|
Andorra posted:Why have they not adapted Moonraker, is what I want to know. Aside from the name Hugo Drax, and the threat the guy in Octopussy gives to Bond after getting out-cheated in gambling, I don't think there's been a single thing in the movies from that novel, especially not plot related. In my book thread where I read the film novelization, I quoted Christopher Wood (the screenwriter and novelization author) and he misremembered the book as just being a boring story about a nuclear threat to Dover. His script wasn't great, and the novelization no better. Those two novelizations for his movies were also really horny.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
It was years ago so I can't remember who said it, but there was a quote from someone involved at a noteworthy level in Moonraker's production - so it could have been anyone from Broccoli himself to the first AD - saying (paraphrased) "The novel just had one measly rocket aimed at London! It was too small a threat, so we were going to kill everyone in the entire world!" That stuck with me, and it made actually reading Moonraker decades later all the more of a pleasant surprise. On the other hand, movie Moonraker was a massive hit (#1 in worldwide box office for the entire year*), so from a purely business point of view they were entirely right to make what they did, pigeon double-takes and all. * Wanna guess what the worldwide top 10 for 1979 was? I guarantee you'll be surprised by some of them... Moonraker Alien Rocky 2 Star Trek: TMP Kramer vs Kramer 1941  The Amityville Horror Apocalypse Now The Muppet Movie The Jerk
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
1941 isn't bad, from what I recall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:1941 isn't bad, from what I recall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 00:31
|
|
|
Payndz posted:It was years ago so I can't remember who said it, but there was a quote from someone involved at a noteworthy level in Moonraker's production - so it could have been anyone from Broccoli himself to the first AD - saying (paraphrased) "The novel just had one measly rocket aimed at London! It was too small a threat, so we were going to kill everyone in the entire world!" That stuck with me, and it made actually reading Moonraker decades later all the more of a pleasant surprise. I definitely found an interview with Christopher Wood where he not only said that, but misremembered the rocket as being aimed at Dover instead so he was even more dismissive. The only reason nuking London wasn't much by then is because the movies had made the destruction of major cities an annual threat in the Bond universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
Now that we're no longer in October and we've unfortunately had a death in the Bond Family, I'm gonna do a full run through of all the Connery Bonds. I think an over the top travelogue action series with Sean Connery delivering one-liners is just what the doctor ordered for ignoring the current events of this week as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
Payndz posted:On the other hand, movie Moonraker was a massive hit (#1 in worldwide box office for the entire year*), so from a purely business point of view they were entirely right to make what they did, pigeon double-takes and all. There's a pretty good book about United Artists, the company that produced Bond movies for many years, called Final Cut by Steven Bach. It's mostly about the 1980 movie Heaven's Gate, but it's got an interesting excerpt about Moonraker. It was considered ludicrously expensive at the time, and that cost was a real chip on Bach's shoulder. quote:I filled the others in on my day at Studios Boulognes, where Moonraker was finally finishing months of production. We had hoped in June to contain the picture's cost at $20 million, but it had gone beyond $30 million, a figure I was not about to raise here and now, and there was still unpredictable and costly special-effects work remaining at Pinewood, including one very difficult effect which necessitated exposing a single strip of negative forty-eight separate times rather than resorting to lab work and optical printers. A mistake or miscalculation in any one of the forty-eight exposures would have destroyed hundreds of costly hours of effort. Happily it worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 16:29
|
|
|
And yet it still managed to look worse than Star Wars, which had a much lower budget.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:And yet it still managed to look worse than Star Wars, which had a much lower budget. Of course, by then audience expectations had changed, so what would have looked pretty expensive just three years earlier now seemed dated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
I’d like to see a take on Bond where he isn’t a spy, just a handsome alcoholic Brit roaming the globe on “business” going to exotic locales wearing cool outfits and driving nice cars in scenic locations. That’s 90% of the reason to watch any Bond movie I is
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 20:43
|
|
|
I’d miss the murder though. I like when he kills
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I’d miss the murder though. I like when he kills 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Different effects ethos. Bluescreen, as used in Star Wars, was for a long time considered a quick-and-dirty poor man's way of doing composites (you can see it used in quite a few TV shows as far back as the 60s for things like in-car shots, and they were even lower budget), but ILM's secret weapon was motion control, which allowed for elaborate, precisely repeatable model moves against any kind of background. There were effectively only three effects houses in the world that could do motion control when Moonraker was made, though, and ILM at that point existed solely to do the effects for Empire while the other two were tied up with Star Trek: TMP, so they went with what the British film industry knew and had great experience in from 2001 and loads of Gerry Anderson shows like UFO and Space: 1999 - models on wires filmed with double-exposures against black. There's that, but there's also just minor things that served to make Star Wars feel "real" by comparison. Like Moonraker didn't need to go so far as to use blank-firing guns for realistic smoke and muzzle flash, but Star Wars was also doing things like putting explosive squibs on people and scenery and using really punchy sound effects that let gunfights seem realistically destructive and chaotic. And then you get to the Moonraker battle and it's a little "pew pew" noise and a blue flash as someone dramatically falls off a catwalk, even though the outside battle had visors getting blown off and jetpacks exploding. Completely outside motion control rigs, there's so much else about it that makes it seem authentic by comparison. And then competing with Alien that year? Good luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I’d miss the murder though. I like when he kills I heard Moore say one time that his Bond doesn't like killing people but he likes being able to do it well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I heard Moore say one time that his Bond doesn't like killing people but he likes being able to do it well. I can respect a man with an attitude like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
"Pew-pew" noises for energy weapons have become something that bugs me in film and TV, because they sound so weak. Star Trek has fallen prey to this, with the phaser effects in the JJ films being particularly feeble, but even in Star Wars - which had some of the most iconic sounds in cinema - you get things like swapping the Millennium Falcon's thunderous ack-ack gun effects for farty electronic plips. I said in another thread that it feels like laziness. You could go the extra mile and send a sound guy out for a week to hit TV-mast cable stays with a wrench... or you could just call up "space_gun_sound_05.mp3" from a library.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 09:16
|
|
|
I can't agree enough, nothing beats good original foley work. It helps your movie not sound like literally every other movie. Sound design is such an underrated aspect of films, especially modern action films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Payndz posted:"Pew-pew" noises for energy weapons have become something that bugs me in film and TV, because they sound so weak. Star Trek has fallen prey to this, with the phaser effects in the JJ films being particularly feeble, but even in Star Wars - which had some of the most iconic sounds in cinema - you get things like swapping the Millennium Falcon's thunderous ack-ack gun effects for farty electronic plips. Hell, why even change it? People who like Star Wars are nostalgic for all the cool noises that defined their childhoods. The sound of a lightsaber igniting is one of the most distinctive sounds in the world at this point. If you already have all the good sound files saved anyway, why go to the effort of throwing them out just to make changes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
the last good bond movie was goldeneye
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
Casino Royale ya dingus
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Re watching the entire series and i really like how subdued is Dr. No. Zena Marshall was gorgeous holy gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2020 23:40
|
|
|
Cacator posted:He also wears a Noh mask. motherfucker...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 02:11
|
|
|
Zeta Acosta posted:the last good bond movie was goldeneye Goldeneye is the middle film in a trilogy with OHMSS and Skyfall. The three of those together are the best the series has to offer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 04:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Goldeneye is the middle film in a trilogy with OHMSS and Skyfall. The three of those together are the best the series has to offer. You need Licence to Kill in there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Casino Royale ya dingus i really dont like craig bond SuperMechagodzilla posted:Goldeneye is the middle film in a trilogy with OHMSS and Skyfall. The three of those together are the best the series has to offer. i leaning more and more to considering from russia with love as the best bond movie Zeta Acosta fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Nov 12, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 12:38
|
|
|
Zeta Acosta posted:i really dont like craig bond It is easily the best Connery movie. I really like Casino Royale and would consider it my favorite, but I'd say From Russia with Love is as close to a tie as I can get for first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
Zeta Acosta posted:i leaning more and more to considering from russia with love as the best bond movie That’s how I’ve always felt. First time I saw it I was shocked how rough the train fight was. People love Goldfinger but I’ve always enjoyed FRWL as being a little more low key.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 15:27
|
|
|
From Russia With Love is, I think, the best mix of the more serious spy stuff and the wacky Blofeld/Spectre stuff. It really is a fairly simple and straightforward spy story with the Lektor machine being used as a trap for Bond, and then it has two of the all-time great Bond villains with Klebb and Grant. It does have a little dip in the middle, so you can't say it's perfect, but I think it's the closest to perfection we've seen in the series.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
From Russa With Love is a great all-around execution of the "gentleman spy" thing and makes use of him being part of an organization like MI6 instead of a lone wolf action hero or vigilante or an agent who oddly has to go rogue from his own organization in every movie. The whole thing with Grant's identity hinges on Bond knowing about wine pairings, the premise is basically MI6 vs KGB with his main contact being another branch, he's supplied with gadgets, there's a whole honeytrap element to the premise, etc. Combined with Dr. No I think the first two movies include pretty much every single element of what makes a Bond film. Only exception I can think of is a Q branch car, which first shows up in Goldfinger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 16:01
|
|
|
Goldfinger add the more outlandish elements of the series and the route to selfparody.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
I see it as a combination of Goldfinger and then Thunderball as well. The opener in Thunderball has Bond escaping in a personal jetpack, which felt like a new level of ridiculousness compared to the previous three films. Then, later on you've got the big Spectre boardroom with the electrified chair and the shark tank and all that stuff. I'd say like 90% of the gags in Austin Powers come from either Goldfinger or Thunderball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 17:10
|
|
|
thunderball is bottom tier song, i really dislike that song for some reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:I see it as a combination of Goldfinger and then Thunderball as well. The opener in Thunderball has Bond escaping in a personal jetpack, which felt like a new level of ridiculousness compared to the previous three films. Then, later on you've got the big Spectre boardroom with the electrified chair and the shark tank and all that stuff. I'd say like 90% of the gags in Austin Powers come from either Goldfinger or Thunderball. If you've never seen either of James Coburn's Flint movies you should check them out because everyone knows Austin Powers as a Bond parody but it really leans on the Flint series as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
Zeta Acosta posted:i leaning more and more to considering from russia with love as the best bond movie Well that’s the other trilogy, about the rise of the ‘archetypal’ Bond: Doctor No, From Russia, and Goldfinger. As you say, Goldfinger is the Bond movie that fully established the formula - and that they ended up just loosely remaking, over and over again, for decades. And it’s never really been surpassed. The second trilogy I listed is, then, where the series starts going to interesting places - with Bond becoming increasingly dissatisfied with being a superhero for various reasons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 18:03
|
|
|
Is the reason in Goldeneye that women are starting to talk back to him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 18:14
|
|
|
Then you've also got the Roger Moore trilogy: Live and Let Die The Spy Who Loved Me Moonraker
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 18:15
|
|
|
Zeta Acosta posted:thunderball is bottom tier song, i really dislike that song for some reason
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 18:22
|
|
|
Zeta Acosta posted:thunderball is bottom tier song, i really dislike that song for some reason It's the overdramatic way Tom Jones sings it and the ridiculously fawning lyrics, at least for me. I don't dislike the movie but the song is one of my least favorite of all the movie themes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
The lyrics just kinda don't make much sense because the word Thunderball is meaningless. He strikes.....like Thunderball? What does that even mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 09:30 |
|
|
Basebf555 posted:The lyrics just kinda don't make much sense because the word Thunderball is meaningless. He strikes.....like Thunderball? What does that even mean? "Thunderball" is a military term for the mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion. But also it just sounds cool and sometimes that's enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2020 19:35
|
|
