81 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

Pierce-Daniel;

The reason Moonraker fell out of popularity with fans in the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) is because it does not conform to the trend in action films of the time.

I'd say that Moonraker fell out of popularity with the fans in the 80s, not the 00s.

[AMC Hornet]

I think a lot more fans can enjoy MR now because 30 years have passed and we know it was not the "death of the series," nor even the shape of things to come; indeed the very next film did an about-face. MR may never be your cup of tea, but it's no longer a *threat* in the way it once was. You can look at it now and enjoy it for what it is, without worrying that it's destroying "your" James Bond or that the next 10 or 15 films will follow its lead; we now know they didn't.

So how long will it be before it's alright to enjoy DAD for what it is, and no longer regard it as a threat, or the death of the series? Like FYEO, CR did an about-face, and I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

I have my reasons for liking DAD (however invalid you may consider them) just as you have your reasons for liking MR. What's interesting is that I agree with your reasons: the direction, cinematography, locations, actors and music are all top-notch. If you are willing to ignore/forgive/accept MR's excesses, then why can't you ease up on DAD? One would think that people who like or dislike MR would likewise like or dislike DAD as well.

Perhaps I need to start a parallel thread for we few geeks who liked DAD, and we can leave each other to our uninterrupted praise.

[zencat]

In that context, I think a lot more fans can enjoy MR now because 30 years have passed and we know it was not the "death of the series," nor even the shape of things to come; indeed the very next film did an about-face. MR may never be your cup of tea, but it's no longer a *threat* in the way it once was. You can look at it now and enjoy it for what it is, without worrying that it's destroying "your" James Bond or that the next 10 or 15 films will follow its lead; we now know they didn't.

Who knows, maybe in 30 years I'll be able to watch DAD with that same sort of detachment and get something positive out of it. And on that day, in the words of a certain sage from Aurora, Illinois, maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Extremely well put.

I do think DAD will find Moonraker-like redemption one day. I have no problems with it, but I'm not ready to lead the charge...yet.

I say all this because with DAD, the shoe was on the other foot. *I* was the fan who saw the series spiraling downward into some horrible thing I no longer wanted a part of, and I was miserable. It was more than a case of DAD being bad; it was that DAD, and the films immediately preceeding it, seemed to be saying, "James Bond isn't what you liked anymore. It is now this other thing, and you can be on your way. Thanks but we no longer require your support."

Weirdly, I'm having somewhat that experience with the Craig era. Thing is, the movies aren't bad. Craig is EXCELLENT and his movies are high quality. But after QOS, I feel like whatever it is that makes me love and support Bond movies is slipping away.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Weirdly, I'm having somewhat that experience with the Craig era. Thing is, the movies aren't bad. Craig is EXCELLENT and his movies are high quality. But after QOS, I feel like whatever it is that makes me love and support Bond movies is slipping away.

I felt a bit like that after DAD, then CR came along and I was invigorated in all things Bond again. You never know how 23 will turn out. Eon are (as I'm sure you know and would agree) expert film makers and know their product inside out. This thread kind of proves this because it must have taken a certain amount of guts to put out MR because it flied in the face of the serious Fleming spy and earnt itself a healthy dose of criticism as a result. Commercially it was the right move though and it fitted with cinema as it was in the late seventies.
With all the water moving under the bridge away from QoS towards Bond 23 we could be looking at a very different kind of film that totally makes sense to you when you see it.

[ChristopherZ22]

Pierce-Daniel;

The reason Moonraker fell out of popularity with fans in the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) is because it does not conform to the trend in action films of the time.

I'd say that Moonraker fell out of popularity with the fans in the 80s, not the 00s.

Roger Moore was able to build an entire fanbase made up of the younger portion of the baby boom generation that were born between the late 1950s and 1964 and grew up during the 1970s and 1980s. This was a significant number of people during the 70s and 80s that loved what Roger Moore was doing as James Bond, including Moonraker. Those that disliked Moonraker and Roger Moore in general during the 1980s were the older baby boomers born between 1946 and 1954 that grew up during the 1960s and were fans of Sean Connery.

Edited by ChristopherZ22, 14 September 2010 - 12:37 PM.

[jaguar007]

Pierce-Daniel;

The reason Moonraker fell out of popularity with fans in the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) is because it does not conform to the trend in action films of the time.

I'd say that Moonraker fell out of popularity with the fans in the 80s, not the 00s.

Roger Moore was able to build an entire fanbase made up of the younger portion of the baby boom generation that were born between the late 1950s and 1964 and grew up during the 1970s and 1980s. This was a significant number of people during the 70s and 80s that loved what Roger Moore was doing as James Bond, including Moonraker. Those that disliked Moonraker and Roger Moore in general during the 1980s were the older baby boomers born between 1946 and 1954 that grew up during the 1960s and were fans of Sean Connery.

I was born in 1968 , I remember by the mid to late 80s MR being panned.

[David_M]

I have my reasons for liking DAD (however invalid you may consider them) just as you have your reasons for liking MR. What's interesting is that I agree with your reasons: the direction, cinematography, locations, actors and music are all top-notch. If you are willing to ignore/forgive/accept MR's excesses, then why can't you ease up on DAD? One would think that people who like or dislike MR would likewise like or dislike DAD as well.

Well, I do leave open the possibility in my post that I will someday like DAD, even if I do end with a joke. Certainly the above objections -- that it's taking the series in the wrong direction, that it's "ruining" Bond -- are no longer valid, since as you say 2002 might as well be 1979, for all the relevance it has now. But then I'm still left with other stuff I don't like; the oppressively numerous and unsubtle "homages" to earlier films, the painfully bad dialog, the Korean-magically-changed-to-Caucasian plot device that makes a space-borne laser battle seem like cinema verite in comparison, and so on.

It's important to me, though, that you don't think I regard your opinions "invalid." Everyone's entitled to their opinions, and more than once the thoughts and insights folks have shared on this board have gotten me to look at less-loved entries with a new perspective. I'm not going to say they always changed my mind, you understand, but different perspectives are always welcome.

Perhaps I need to start a parallel thread for we few geeks who liked DAD, and we can leave each other to our uninterrupted praise.

Oops. I saw that thread and already posted in it, not knowing I may have helped inspire it.

Weirdly, I'm having somewhat that experience with the Craig era. Thing is, the movies aren't bad. Craig is EXCELLENT and his movies are high quality. But after QOS, I feel like whatever it is that makes me love and support Bond movies is slipping away.

You know what, I feel pretty much the same way, but it's weirdly liberating.

The Craig movies are -- to date, anyway -- so far divorced from anything that went before them that I don't even consider them part of the same series. That makes it easier to take or leave them on their own merits and not really care about what they're "doing to Bond." Their attitude seems to be "James Bond is Dead. Long Live James Bond" and I'm cool with that.

I really liked Casino Royale, but it wasn't "my" Bond, it was something new and cool. I really didn't like QoS, but so what, it's not my Bond anyway. They're having trouble getting the next one off the ground but again so what, the series I followed is already finished. It's quite liberating, really.

I guess what I'm saying is that while the various earlier eras could be said to have "tweaked" Bond this way or that to fit the times -- now more humorous, now less, now more machine guns, now more CGI -- the Craig era seems rather to have just thrown away the old formula completely and started from scratch. I'm willing to give them a lot of leeway accordingly; this is a whole new character they're giving us and I'm willing to wait and see where they go with it. And even if I don't like it, and stop going, I haven't "deserted the series," since the series I knew is already over.

Does that make sense? Probably not, but it does to me. I think.

[Guy Haines]

Pierce-Daniel;

The reason Moonraker fell out of popularity with fans in the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) is because it does not conform to the trend in action films of the time.

I'd say that Moonraker fell out of popularity with the fans in the 80s, not the 00s.

Roger Moore was able to build an entire fanbase made up of the younger portion of the baby boom generation that were born between the late 1950s and 1964 and grew up during the 1970s and 1980s. This was a significant number of people during the 70s and 80s that loved what Roger Moore was doing as James Bond, including Moonraker. Those that disliked Moonraker and Roger Moore in general during the 1980s were the older baby boomers born between 1946 and 1954 that grew up during the 1960s and were fans of Sean Connery.

I was born in the year the Bond film series began. I rated Connery ahead of Moore as Bond, and still do - I'd seen all of Sean's Bond films before the first of Roger's was released. Not all of us who appreciated Connery's Bond were older baby boomers. Some were kids like me who had grown out of children's films quite early.

[AMC Hornet]

Please be assured, David_M, that the "you" I mentioned earlier wasn't directed at you or anyone else specifically. It was a generic "you" encompassing anyone who feels vindicated in praising MR while at the same time slamming DAD (why do these two get compared so often, anyway? They're not as similar as say, YOLT and TSWLM).

I also appreciate your comments about respecting opinions. There is far less childish sniping in these forums (lately) than I've seen at some other sites populated by arrogant, opinionated fanboys. That's why I prefer to pontifacte here rather than elsewhere.

To me Casino Royale represents the first honest effort since OHMSS to really present the James Bond character the way Fleming wrote him (I'd include the Dalton films too, but in this instance I'm speaking primarily of Bond in an original Fleming story). DAD was definitely Sauturday matinee with popcorn Bond (as was Moonraker - there, now I'm doing it myself).

I'm glad that the films have incorporated such a variety of themes and styles over the years. How long would the series have lasted if they'd all been just like FRWL? (A: How long can Bourne last when all the movies are just like The Bourne Identity?)

Let's keep this going. I'm enjoying the friendly conflict.

Edited by AMC Hornet, 14 September 2010 - 09:36 PM.

[jaguar007]

I agree with you AMC. I can see from David M's point of view, the Craig Bond is completely different from most of the Bond movies we have had over the last 40 years, yet I find them closer to the original Bond films like Dr. No or FRWL than I find movies like TSWLM, MR, TND, DAD etc (not saying those are bad films, I quite like a couple of them).

Bond has always changed with the times and that is why he lasts for so long. THe Craig films are no further off from the originals than the Moore or Brosnan films were

[David_M]

Bond has always changed with the times and that is why he lasts for so long. THe Craig films are no further off from the originals than the Moore or Brosnan films were

I quite agree. The Craig films are totally different from the original films in precisely the opposite way from how the Moore and Brosnan films are totally different from them. :-)

I look at it this way; I was too young to get in the ground floor when Bond was first adapted for the screen, but I am here now and it's like they're doing it again for the first time, with nothing to look back on and cheat from. Pretty exciting in that context.

[AMC Hornet]

it's like they're doing it again for the first time, with nothing to look back on and cheat from. Pretty exciting in that context.

[draxingtonstanley]

What a superb thread. I love Moonraker. The broad humour is a little distracting and detracting at times,but then 70s Bond,and TSWLM(Moonraker's older brother) were contending at the box office with films that encroached on Bond territory such as the Pink Panther films.
Broccoli very astutely decided to out send up the send ups,yet managed to maintain a thread of acute jeopardy, danger and ..well..Bondness in the Bond films.
Moonraker was the first Bond film I saw at the cinema. I clearly remember another kid about my age running past me into the theatre shouting"Here goes viewing number 10". It's easy to forget how phenomenally popular Roger's Bond was in his full 70s pomp,particularly among the next generation of Bond fans,such as
myself,who were first starting to hit the cinemas. Could it be,I wonder,that EON were and are astute enough to gauge this generational demographic and cut the cloth accordingly? I have little time for those who sniffily dismiss the space finale. For an 11 year old Bond fan who had had his socks blown off by Star Wars only two years before,to see Bond go literally into orbit was wondrous,thrilling and entirely apt. I cut DAD a lot of slack for the same reason-it was hugely popular and that invisible Aston Martin probably delighted a whole load of 11 year old Bond fans who had recently thrilled to Harry Potter and the LOTR films. Plus I loved it a t the time and saw it 4 times at the cinema. So there.

BTW I'm rewatching QOS for the umpteenth time and I have to say I think it may be THE most potent distillation of all that I love about Bond films since OHMSS. Marc Forster,I salute you!

[draxingtonstanley]

Oh and one more thing about Moonraker.

Derek Meddings. Genius.

RIP. A magician who wove spells throughout my tv and cinema viewing life.

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 15 September 2010 - 01:24 AM.

[AMC Hornet]

That was a lovely tribute, Drax - cheers.

My only rebuttle is to ask: Should James Bond movies be geared towards 11-year olds?

Fleming himself said that his books targeted middle-aged adolescents and granted, I was reading Fleming when I was 12, indicating that the target age was dropping, but even movies like DAF - however sophomoric - still had a 'mature' rating (which didn't keep me out).

Yes, it was a canny move on Cubby's part to make Bond "sadism for the family" and double his potential audience (and box-office return). They tried the same thing in las Vegas in the 90s, but gave it up in favour of bringing back the adult playground theme. EON has done the same, and for the same reason: consumers are getting more savvy and sophisticated, and expect more edginess for their money.

But that trend could be changing again. After two decades of Jack Ryan, Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne, perhaps it is time for something a little more "fun." 007 has been through the wringer, now let's see him take on the kind of missions that he joined MI6 for - the kind that deplete his government expense account.

[draxingtonstanley]

That was a lovely tribute, Drax - cheers.

My only rebuttle is to ask: Should James Bond movies be geared towards 11-year olds?

Fleming himself said that his books targeted middle-aged adolescents and granted, I was reading Fleming when I was 12, indicating that the target age was dropping, but even movies like DAF - however sophomoric - still had a 'mature' rating (which didn't keep me out).

Yes, it was a canny move on Cubby's part to make Bond "sadism for the family" and double his potential audience (and box-office return). They tried the same thing in las Vegas in the 90s, but gave it up in favour of bringing back the adult playground theme. EON has done the same, and for the same reason: consumers are getting more savvy and sophisticated, and expect more edginess for their money.

But that trend could be changing again. After two decades of Jack Ryan, Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne, perhaps it is time for something a little more "fun." 007 has been through the wringer, now let's see him take on the kind of missions that he joined MI6 for - the kind that deplete his government expense account.







Thank you AMC,you're welcome. You make a good point,and to answer your rebuttal;I wouldn't say that either MR or DAD were aimed exclusively at 11 year olds,rather that they were broader in tone so as to include 11 year olds a little more than usual in a Bond movie.
Although,I have to say I was watching Bond movies on tv from a very young age,and found all the films engaging as a child.

I think MR stretched the 'sadism for the whole family' concept as far as it could go,and can quite understand why that's too far for some(the double taking pigeon does jar for me). But the concepts involved in Drax's scheme (genocide,chemical weapons of mass destruction) are weighty enough that the pill can take some sugar. I would imagine that today's 11 year olds could handle something a great deal edgier than MR and DAD,thus the longer in tooth among us could still derive a great deal of edgy enjoyment from a future MR type of Bond movie.

And I share your anticipation of Bond managing to have a little more fun at the British taxpayer's expense in the future. It's worth noting that TSWLM and MR were parading their opulent escapism to a British audience that had suffered a cash strapped 70s economy replete with massive industrial unrest etc-
escapism may come back into vogue. What goes around comes around.

Edited by draxingtonstanley, 15 September 2010 - 11:30 AM.

[David_M]

My only rebuttle is to ask: Should James Bond movies be geared towards 11-year olds?

I don't know that they ever were, really. For all the "juvenile" aspects of MR, there is still a good deal of sex and death. And while CR and QoS may seem "more adult" in comparison, the only thing that's really different (in terms of age-appropriateness) is the way the sex and death are presented. Frankly, I'd be surprised to find the demographics have changed much in 30 years. The only difference is that today's 11-year-olds are more comfortable with "realistic" violence and sexual content than their 1979 predecessors. Three decades of cable and video games have had an impact.

[Turn]

My only rebuttle is to ask: Should James Bond movies be geared towards 11-year olds?

I don't know that they ever were, really. For all the "juvenile" aspects of MR, there is still a good deal of sex and death. And while CR and QoS may seem "more adult" in comparison, the only thing that's really different (in terms of age-appropriateness) is the way the sex and death are presented. Frankly, I'd be surprised to find the demographics have changed much in 30 years. The only difference is that today's 11-year-olds are more comfortable with "realistic" violence and sexual content than their 1979 predecessors. Three decades of cable and video games have had an impact.

I agree. I recall my daughter being in fourth grade when CR was released and telling me some of her male classmates, ages 9-10, were talking about the film very excitedly. Two years later she also mentioned they were excited about seeing QoS.

I have a friend whose kids are being raised on Bond films. Just the other day one of them, who is a teen now, came up to me and told me she mentioned Moneypenny to her boyfriend and he had no idea who that was, so she had to inform him. Now he's converted.

[Skudor]

Moonraker is one of my all time favourite Bonds. The space thing botheres me on an intellectual level, but when I watch the film I completely buy into the story. Drax is fantastic, one of (if not the) best villain of the series. Moore is also on form. There is actually some grit within the humour - the dogs chasing through the woods. The locations are stunning. It's just fantastic, pure and simple. I also think it's aged better than it's sibling - TWSLM.

[Guy Haines]

That was a lovely tribute, Drax - cheers.

My only rebuttle is to ask: Should James Bond movies be geared towards 11-year olds?

Fleming himself said that his books targeted middle-aged adolescents and granted, I was reading Fleming when I was 12, indicating that the target age was dropping, but even movies like DAF - however sophomoric - still had a 'mature' rating (which didn't keep me out).

Yes, it was a canny move on Cubby's part to make Bond "sadism for the family" and double his potential audience (and box-office return). They tried the same thing in las Vegas in the 90s, but gave it up in favour of bringing back the adult playground theme. EON has done the same, and for the same reason: consumers are getting more savvy and sophisticated, and expect more edginess for their money.

But that trend could be changing again. After two decades of Jack Ryan, Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne, perhaps it is time for something a little more "fun." 007 has been through the wringer, now let's see him take on the kind of missions that he joined MI6 for - the kind that deplete his government expense account.







Thank you AMC,you're welcome. You make a good point,and to answer your rebuttal;I wouldn't say that either MR or DAD were aimed exclusively at 11 year olds,rather that they were broader in tone so as to include 11 year olds a little more than usual in a Bond movie.
Although,I have to say I was watching Bond movies on tv from a very young age,and found all the films engaging as a child.

I think MR stretched the 'sadism for the whole family' concept as far as it could go,and can quite understand why that's too far for some(the double taking pigeon does jar for me). But the concepts involved in Drax's scheme (genocide,chemical weapons of mass destruction) are weighty enough that the pill can take some sugar. I would imagine that today's 11 year olds could handle something a great deal edgier than MR and DAD,thus the longer in tooth among us could still derive a great deal of edgy enjoyment from a future MR type of Bond movie.

And I share your anticipation of Bond managing to have a little more fun at the British taxpayer's expense in the future. It's worth noting that TSWLM and MR were parading their opulent escapism to a British audience that had suffered a cash strapped 70s economy replete with massive industrial unrest etc-
escapism may come back into vogue. What goes around comes around.

You may welcome Bond having more fun at the British taxpayer's expense. I'll bet our current government here doesn't! I can just picture the scene in the MoD - "another Aston Martin write off, courtesy of 007. That's next year's departmental budget gone up in smoke!"

[AMC Hornet]

It's MI6's own fault, for providing CraigBond with stock models. Maybe next time they'll invest in some armour plating.

[Achille Aubergine]

It's a good film that's true. But I think Lois Chiles wasn't a good choice. Sygourney Weaver would have been a perfect Holly Goodhead in my opinion.
The death of Sir Hugo is a big disappointment and I hate the job of the costume designer about the spacesuits.
Corinne Clery, the french actress was a celebrity at this time. I remember I was very upset by her quick death...
The score was one of my favorite.