The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

Guess you don't know what . . . suspension of disbelief means. It is prevelant throughout Hollywood movies. Always has been, always will be.

I'm sorry, were you meaning to direct this comment at yourself?

You were the one who was complaining about how implausible The Spy Who Loved Me and other Moore-era Bond films are.

[zen007]

Bond films are "unrealistic"

Shredded Wheat (Richard Kiel, James Bond Jaws) - 80s Advert - YouTube

[HotRats]

The Drinker did a good piece on the film

Drinker's Extra Shots - The Spy Who Loved Me - YouTube

My favourite Moore Bond too. If Sir Rog had quit after this or even For Your Eyes Only he would be very well thought of as Bond, he was the ideal actor for the 1970s. Wonderful title song from Carly Simon, too

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Martoto

I prefer Diamonds Are Forever to this.

and I prefer Diamonds Are Forever to Moonraker

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

and I prefer Diamonds Are Forever to Moonraker

So do I. As far as you know.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by KrisTheMan

But the Bond movies have always featured gadgets and variable features without previous introduction from Q. I'm just curious, did you also take a strong dislike to Bond's escape in Goldeneye when he used a laser in his watch to cut through the floor panel of Trevelyn's train?

It's funny you mention that, yeah, that is absolutely another one, though I guess you could rationalize it is Connery's watch from NSNA.

There's a way to do this where you don't have to show what's in there, like the Lotus in SPY, because you just KNOW it is loaded. But when you have somebody who has presumably been searched and disarmed, you're pulling it literally out of your butt, which is the MR case.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

How does this comment of yours in any refute my statement that "None of those things were endemic to, or even began with, the Moore films."?



Sort of like how in Thunderball the Aston Martin can all of a sudden shoot jets of water with the strength of a firehose?

Or how about in You Only Live Twice when Bond magically has full commando gear including suction cups underneath his clothing allowing him to sneak into the volcano?

Don't let your constant denigrating of the Moore era films make you forget that all of that sort of crap was in the Connery era films too.

The TB gag is a joke, not a major plot point. As to YOLT, I assume he probably has a hair dryer in his secret ninja commando gear too, since he seems to be his normal self after hitting the water. They're both immensely stupid.

but the MR thing is a total damn cheat, and all of the regular Bond crew ought to be ashamed of themselves. Note that Maibaum wasn't involved with this one at all (or SPY either, unless it was very very early on, like when SPECTRE was going to be run by young terrorists.)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by trevanian

There's a way to do this where you don't have to show what's in there, like the Lotus in SPY, because you just KNOW it is loaded. But when you have somebody who has presumably been searched and disarmed, you're pulling it literally out of your butt, which is the MR case.

Maybe that’s the problem, you’ve clearly been watching a different version of Moonraker than I’ve been.

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Maybe that’s the problem, you’ve clearly been watching a different version of Moonraker than I’ve been.

I try not to watch it at all, except the parts showcasing the work of Adam, Meddings and Barry. I haven't been able to watch it straight through since the laserdisc era, and only twice before that.

[KrisTheMan]

Originally Posted by trevanian

It's funny you mention that, yeah, that is absolutely another one, though I guess you could rationalize it is Connery's watch from NSNA.

There's a way to do this where you don't have to show what's in there, like the Lotus in SPY, because you just KNOW it is loaded. But when you have somebody who has presumably been searched and disarmed, you're pulling it literally out of your butt, which is the MR case.

Sure, but that's also the point of Bond's gadgets in field. They're concealed into everyday objects and devices to fool his enemies. This happened in The World Is Not Enough when Bond escaped captivity in the bank office using his eyeglasses to detonate a flash grenade concealed in his gun, even after be was searched and disarmed. To some enemies, a cigar is just a cigar, as they say. Bond's ability to surprise his enemies, and even the audience, using gadgets has always been consistent with his character and the movies.

[Martoto]

It makes as much sense as Bond, James Bond being a "secret" agent.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

and I prefer Diamonds Are Forever to Moonraker

The trouble with Diamonds are Forever is that they had to spend so much on Connery's salary that the rest of the film suffers. It looks cheap and scaled down and not in a good way like For Your Eyes Only. That and Connery just looks bored. Moonraker has more going for it. The luxurious sets. Moore is on fire. The John Barry score. Hugo Drax is iconic. Jaws! Moonraker is a shitload of fun in all the ways that Diamonds are Forever is a chore to get through.

Jill St. John is fire though. Pure fire.

[Martoto]

Goodhead >> Agent Triple X

Jaws is both scarier and funnier in Moonraker

And Lonsdale excels almost effortlessly whereas Jurgens just turns up.

TSWLM has the opening stunt. (But Moonraker's is pretty awesome too. Circus tent notwithstanding) And the Lotus is iconic (except for the continuity error in Triple X being surprised by its gadgets one minute then familiar with the blueprints and how to operate it the next). Jaws's introduction and Egypt scenes are pretty good but is pretty much wasted beyond that.

The big battles in TSWLM and MR are kind of eachy peachy. But the laser blasting space marines still swing it for me.

OK. The fight with the henchman in MR kind of fizzles out. ("Play it again Sam" jesus) And the hovercraft is utterly appalling. One of the worst things in any Bond movie ever. Moonraker has to be good enough if that scene didn't put an end to the franchise right there and then.

[BaronVH]

Both Spy and Moonraker are dumb as hell and arguably the low point in the franchise. Moonraker almost always is on the worst bond movie lists at the bottom. That being said, they are two of my favorites. Why? They are fun. After Moonraker things just get boring as hell until Craig. Both Spy and Moonraker have over the top henchmen, evil villains that just want to kill everybody and take over the world, they have outlandish evil bases, etc., etc. Go back to the Spy Who Loved Me. The music track where he is fighting on the ski slope is awesome 70’s cheese in a fantastic way (and Bond movies teach you to always be armed when snow skiing). It is like Disco Star Wars but James Bond. The opening scene of Moonraker is so awesome it was recently referenced in a Marvel movie. They also know they are dumb, but they are mindless entertainment. You want realism go watch The Spy Who Came in From the Cold.

[DR Herbert West]

Moonraker > The Craig films

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by zen007

Talking about "realism" in YOLT, it was fascinating to see Bond enjoy the live telecast of the henchmen car being dumped into the sea. It is good to know that Japanese secret service had cameras everywhere:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=129&...ature=youtu.be

From 2.18 onwards

[trevanian]

Originally Posted by KrisTheMan

Sure, but that's also the point of Bond's gadgets in field. They're concealed into everyday objects and devices to fool his enemies. This happened in The World Is Not Enough when Bond escaped captivity in the bank office using his eyeglasses to detonate a flash grenade concealed in his gun, even after be was searched and disarmed. To some enemies, a cigar is just a cigar, as they say. Bond's ability to surprise his enemies, and even the audience, using gadgets has always been consistent with his character and the movies.

I guess we're seeing this from different directions. In a PTS, you're doing a shorthand movie, so leaving setup for payoff out of it is practically a given (though as I recall (perhaps faultily), there's enough fiddling with glasses to tip that they are something unique.)

Even in a little amateur movie, you know to setup and payoff the big things, especially down the line (and the MR escape is pretty far in.) Shoot, I wrote a script for a second Bond parody film back in early 79, before MOONRAKER even came out, called MoonRiver, and I set up Bond having articulated sleeve fans that popped out of the wrists of his coats that were designed to keep agent hands from sweating. By having that piece of stupidity up front, I was able to pay it off by using it in a different way later, when Bond was getting thrown out of a plane, but then deploys the sleeve fans like wings to soar away like Superman. (this WAS a parody film.)

Somebody wrote an essay about Bond films and how they have a contract between makers and audience, almost ritualized (this was WAY before the Craig era, so I'm talking old-school Bond now.) Part of that is the way they set things up so audiences are practically grinning with anticipation for when they get deployed. MR is for me the definitive example of the makers ignoring that, and thus alienating the audience or distancing them (or going by this thread, that happening with only a fraction of them.)

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

The trouble with Diamonds are Forever is that they had to spend so much on Connery's salary that the rest of the film suffers. It looks cheap and scaled down and not in a good way like For Your Eyes Only. That and Connery just looks bored. Moonraker has more going for it. The luxurious sets. Moore is on fire. The John Barry score. Hugo Drax is iconic. Jaws! Moonraker is a shitload of fun in all the ways that Diamonds are Forever is a chore to get through.

Jill St. John is fire though. Pure fire.

You're not wrong with what you say about Diamonds Are Forever, but with things like its early 70s Vegas setting and the car chase with that big red Mustang I still prefer it to Moonraker.

Originally Posted by DR Herbert West

Moonraker > The Craig films

Moonraker > The Brosnan films.

Originally Posted by trevanian

Somebody wrote an essay about Bond films and how they have a contract between makers and audience, almost ritualized (this was WAY before the Craig era, so I'm talking old-school Bond now.) Part of that is the way they set things up so audiences are practically grinning with anticipation for when they get deployed. MR is for me the definitive example of the makers ignoring that, and thus alienating the audience or distancing them (or going by this thread, that happening with only a fraction of them.)

You're missing the point entirely. Nobody is saying it isn't a cheat. It IS a cheat. But Moonraker didn't start that. Live and Let Die also has a scene where his watch turns into a buzzsaw, which nobody was informed about beforehand. And if you are to dismiss the pre-title sequences, you still have to take into account things like pulling suction cups out of his ass (figuratively speaking of course) in YOLT.

Those over-the-top cartoonish elements were in Bond long before Moore took over. The Bond films were never meant to be serious spy thrillers, they were tongue-in-cheek pulp which is why things like The Spy Who Came in From the Cold were touted as being an more realistic alternative to Bond.

[RCRochester]

Originally Posted by zen007

[*]For Your Eyes Only (1981): Bond returns to the basics after his sojourn in space in MR. Relatively less use of gadgets. The film picks up once Bond meets with Columbo, kicking a Benz off the cliff. The Meteora sequence. Can serves as a double feature film with OHMSS because the pre-title sequence appears as if it picks up from where OHMSS left ... The background score can sound dated apart from when some version of the Bond theme is playing. Maybe it should be reworked with a new score.

Why do people always suggest things like this? I think Bill Conti's score is fantastic. It fits the film and the time period it was made perfectly and gives the film its own distinct flavour.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

Moonraker > The Brosnan films.

Yep.