James Bond In Skyfall - Part 3

[Dark Raven]

I think Roger Moore was the very image of what Ian Fleming had in mind. He even matches the physical description exactly, and the characterisation is dead on.

Speaking of which, it's been awhile since I've seen Octop****, but I didn't understand why the two villains were in cahoots. On one hand, you had an Afghan prince or rich dude or whatever he was and he's a smuggler of rare jewels. On the other was a Russian general bent on starting World War III. WTF? Why would he want to be partners with such a total whacko?

Why on earth are you putting asterisks for Octopussy? That's the name of the film and the name of the title character. No-one's going to constantly think of a woman's private parts unless you draw attention to it, which is what blotting them out does. It's not like they even did that for the film itself or for the film posters.

It's derived from Octopus anyway, and that was the theme of their octopus cult.

Even ***** Galore is a name, and doesn't need asterisks.

And what about films/songs like "What's new Pussycat?" That shouldn't be "What's new *****cat?" Maybe Tom Jones should be bleeped everytime he sings that?

Or the children's nursery rhyme, "Pussycat, Pussycat, where have you been? I've been to London to see the Queen..." That shouldn't be "*****cat, *****cat, where have you been?"

Or maybe it will soon be **** in Boots?

That just suggests a one track mind when these are perfectly legitimate uses.

 

[ChickenScratch]

Moore was fun and kept intrest alive. The man had his own charm and he was pretty much still playing The Saint.

 

[DyeLorean]

Update of my James Marathond!
Coincidentally, I saw Octopussy yesterday. Now that I'm about to finish the Moore era (yep, he's getting a little bit old), I really liked him as Bond, though there's some uneven characterization through the movies. What saves this latest movies for me are the action scenes, which not only start to improve over time, but also are a little bit longer (the director had a lot to do with it, so I read). Octopussy is not the best, but is not the worse either. Is right there with the middle bunch.
A View to a Kill tonight, and probably the first Dalton one (just curious when the actor changes).

 

[Doctor Jones]

Here's the problem with that, Homer:

Batman's many interpretations can be seen in the comics books, which are nominally the "source material." Bob Kane's original Batman stories set a certain tone, and yes, the style of the stories changed with the time. There HAVE been many interpretations, and as they have all been seen in the comics, and as the comics are the canon here, it's hard to argue that there is one definitive Batman, and the character, on the screen, has changed with the times as well.

But Bond...Bond is the protagonist of a series of novels written by Ian Fleming. THAT is the canon. Sure, the films have changed with the times, but if we're being honest there are only a handful of films that adhere to the canon of who and what James Bond is supposed to be. The first two or three Connery films, certainly; Lazenby's single effort; arguably Timothy Dalton's two and for certain Daniel Craig's.

Roger Moore may be to Bond as Adam West is to Batman, but the difference is there are Batman comics that match what Adam West did. There are no Fleming novels that bear a resemblance to the Bond that Moore portrayed. And I know because I've read them all.

Roger Moore was a bad James Bond. Although, as a spoof...it's pretty funny at times. Brosnan I think could have done a passable job if he'd had better films to be Bond in. But he didn't, so we'll never know for sure.

And the movies are completely different beasts from the novels. They've taken a life of their own like no other adaptations have. I mean 6 Bond's and 22 movies later and he's become something a lot more. Therefore, there is no true interpretation of Bond on film. The novels are the novels and the movies are the movies. There is no point in comparing them. That happened when they filmed the movies out of order from the books.

It's a matter of preference. There is no, "He is not James Bond, this is James Bond because he is closer to the books blah blah blah."

Sean Connery apparantly isn't close to the books Bond, but who gives a ****? It's a damn great performance

And who cares of the torture scene isn't as brutal in the movie? It was pretty brutal to me. It made me cringe. It was simple. And effective enough. It didn't need to go all out like in the book. Sure it took its time more, but there is something called scriptwriting and seeing what works on the page in the flow of things. It's not as simple as people think. Making things edgier and more brutal doesn't automatically make it better.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't know that I blame Roger Moore so much as the tone and style of those movies.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I'd blame the script more. But LALD, TSWLM, and FYEO are fine Moore films.

 

[Dark Raven]

And the movies are completely different beasts from the novels. They've taken a life of their own like no other adaptations have. I mean 6 Bond's and 22 movies later and he's become something a lot more. Therefore, there is no true interpretation of Bond on film. The novels are the novels and the movies are the movies. There is no point in comparing them. That happened when they filmed the movies out of order from the books.

It's a matter of preference. There is no, "He is not James Bond, this is James Bond because he is closer to the books blah blah blah."

Sean Connery apparantly isn't close to the books Bond, but who gives a ****? It's a damn great performance

And who cares of the torture scene isn't as brutal in the movie? It was pretty brutal to me. It made me cringe. It was simple. And effective enough. It didn't need to go all out like in the book. Sure it took its time more, but there is something called scriptwriting and seeing what works on the page in the flow of things. It's not as simple as people think. Making things edgier and more brutal doesn't automatically make it better.

The torture scene in CR would've been more brutal had Roger Moore played Bond.

If Brosnan had been in that torture scene, he would've fainted before the cat-o-nine-tails even hit him. t:

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I really liked Moore as Bond. He is the only one other than Connery that has two films in my top ten Bond films. In terms of his performance he is actually my third favourite Bond after Connery & Brosnan. He was exactly what they needed to keep the franchise going throughout the 70s. My main complaint and this is easier to say in hindsight, but he should have left after Octopussy. It was one of his better films and he had gone head to head with Connery in Never Say Never Again and won. He follows this with his worst film and he seems too old and disinterested the whole time. It is a shame that Connery, Moore & Brosnan all left the role with their worst film.

 

[Pink Ranger]

The torture scene in CR would've been more brutal had Roger Moore played Bond.

If Brosnan had been in that torture scene, he would've fainted before the cat-o-nine-tails even hit him. t:

Brosnan would have fainted if you simply showed him a photograph of a cat-o-nine-tails. t:

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'd blame the script more. But LALD, TSWLM, and FYEO are fine Moore films.

This. I still have a soft spot for live LALD. I think its a good Bond movie, despite me being occur on Moore's performance. He did have some badass moments in it which makes up a little.

 

[Slushy]

He did have some badass moments in it which makes up a little.

I did like the boat chase even if it when onto long. Also, features another rare moment with Moore that I enjoyed when he switches up the tarot cards on Solitaire. I think one of the major flaws with the film with not introducing Moore properly. He should've been in a badass opening sequence to establish himself.

Instead, it just shows a few people getting killed off then after the opening credits, he's shown in bed with some chick. Talk about anti-climatic.

He wasn't the right actor for it.

Maybe not, he pulled it off well. Had he taken the character seriously to begin with when he got the role, he would've been more (yes, pun intended) respected among the fanbase instead of just being the laughing stock / George Clooney of the franchise.

Sometimes... you can't critique things with modern eyes. At the time, this is what people wanted. As I said earlier, in 1983, audiences had two choices: Roger Moore in "Octopussy" or Sean Connery in "Never Say Never Again." They went with Moore.

Never Say Never Again would've been better off if it wasn't a Thunderball remake. I'm sure many of those viewers were Connery fans, but they're not going to flock to see an inferior version of a film they once saw.

Moore was fantastic in FYEO because the character was where it needed to be: a secret agent who takes his job seriously instead of a comedian. In Octopussy, it was back to the same old supercrap with him swinging on vines doing the Tarzan yell, dressing like Bozo, and sticking to airplanes while in-flight.

I have a soft spot for this film. I don't know why. I guess between Christopher Walken, May Day, and Duran Duran, I find myself very entertained by this flick.

I don't find Grace Jones attractive at all. The fight to the death on top of the Golden Gate against Zorin was cool though.

Making things edgier and more brutal doesn't automatically make it better.

You're in the minority on that one.

He follows this with his worst film and he seems too old and disinterested the whole time. It is a shame that Connery, Moore & Brosnan all left the role with their worst film.

Agreed. Just imagine "A View To A Kill" starring Timothy Dalton. It actually would've been a good movie all the way through.

Hopefully, Craig's movies will remain serious and "realistic" before he bows out.

Roger Moore was a weak Bond and his time with the franchise was very flawed. But... he was a neccessary evil. The man kept the franchise alive for 12 years. That's more than you can say for most actors who have played Bond.

Fair enough.

 

[Dark Knight]

I did like the boat chase even if it when onto long. Also, features another rare moment with Moore that I enjoyed when he switches up the tarot cards on Solitaire. I think one of the major flaws with the film with not introducing Moore properly. He should've been in a badass opening sequence to establish himself.

Instead, it just shows a few people getting killed off then after the opening credits, he's shown in bed with some chick. Talk about anti-climatic.



Maybe not, he pulled it off well. Had he taken the character seriously to begin with when he got the role, he would've been more (yes, pun intended) respected among the fanbase instead of just being the laughing stock / George Clooney of the franchise.




Never Say Never Again would've been better off if it wasn't a Thunderball remake. I'm sure many of those viewers were Connery fans, but they're not going to flock to see an inferior version of a film they once saw.

Moore was fantastic in FYEO because the character was where it needed to be: a secret agent who takes his job seriously instead of a comedian. In Octopussy, it was back to the same old supercrap with him swinging on vines doing the Tarzan yell, dressing like Bozo, and sticking to airplanes while in-flight.



I don't find Grace Jones attractive at all. The fight to the death on top of the Golden Gate against Zorin was cool though.


You're in the minority on that one.



Agreed. Just imagine "A View To A Kill" starring Timothy Dalton. It actually would've been a good movie all the way through.

Hopefully, Craig's movies will remain serious and "realistic" before he bows out.



Fair enough.

I loved A View to a Kill. The only thing that really hurt the film was Moores age IMO.

Imagine Craig or a younger Moore in A View to a Kill? Badass!

 

[Dark Knight]

I mostly despise the Moore era, but I don't particularly blame Roger moore. It took him two films to figure out who his Bond was, but once he did, the results were terrific in The Spy Who Loved Me. He's on autopilot in Moonraker (and again in A View to a Kill), but very good in For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy. The writing in most of his Bond movies was terrible, though, and the bad ones sunk the series into camp territory, which is sad to watch. The good Roger Moore Bonds are, still, pretty terrific.

It's interesting because all the Moore Bond films have there own uniqueness to them. Spy Who Loved Me was probably his best though and I liked For Your Eyes Only as well as one of his best overall.

Moonraker was different and Octopussy and A View were fun turns.

 

[Golgo-13]

Bleh. It looks like the set of the enterprise or MIB headquarters

I HATED that too. That whole sequence where they were tracking the money just felt forced, and was moreso about showing off the technology than advancing the plot.

 

[regwec]

Which was the sort of thing the reboot was supposed to get us away from.

 

[Golgo-13]

I really liked Moore as Bond. He is the only one other than Connery that has two films in my top ten Bond films. In terms of his performance he is actually my third favourite Bond after Connery & Brosnan. He was exactly what they needed to keep the franchise going throughout the 70s. My main complaint and this is easier to say in hindsight, but he should have left after Octopussy. It was one of his better films and he had gone head to head with Connery in Never Say Never Again and won. He follows this with his worst film and he seems too old and disinterested the whole time. It is a shame that Connery, Moore & Brosnan all left the role with their worst film.

I believe that it was either before or after FYEO that Moore said that he didn't want to play Bond anymore, but had to because of his contract. He was clearly out of shape and pushing the age limit by that time...

 

[MiniBond]

I HATED that too. That whole sequence where they were tracking the money just felt forced, and was moreso about showing off the technology than advancing the plot.

without forgetting that it doesn't make sense to have a whole new office while QOS is a direct sequel to CR who had the old one !

 

[MiniBond]

I believe that it was either before or after FYEO that Moore said that he didn't want to play Bond anymore, but had to because of his contract. He was clearly out of shape and pushing the age limit by that time...

he almost had a stroke when he realized (specially in FYEO and AVTAK) that his Bond was dating women who could be his daughters !t:

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I believe that it was either before or after FYEO that Moore said that he didn't want to play Bond anymore, but had to because of his contract. He was clearly out of shape and pushing the age limit by that time...

Moore was on a film-by-film deal by that point. FYEO was originally going to feature a new Bond and the PTS is a remnant of that. It was intended to establish that this was the same character as Moore's, Connery's and Lazenby's Bond.

James Brolin was supposed to play Bond in Octopussy, but the producers didn't want to go up against Connery in Never Say Never Again with a new Bond so they convinced Roger Moore to come back.

I don't know the story for A View to a Kill other than Moore wasn't happy with it and refused to do any more afterwards even though the producers still wanted him back.

I actually think Moore looks fine through Moonraker. He certainly aged better than Connery did.

 

[Raiden]

he almost had a stroke when he realized (specially in FYEO and AVTAK) that his Bond was dating women who could be his daughters !t:

Yeah, it was very painful to watch the later Moore films and the growing age gap between Moore and his leading ladies. Of course, the quality has also been declining for quite some time and the producers waited too late to replace him with Dalton imo.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Blackheart, dark and edgy =\= better.

 

[Call Me Darkman]

I don't find Grace Jones attractive at all.

I never said Grace Jones was attractive, but she is a fascinating personality and the role of May Day is very memorable. May Day is up there alongside Oddjob and Jaws. So, combine that with Christopher Walken, who is always great, and you have a very dynamic pair. That's why I always felt people were too critical of "A View to a Kill." The villains are just way too entertaining for the movie to suck. Plus, add in the cool action scenes, John Barry's great score, and a very popular Duran Duran song, and you got a pretty decent film. The only real thing that holds back this movie is Roger Moore's age and that terrible pre-title sequence with the Beach Boys song.

I don't know the story for A View to a Kill other than Moore wasn't happy with it and refused to do any more afterwards even though the producers still wanted him back.

Roger Moore was pushing 60, so I think this was always intended to be his last.

I actually think Moore looks fine through Moonraker. He certainly aged better than Connery did.

Connery only looked bad because he let himself go. But if he had stayed in shape, he could have played Bond throughout the `70s and `80s. Have you ever seen a movie called "Outland"? It was released in 1981 and Connery got in shape for the role. And he looks great - way better than Moore who starred in "For Your Eyes Only" that year.

 

[DyeLorean]

A View to a Kill
Entertaining, but no more than that. Moore was clearly a little too old for the part, and Christopher Walken was great, as always playing... Christopher Walken.
The Living Daylights tonight.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Why on earth are you putting asterisks for Octopussy? That's the name of the film and the name of the title character. No-one's going to constantly think of a woman's private parts unless you draw attention to it, which is what blotting them out does. It's not like they even did that for the film itself or for the film posters.

It's derived from Octopus anyway, and that was the theme of their octopus cult.

Even ***** Galore is a name, and doesn't need asterisks.

Look, I agree with you that Blackheart is being a goofball by doing that, however...you're wrong when you say that nobody's going to think of a woman's private parts. EVERYBODY thinks of a woman's private parts when they see the word "Octopussy," and that's kind of the point. Ian Fleming always included sex and sexiness in the Bond books (in Dr. No, Honey Ryder came out of the water bare-ass naked but for a belt with a dagger in it, and her mask and swim fins). And don't go pretending that names like Honey Ryder and ***** Galore aren't glaringly obvious double-entendres.

And THAT's the reason why Blackheart is asterisking Octopussy. I don't think it bears asterisking, but then I'm not big on censorship to begin with. I just want to be clear that you're making it out to be more innocent than it is, underreacting where Blackheart is overreacting.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

A View to a Kill I find entertaining and the most rewatchable of the bad Bond movies, but its still pretty bad for the reasons already stated plus tanya Roberts, Bond bedding May Day, etc.