 1/2 Stars... (so he is just helping the past average ones for me)

Yep....these mediocre movies that Pierce comes out with make the older ones look even better -- who knew at the time that we had it so good? Every two years we had a new Roger Moore 007 movie to look forward too. Now we have Pierce Brosnan and the kids of Cubby churning out blah movies every three years.

[Dmitri Mishkin]

DLibras...would you prefer a non-Cubby director making radical changes to the franchise unchecked?

The Roger movies were great, no doubt. SPY is always going to be my personal favourite. But Wilson and Broccoli sometimes don't receive as much credit for keeping the series in line these days as they should. It's quite easy to criticize them for experimenting with the series, plugging in CGI, approving a script involving James Bond's torture et al, but I would rather they handle Cubby's baby than not. What's the alternative?

Without it we could have many more 'haunting' modifications made to the series. Or we may not have any at all.

Yes we have had some blah movies/results, true enough (TWINE I can't help but think of, and parts of TND, DAD) but I'm not too quick to pounce on them. They could be doing much worse.

[MrDraco]

I can Honestly say The World Is Not Enough was one the worest....Bond movies...I like all bond movies and loyal to the series but its probably the least watched:
I think Moonraker was an execllent addition to the series, i just read the novilzation, and once i get done with the one of the handful of other bond books i'm reading i'll read flemings..

[zencat]

Originally posted by Dmitri Mishkin Yes we have had some blah movies/results, true enough (TWINE I can't help but think of, and parts of TND, DAD) but I'm not too quick to pounce on them.  They could be doing much worse. [/B]

So true. How many other films series have gone wildly off the rails after just a few films. Look at the Superman series, Batman & Robin, Star Trek V. Conan is a great film. Conan II is complete 180 into the gutter. I'm amazed at how the Bond films have kept it together for 20 films. Maybe there has been elements we didn't like from time to time, but there has never been a "bad" Bond film, nor a "cheap" Bond film. Cubby AND the kids deserve a lot of credit.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by zencat

Maybe there has been elements we didn't like from time to time, but there has never been a "bad" Bond film,  

There was TWINE!

[DLibrasnow]

Since I started watching the Bond movies in the theater in 1979 (with Moonraker) the only Bond movie I never returned to see was TWINE. The last time I was able to watch TWINE all the way through was in 1999.

[Ed King]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


There was TWINE!

And why do you think it's a bad movie?

[DLibrasnow]

- It was boring and they turned James Bond into a Nancy-boy.
- The action setpieces seemed artificial and forced

[Loomis]

Originally posted by The Dove

Lets save all this Licence to Kill stuff for a thread in the Tim Dalton section.  

Fair enough. Would a staff member please split off the last few posts and put them in the Dalton forum.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


Fair enough. Would a staff member please split off the last few posts and put them in the Dalton forum.

I don't think that's necessary, the line was a natural progression of an ongoing discussion. To split it up just because people happened to discuss a Dalton movie to make a point about a Roger Moore movie (ie Moonraker) is rather inane. To butcher the thread by splitting it up would not make any sense whatsoever.

[DLibrasnow]

In many ways 'Moonraker' and 'License to Kill' are quite opposites of each other in the James Bond 007 canon, its an interesting comparison.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

Sorry about that.  

It's cool. I've C&Pd it. Thanks for splitting the LTK-related posts off into the Dalton forum.

[zencat]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
I don't think that's necessary, the line was a natural progression of an ongoing discussion. To split it up just because people happened to discuss a Dalton movie to make a point about a Roger Moore movie (ie Moonraker) is rather inane. To butcher the thread by splitting it up would not make any sense whatsoever.

Good point, DLibrasnow. But the LTK discussion had grown to 21 posts and showed no sign of slowing down... I think it was time to move it into the Dalton forum so some of the hardcord Daltonites could join in (because we all know they would never dare open a Roger Moore thread. )

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by zencat

Good point, DLibrasnow. But the LTK discussion had grown to 21 posts and showed no sign of slowing down... I think it was time to move it into the Dalton forum so some of the hardcord Daltonites could join in (because we all know they would never dare open a Roger Moore thread. )

Yeah, just like I would never open a Timothy Dalton thread

[Blofeld's Cat]

Yes, you have taken a very proprietorlial view of the Rog forum.

[QnotR]

Go Moonraker!

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Blofeld's Cat
Yes, you have taken a very proprietorlial view of the Rog forum.

Cam't go wrong with Sir Roger Moore.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DLibrasnow
[B]

Yeah, just like I would never open a Timothy Dalton thread "

LOL thats funny because I personally haven't gone anywhere but James Bond Thread.. well you know who James Bond is

Roger Moore!

* I think I glanced and post 2 times in general.. BUT My Favorite Folder is set to open in the Roger Section.

How can it not be?????

:cool: Roger is James Bond :cool:

** because of this board I personally have looked at Roger 007 Movies I thought were just ok.. but now seeing it through other peoples eyes.. I have a new respect for those couple movies

Moonraker is 1 love it now
AKTAK is the other love that too..

[DLibrasnow]

The question I have is this -- if Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan (shudder) had done TLD, would there have been a LTK? I don't think so because they tailored LTK to Timothy Daltons style and misplaced attitude of his Bond interpretation. While for the fans of the Fleming novels it was probably fun to see Dalton bring that character to life for the general public it was a tremendous bore. That surely was the reason that LTK flopped in the summer of 1989 -- in one word -- Dalton.
Moonraker on the other hand, now there was a movie that broke Bond box office records around the world, and it starred the only true Bond actor Roger Moore.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

the only true Bond actor Roger Moore.  

Thanks, DLibrasnow. That's the best laugh I've had all week.

[DLibrasnow]

Would LTK have been made if Roger Moore had played 007 in TLD, or if Pierce Brosnan had taken on the role in 1986?
At the time of Daltons announcement in 1986 the Bond producers proclaimed to the world that Dalton had always been their top choice to take on the role of 007 (a claim we now know to be completely false) and that he had been asked to take on the role in 1968 (a claim which we also now know to be dubious at best).
I think "Moonraker" is the antithesis of LTK, a better actor (Moore) and a more Bondian script. Let's face it who out there today other than a few Bond fans, have read Fleming??