42 replies to this topic

[ChandlerBing]

Would the prequel to Dr. No be set in 1961 or 1962 then? What time period would it be?

[SirMiles83]

That's very hard because if there was to be a prequel now for Pierce, considering his age it would have to be set during the height of the Cold War. But that isn't much of a prequel seeing as that is when most of Connery's Bond films were done in. I would like a prequel of some sorts, but it would be hard to do.

[ChandlerBing]

If this Bond were set in the early 60s, could they do some Gumping and put Bond into footage with President Kennedy? I think that would be very nice considering the debt Bond owes to JFK.

[Blofeld's Cat]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Would the prequel to Dr. No be set in 1961 or 1962 then?  What time period would it be?

My idea for this last Bond movie is that it's set at the time of production with subtle references (in-jokes?) throughout the story to indicate that it could be a prequal of sorts to Dr. No.

The mention of "MI7" by M, hints of a US rocket launch programme (maybe related to that Star Wars defence system that seems to be dragging its heels), and Bond using a beretta instead of a walther could interest Bond fans, but would not seem out of place to the general audience.

Sort of in-joke homages to Dr. No, although I'm getting sick and tired of that word now.

[kevrichardson]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Would the prequel to Dr. No be set in 1961 or 1962 then?  What time period would it be?

Then we are back to the silly idea of Casino Royale.

[ChandlerBing]

I like the idea of a Dr. No prequel, but how in the bloody hell would you do it? I also like the earlier idea mentioned about indirect references to rocket launches, the Beretta, stuff like that.

[thuffner]

It'd be tough to pull off a prequel. I wonder how they are gonna end it...Or if they do...

[[dark]]

Great idea, Blofeld's Cat! Very inspired!

I agree about the film being set in the present day. Given each Bond film has been set when it was made, it wouldn't make sense to change that now.

[BondNumber7]

Speaking of how long Bond can last, how about film preservation and keeping the Connery, Lazenby and Moore pictures intact. How long can they make these films survive. Will Dr. No be watched in 2062?

[Dunph]

How do you mean Number7? I think Dr No will definitely be watched in 2062, and it will be held in even higher regard, for it was a picture that changed the face of cinema, and action cinema.

It will be strange in 2062 looking back and celebrating 100 years of Bond, he will, by then I'm sure have become infinitely more famous, though whether he will be looked at in retrospect, or if he is still an ongoing legend is another matter.

If the series had to end, I suggest putting a question mark over the whole affair; From Russia With Love novel style, or You Only Live Twice novel style. Have the audience try to guess whether he's dead or not.
That would still be a neat trick to play on the audience in a coming Bond film, and something theproducers should employ. Make the audience question Bond's fate. And seriously. Not just have them say "oh, he'll have just escaped with seconds to spare," have them asking whether Bond has just popped his clogs.

[BondNumber7]

Originally posted by Dunphboy007 How do you mean Number7?

There are some silent pictures that have not survived and do not exist anymore. I know I won't be alive to see 2079, but I hope Moonraker will still be around. These films really need to be preserved.

[Dunph]

Oh, I see. I'm sure eventually they may become lost, as those that have fond memories linked to the watching of them will die. But as long as the series continues, I'm sure the older films will be held in very high regard.

In fact, I'm sure if the series ends, then the films will still be held in high regard, as I said above, they changed the face of cinema as it was known. Moonraker, though I felt, for the first time, the series stopped becoming innovative and became imitative. Luckily, by For Your Eyes Only, that changed again.

[BondNumber7]

The are plenty of innovative things in Moonraker. The centrifugal training machine which "simulates the gravity that one feels when shot into space," had much tension and it was something new. Also, the cable car fight, sky diving sequence, and Bond and Goodhead racing for the globes are some of the series best action scenes. I was reading a review of Moonraker in a July 2, 1979 issue of Time magazine and they thought the writing was smart in which they liked the changing of Jaws's character so that he doesn't repeat what he did in TSWLM and making him fall in love. I agree with that view and believe it worked to make the giant more human. However, the critic still thought TSWLM was the best Bond film in the post Connery era and that even though Moonraker has a good theme song, "Time" stated that "Nobody Does It Better" was a better song than Moonraker. Basically, they thought Moonraker was very entertaining and they were disappointed that another two years would have to go by before they saw the next Bond movie(For Your Eyes Only). The locations in Moonraker are some of the series best, and in my opinion the film is alot of fun. Many feel that the space section is the silliest, but it is actually more serious than the Earth scenes where most of the jokes are carried out. Holly Goodhead may have a boring personality, but she is still attractive and Drax is definitely not one of the series worst villians. There are other great scenes like Bond shooting Drax's henchman from the tree, the scientists getting a sniff of the nerve gas, the knife thrower in the coffin, or Corinne being attacked by dogs. There are plenty of fun and entertaining scenes and I don't believe Moonraker to be a total waste of time.