James Bond: The Ultimate Collection (1962-2012) + Volume Collections

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by MJD64

What really kills the pre-credits sequence in For Your Eyes Only for me is when the quasi-comical music by Bill Conti kicks in...that and the "I'll buy you a delicatessen, in stainless steel!" line (still the most WTF line in the series, IMO).

I rather enjoy Roger Moore giving a smile to his pursuers in FYEO, as surely as I enjoyed his smile in response to Caroline Munro's wink as she's attempting to machine-gun his Lotus Esprit from the air in The Spy Who Loved Me, or his smiling at Jaws prior to a couple of fight scenes in Moonraker.

That smile in response to danger was rather a Moore specialty, no?

In the other 2 moments you mention the smile was quite apt. With Munro he smiled at her when she was not in a position to blow him away so it didn't feel out of place and neither did his smile at Jaws on the cable car but in the FYEO only chase they were being shot at repeatedly and the logic lapses when the bad guys come alongside and just sit there doing nothing. Logic lapses again when Bond spends a lot of time blowing up boats in the Moonraker chase, paraglides away from the waterfall and then simply walks into the villains lair with no attempt to conceal himself.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I think the humour in the PTS of FYEO was meant to be ridiculous as a way of emasculating the Blofeld character as a middle-finger to Kevin McClory.

The only sequence in that film that truly makes me cringe is the Maggie & Denis sequence at the end - *squak* give us a kiss, give us a kiss, "Oh, Mr. Bond".

Humour was a hallmark of the Roger Moore era though. Even though these jokes are pretty god-awful now I still smirk when I see them and at the time, people like that. It's just by the time AVTAK came out, a new era of action film had begun.

I agree that humour was more prevalent in the Moore era but most of the time it wasn't as silly as it became later.
Interesting to read how everyone has different favourites. I find AVTAK to be the weakest of all the Moore movies although I would watch it over Live and Let Die.
AVTAK ranks lowest for me because Moore is too old for starters, Tanya Roberts just doesn't work for me as the Bond girl, and the rather extended fire engine chase doesn't thrill me. It seems indulgent.
But its a Bond movie so I'd go for it over many other movies. I'm now watching the entire series again and reached the point where my wife wants to see the rest so Goldeneye has to wait until next wednesday. Brosnans best and in my Top 5 of the whole series. And also the only one where I love the soundtrack as much as the John Barry scored ones

[MJD64]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

In the other 2 moments you mention the smile was quite apt. With Munro he smiled at her when she was not in a position to blow him away so it didn't feel out of place and neither did his smile at Jaws on the cable car but in the FYEO only chase they were being shot at repeatedly and the logic lapses when the bad guys come alongside and just sit there doing nothing. Logic lapses again when Bond spends a lot of time blowing up boats in the Moonraker chase, paraglides away from the waterfall and then simply walks into the villains lair with no attempt to conceal himself.

I can accept plenty of lapses in logic in a Bond film, especially one from the Moore era. I like to believe the bad guys are disarmed by a combination of Moore's winning smile and a better view of Carole Bouqet's knockout beauty, can't bring themselves to empty their guns into this attractive couple and simply attempt to knock them off the road...but I take your point.

Moonraker is so irresistibly silly and cheekily entertaining (for me anyways, I know how roundly reviled it is by the majority of Bond fans) the lapses in logic have never bothered me.The fact that Bond walks away from his crash-landing in the jungle and almost immediately spies a blonde lovely in a low-cut gown who leads him straight to the temple is ridiculous enough and besides, Bond's immediate capture leads to Drax explaining his entire nefarious scheme to him...leading to that age-old argument and lapse in logic as to why do bad guys in Bond films explain their foul plots instead of simply killing Bond when he's right there in front of them?

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by MJD64

I can accept plenty of lapses in logic in a Bond film, especially one from the Moore era. I like to believe the bad guys are disarmed by a combination of Moore's winning smile and a better view of Carole Bouqet's knockout beauty, can't bring themselves to empty their guns into this attractive couple and simply attempt to knock them off the road...but I take your point.

Moonraker is so irresistibly silly and cheekily entertaining (for me anyways, I know how roundly reviled it is by the majority of Bond fans) the lapses in logic have never bothered me.The fact that Bond walks away from his crash-landing in the jungle and almost immediately spies a blonde lovely in a low-cut gown who leads him straight to the temple is ridiculous enough and besides, Bond's immediate capture leads to Drax explaining his entire nefarious scheme to him...leading to that age-old argument and lapse in logic as to why do bad guys in Bond films explain their foul plots instead of simply killing Bond when he's right there in front of them?

I've always enjoyed Moonraker. I remember how it was savaged when it came out, criticism mainly aimed at the bad guy falling from the boat after the chase and the sequence of Bond emerging from the water ala SWLM. Although it was OTT in many places it didn't seem as unnecessary as the bits I mentioned before.
Bond to Holly about Jaws - "Don't worry , they'll be ok , its only 100 miles to earth".
And the take off pressure testing machine is a great sequence for most of the time. When Bond emerges its the one and only time I can recall seeing him genuinely powerless as he staggers from the machine almost unable to stand (great acting from Moore) yet all it takes is one glance over at the oriental guy and he then walks away as if nothing had happened. Once again a lost opportunity.
And the John Barry score is one of his best, although the main title song is nothing special.
The music as Bond exits the pressure tester, the death of Corinne Dufour, the remixed 007 theme for the boat chase, and the majestic space music as they approach the space station.

[MJD64]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

I've always enjoyed Moonraker. I remember how it was savaged when it came out, criticism mainly aimed at the bad guy falling from the boat after the chase and the sequence of Bond emerging from the water ala SWLM. Although it was OTT in many places it didn't seem as unnecessary as the bits I mentioned before.
Bond to Holly about Jaws - "Don't worry , they'll be ok , its only 100 miles to earth".
And the take off pressure testing machine is a great sequence for most of the time. When Bond emerges its the one and only time I can recall seeing him genuinely powerless as he staggers from the machine almost unable to stand (great acting from Moore) yet all it takes is one glance over at the oriental guy and he then walks away as if nothing had happened. Once again a lost opportunity.
And the John Barry score is one of his best, although the main title song is nothing special.
The music as Bond exits the pressure tester, the death of Corinne Dufour, the remixed 007 theme for the boat chase, and the majestic space music as they approach the space station.

Good observation on that centrifuge sequence in Moonraker, it marks the only time in seven films that Moore's Bond seemed genuinely pained and surprised and it leaves him literally speechless; no bad puns or joking response as he silently refuses help and walks away from Lois Chiles (and Moore handles that seriousness well). Of course, the fact that Drax has attempted to kill Bond (not once but twice) and he still allows himself to be chauffeured to the airport immediately after the second assassination attempt is beyond illogical and silly.

I saw Moonraker theatrically in '79 at 14 and loved it so perhaps a certain nostalgia colors my view, but yeah, I still quite enjoy it. I like all of John Barry's Bond scores, though Goldfinger, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Moonraker remain personal favorites.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

I've always enjoyed Moonraker. I remember how it was savaged when it came out, criticism mainly aimed at the bad guy falling from the boat after the chase and the sequence of Bond emerging from the water ala SWLM. Although it was OTT in many places it didn't seem as unnecessary as the bits I mentioned before.
Bond to Holly about Jaws - "Don't worry , they'll be ok , its only 100 miles to earth".
And the take off pressure testing machine is a great sequence for most of the time. When Bond emerges its the one and only time I can recall seeing him genuinely powerless as he staggers from the machine almost unable to stand (great acting from Moore) yet all it takes is one glance over at the oriental guy and he then walks away as if nothing had happened. Once again a lost opportunity.
And the John Barry score is one of his best, although the main title song is nothing special.
The music as Bond exits the pressure tester, the death of Corinne Dufour, the remixed 007 theme for the boat chase, and the majestic space music as they approach the space station.

I think one of the main criticisms of Moonraker was that by climaxing with a laser gun battle in outer space, the series had definitely gone as far from Fleming's original concept as possible. I can't disagree with that, as that's one of my least cherished moments in the series but the majority of the film is a very solid Bond picture. I especially enjoy the entire sequence of the film set in Rio and the scene where Jaws is dressed up in the carnival costume and starts to stalk Manuela is really quite creepy.

[stonesfan129]

I still find On Her Majesty's Secret Service to be the best Bond film, with Casino Royale (the version with Daniel Craig) being a very close second. It had the most believable plot of any of them, the acting was also very good. I felt like Diamonds Are Forever was a letdown. It should have been a true revenge story more like Licence To Kill was. I'm curious why the movies never followed the books. Some of the names in the books were a little silly, but they could have changed that and stuck more to those storylines and it would have made all of them more believable. With the Daniel Craig reboot I was thinking they were going to do that, then it got stupid with the whole Spectre thing and Blofield being Bond's stepbrother who had daddy issues. And even though I think Christoph Waltz is a great actor, he just doesn't fit that part imo. I would have had Michael Fassbender play that part. I'd also like to see Oddjob and Jaws brought back as villains. I would have Ken Wantanabe play Oddjob and probably Michael Shannon as Jaws.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

I still find On Her Majesty's Secret Service to be the best Bond film, with Casino Royale (the version with Daniel Craig) being a very close second. It had the most believable plot of any of them, the acting was also very good. I felt like Diamonds Are Forever was a letdown. It should have been a true revenge story more like Licence To Kill was. I'm curious why the movies never followed the books. Some of the names in the books were a little silly, but they could have changed that and stuck more to those storylines and it would have made all of them more believable. With the Daniel Craig reboot I was thinking they were going to do that, then it got stupid with the whole Spectre thing and Blofield being Bond's stepbrother who had daddy issues. And even though I think Christoph Waltz is a great actor, he just doesn't fit that part imo. I would have had Michael Fassbender play that part.

If you mean why didn't they release them in the same order, they couldn't because at first they did not have the rights to Casino Royale, which was the first novel, so they just went with what worked at the time.

If you mean, why didn't they follow the plots... well the early movies did. There were some changes, but that's normal for any book to movie adaptation, but by and large the plots of the first few movies are recognizable in the books. But as time went on, they kind of had to diverge by necessity. For example, the original novel of The Man With The Golden Gun picks up where You Only Live Twice left off which would no longer work in the movies. As time went on, the movie series just became it's own animal.

[jackinbox]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

If you mean why didn't they release them in the same order, they couldn't because at first they did not have the rights to Casino Royale, which was the first novel, so they just went with what worked at the time.

I really wish Feldman had made a straight-up Bond film with Casino Royale instead of a spoof. It really would have been interesting to see what they would have done with it.

[jonam]

We have to accept that the Bond movies have just adapted with the times. The premise has always been the same regardless who has played Bond. The villain would attempt to kill Bond in the most extravagant way possible and each Bond would play to their own interpretation of Bond. So in some ways the Moore Bond movies added so much more fun with the camp and humor associated with his persona and for 12 years clearly worked.

No matter how many Universe's there are, The Star Wars, The Marvels, the Bond universe will still be revisited and enjoyed for another few more years. The longer we wait there will be spoofs in between to fill in the time until the next big Bond extravaganza.

THE SPY WHO DUMPED ME Official Trailer (2018) Mila Kunis, Kate McKinnon Comedy Movie HD - YouTube

Johnny English Strikes Again - Official Trailer (HD) - Coming Soon - YouTube

plus this:

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) - Official Trailer - Paramount Pictures - YouTube

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by jackinbox

I really wish Feldman had made a straight-up Bond film with Casino Royale instead of a spoof. It really would have been interesting to see what they would have done with it.

Absolutely. He had the rights to the only Bond property Eon had no access to and decided to make it a spoof, which were basically a dime-a-dozen by 1967. Though I accept the film for what it is now, it has to be one of the biggest missed opportunities in film history.

From what I've read, he was intending to make a more serious film and tried to coax Connery into starring in it (as if that would happen) but when that plan failed, he took the comedy route. Having just enjoyed huge success with What's New Pussycat though, I personally have trouble believing Feldman didn't just decide to take the comedy route right from the get-go.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I think one of the main criticisms of Moonraker was that by climaxing with a laser gun battle in outer space, the series had definitely gone as far from Fleming's original concept as possible. I can't disagree with that, as that's one of my least cherished moments in the series but the majority of the film is a very solid Bond picture. I especially enjoy the entire sequence of the film set in Rio and the scene where Jaws is dressed up in the carnival costume and starts to stalk Manuela is really quite creepy.

I think the laser battle was a given as they had opted to go for Moonraker even after stating For Your Eyes Only was next at the end of TSWLM purely on the back of the success of Star Wars. Like some of the Fleming novels the original plot of Moonraker was far too small scale. IIRC Moonraker was the most expensive Bond picture ever made at the time of production. Even though they didn't make it at Pinewood.

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

I still find On Her Majesty's Secret Service to be the best Bond film, with Casino Royale (the version with Daniel Craig) being a very close second. It had the most believable plot of any of them, the acting was also very good. I felt like Diamonds Are Forever was a letdown..

I agree OHMSS is the best Bond movie by a mile. In the documentary director Peter Hunt states what seems obvious now that the death scene should have been the opening of DAF not the end of OHMSS. Pretty obvious that audiences would walk out feeling let down after the thrill ride action and Bond finally finding a wife only for her to die within minutes of getting married.
Harder to think how it could have ended on a worse downer.
They already had an uphill struggle by using Lazenby so to end like that was almost suicide

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

I agree OHMSS is the best Bond movie by a mile. In the documentary director Peter Hunt states what seems obvious now that the death scene should have been the opening of DAF not the end of OHMSS. Pretty obvious that audiences would walk out feeling let down after the thrill ride action and Bond finally finding a wife only for her to die within minutes of getting married.
Harder to think how it could have ended on a worse downer.
They already had an uphill struggle by using Lazenby so to end like that was almost suicide

I disagree with that thinking. Having the death scene at the end of the film is true to the book and while I realize it's a bit of a downer, I think any mature audience member would recognize how powerful it is ending the film that way. I've never seen it as distracting to the thrill ride that precedes it.

The Empire Strikes Back also ends on a down note and it's recognized by many as the superior film in the original Star Wars trilogy - partly because of that ending.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I disagree with that thinking. Having the death scene at the end of the film is true to the book and while I realize it's a bit of a downer, I think any mature audience member would recognize how powerful it is ending the film that way. I've never seen it as distracting to the thrill ride that precedes it.

The Empire Strikes Back also ends on a down note and it's recognized by many as the superior film in the original Star Wars trilogy - partly because of that ending.

That's modern thinking though. I'm imagining what 1969 audiences would have felt. And the director agrees.

Empire Strikes Back is recognised now but I bet people were very pissed off in 1980 although I don't think of it the same way as the Bond film.
The Star Wars saga was ongoing so the only downside was the delay. But with OHMSS they'd done what no Bond film had done before and I think that ending is part of the reason the reputation of the movie took a hammering for decades.

Empire Strikes Back would have annoyed people in the same way Back to the Future Part 2 did for anyone coming in not knowing they needed to see another movie to complete the story

[stonesfan129]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

I think the laser battle was a given as they had opted to go for Moonraker even after stating For Your Eyes Only was next at the end of TSWLM purely on the back of the success of Star Wars. Like some of the Fleming novels the original plot of Moonraker was far too small scale. IIRC Moonraker was the most expensive Bond picture ever made at the time of production. Even though they didn't make it at Pinewood.



I agree OHMSS is the best Bond movie by a mile. In the documentary director Peter Hunt states what seems obvious now that the death scene should have been the opening of DAF not the end of OHMSS. Pretty obvious that audiences would walk out feeling let down after the thrill ride action and Bond finally finding a wife only for her to die within minutes of getting married.
Harder to think how it could have ended on a worse downer.
They already had an uphill struggle by using Lazenby so to end like that was almost suicide

Right and the way they opened DAF didn't really make sense to me. Bond just seems to forget all about it after throwing a few people around for a couple of minutes.

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

Right and the way they opened DAF didn't really make sense to me. Bond just seems to forget all about it after throwing a few people around for a couple of minutes.

Yes. The ending of OHMSS meant that the death had to be acknowledged but the way they went about it was so wrong.
The realism of OHMSS went out the window. The tone of DAF was completely wrong for what it should have been which is why I think it rates as Connerys weakest

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

That's modern thinking though. I'm imagining what 1969 audiences would have felt. And the director agrees.

Empire Strikes Back is recognised now but I bet people were very pissed off in 1980 although I don't think of it the same way as the Bond film.
The Star Wars saga was ongoing so the only downside was the delay. But with OHMSS they'd done what no Bond film had done before and I think that ending is part of the reason the reputation of the movie took a hammering for decades.

Empire Strikes Back would have annoyed people in the same way Back to the Future Part 2 did for anyone coming in not knowing they needed to see another movie to complete the story

I wasn’t around in 1969 either so I can only speculate. Maybe someone who was around at the time can weigh in with their thoughts. I just think that having Bond ride off happily into the sunset would have been so unsatisfying to anyone who would have read the book, taking one of the hallmark moments of the story and replacing it with a Hollywood happy ending. And Peter Hunt may agree with you but Richard Maibaum and the producers are on my side.

Considering how things turned out with Lazenby not returning I think it was wise to not do that anyway, things could have gotten messy.

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

Right and the way they opened DAF didn't really make sense to me. Bond just seems to forget all about it after throwing a few people around for a couple of minutes.

I think that was the point. With Connery back, they kind of wanted to forget OHMSS ever happened. Don’t forget that OHMSS was mainly Saltzman’s baby and DAF was mainly Cubby’s and they weren’t exactly seeing eye to eye at the time.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

Yes. The ending of OHMSS meant that the death had to be acknowledged but the way they went about it was so wrong.
The realism of OHMSS went out the window. The tone of DAF was completely wrong for what it should have been which is why I think it rates as Connerys weakest

That may be due to in-production revisionism. The guy who wound up owning the bathosub later on got to visit the DIAMONDS set. In an old issue of BONDAGE he mentioned being told that Bond would make a large issue of his wife's death when talking with Blofeld during the Whyte House sequence. And he mentioned several other bits and ideas, none of which are present in the final film. Wish I still had those mags ...

[Man From Hammer]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

I wasn’t around in 1969 either so I can only speculate. Maybe someone who was around at the time can weigh in with their thoughts. I just think that having Bond ride off happily into the sunset would have been so unsatisfying to anyone who would have read the book, taking one of the hallmark moments of the story and replacing it with a Hollywood happy ending. And Peter Hunt may agree with you but Richard Maibaum and the producers are on my side.

The films frequently didn't follow the books but I think it would have been a good idea to shift the death of Mrs Bond to the start of DAF. I just don't think 1969 audiences of 007 were ready for that much of a downbeat ending.
They wouldn't replace the moment, just adjust the timeline slightly.
It would have made for a more powerful start to DAF and maybe, just maybe they would have come up with a more satisfying movie than DAF which is weak in so many places.

It was Lazenbys decision to quit. He turned down a 6 movie contract and a cash sweetener from Saltzman. I don't think it took him long to realise the mistake he had made

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Man From Hammer

The films frequently didn't follow the books but I think it would have been a good idea to shift the death of Mrs Bond to the start of DAF. I just don't think 1969 audiences of 007 were ready for that much of a downbeat ending.
They wouldn't replace the moment, just adjust the timeline slightly.
It would have made for a more powerful start to DAF and maybe, just maybe they would have come up with a more satisfying movie than DAF which is weak in so many places.

It was Lazenbys decision to quit. He turned down a 6 movie contract and a cash sweetener from Saltzman. I don't think it took him long to realise the mistake he had made

If your ongoing concern for what 1969 audiences must have thought about it is your way of assessing whether or not that was a reason for its poor box office performance relative to the films that came before and after it, I think there were other factors at play there. Well, one and that was the fact that Connery wasn’t in it.

Otherwise I still think OHMSS is a great and memorable film because of its ending and I wouldn’t have it any other way, Peter Hunt and theoretical disappointed 1969 audience members be damned.