Funny you should say that because Moonraker just happens to be my favorite of the movies Roger Moore did.
Time For Bond to Retire?
- Thread starter JeffinOakland
- Start date
Funny you should say that because Moonraker just happens to be my favorite of the movies Roger Moore did.
With Bond and Trek, two "franchises" I first experienced in the early 70s as a kid, I've found my blood pressure stays in a healthier range by just taking each new iteration as it comes. I have my preferred ones (I tend to prefer the less gimmicky Bonds, for example) but I usually find something to like in each one. YMMV
The problem with your argument is "serious" and "fun" are mutually exculsive.
Plus, Felix is played by the same actor who played him in Live and Let Die.
Oh, I think that's been disproven by shows like Buffy, Penny Dreadful et al.
IIRC, that's the only time the same actor played Felix twice before Jeffrey Wright. But it annoyed me that Leiter was played by a near-contemporary of Dalton in The Living Daylights (John Terry, who would later play Jack's father in Lost), yet had aged into David Hedison, who is 5 months older than Roger Moore, for TLD!
Now, I heard it said that Spielberg wanted to do a Bond film--but that he wanted to have Bond die in the end.
I don't know about that last part--but:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/29/entertainment/la-et-mn-steven-spielberg-james-bond-20121126
But as odd as a Spielberg's Bond might have been, it's nothing compared to George Lucas' original director choice for "Return of the Jedi": David Lynch.
That would have been something.
^ I always understood that Indiana Jones was created in part because Spielberg & Lucas weren't allowed to make a Bond movie. This also goes some way to explain why Sean Connery was cast as Indy's father.
Right now, the Bond films are more popular than they've been since the 1960's. Why on earth would they stop now? Most people obviously like the rebooted universe.
As someone who has read the books, I'm part of the traditional Connery-over-Moore camp of older Bonds. My personal attitude is that the actor should be able to carry off both the ruthless killer 00-agent side and the suave, sophisticated, baccarat-playing side who can fit in anywhere. In my view Connery could do that very well and Moore could not. Moore's movies were fun but he was playing the Saint as much as anything IMHO. Liked the one Dalton one I saw, and always thought Brosnan was doing Moore doing the Saint lol. I have liked Craig very much as the best of both worlds again, and will be sorry to see him go.
That was my thought as well. Far as Im concerned this is the best the franchise has been since Connery. I don't want it to end.
I was never a big fan of the older Bonds most people consider great because I find them often cheesy. Though I enjoyed Casino Royale.
There's no reason to stop making the films, unless the money they didn't spend on Bond films would actually go to an original concept. Bond is a simple concept that can be plugged into a lot of different stories and is inherently sexually charged and exciting.
There's no reason to stop making the films, unless the money they didn't spend on Bond films would actually go to an original concept. Bond is a simple concept that can be plugged into a lot of different stories and is inherently sexually charged and exciting.
That would be fantastic. It would need to avoid hammering the pop culture appearances, products and catchphrases of the period, since to the people who lived in the time, it was often in the background of life, not like parodies that sell it too hard (think That 70s Show or Austin Powers).
THE AMERICANS handles this perfectly. The eighties setting is very much part of the show, but they don't make a joke of it and try too call to much attention to it, except when it's relevant to the story.
It's understandable but regrettable how possessive Eon studios are of the Bond screen rights.
With literary Bond, you might get a modern-day 'reboot' from Jeffrey Deaver, then a 1960s-set Fleming imitation from Sebastian Faulkes, then a 1950s-set adventure from Anthony Horowitz.
Imagine if Eon were relaxed enough to allow the odd low-budget TV movie from the BBC or for Netflix, which could push the boundaries. An 18s 007. A post-WWII piece. Dalton or Brosnan return in as a veteran version of their incarnations. The odd big name actor doing a one-off as 007 in the 1960s. All of which could fill the gaps between the official movies without detracting from them.
With literary Bond, you might get a modern-day 'reboot' from Jeffrey Deaver, then a 1960s-set Fleming imitation from Sebastian Faulkes, then a 1950s-set adventure from Anthony Horowitz.
Imagine if Eon were relaxed enough to allow the odd low-budget TV movie from the BBC or for Netflix, which could push the boundaries. An 18s 007. A post-WWII piece. Dalton or Brosnan return in as a veteran version of their incarnations. The odd big name actor doing a one-off as 007 in the 1960s. All of which could fill the gaps between the official movies without detracting from them.
The studio obviously sees that differently but I completely agree with you!
Similar threads
