Moonraker & The World Is Not Enough VS. Die Another Day & Skyfall

chrisisall · July 2017

MR was big Bond in a science fiction way, and so was DAD. TWINE was M-centric Bond, and so was SF.
Today I was pondering this, and I came to the conclusion that these four movies were inextricably intertwined.
MR was, IMO, a mistake. They should have adapted the novel (my fave, btw) in a closer way. Star Wars was a bad influence.
TWINE was an attempt at something new, and while I totally applaud that, I believe Michael Apted was a bit in over his head with such a grand production to fully accomplish his goals.
DAD was actually a lot like DAF in story elements, but more like MR in execution what with the heavy science fiction leanings. Brosnan (like Moore) delivered a top shelf performance in what was ultimately another over-the-top movie (much like MR).
SF was Mendes attempting a 'serious-as-Hell Bond' with a rather melodramatic script (like TWINE). It clearly worked with the audiences as the box office takes can testify to, but after CR & QOS it seemed a bit much to me. I wanted a MISSION, not another 'it's PERSONAL' flick.
SO, all this to say that (as if anyone here didn't already know) I will always default to Brosnan's movies in these four cases, every time.
MR & SF are my two least favourite Bond movies ever (and I *love* Moore & Craig in most of their other movies, so it's not THEM).

Thoughts? Criticisms? Virtual assassinations?

)

heartbroken_mr_drax · July 2017

I see the connections between DAF, DAD and MR - but mostly because of the whole "satellite" thing and the corporate dreams. TWINE and SF yes, but also SP in terms of the melodramatic elements.

Not sure what else to say

)

BruceMurdock · July 2017

I'm a big fan of The World is Not Enough. It's a highly underrated film in the franchise. It has a lot to offer. Not the best Bond films but it's a solid and fun Bond flick.

Moonraker. While it's a very over the top and silly at times Bond film, I can't help but love it. It gets better with each viewing for me. It's goal is to entertain it's audience and it doesn't take itself seriously however the plot itself is very serious. It handles the tension and suspense very well. Another underrated film in the franchise. I love it.

Skyfall. While it's my least favorite Craig Bond film, I do enjoy it. I don't rewatch it often but I don't really have any issues with it either.

Die Another Day. Right now this is my least favorite Bond film. But I don't hate it. I love the first half of the film up until Gustav Graves is revealed to be Colonel Moon. The gene therapy stuff does not work for me and is just too hard to suspend my disbelief to accept it. Why couldn't they just used prosthetic makeup and contacts to make Will Yun Lee look different? Icarus was another thing that bothered me. It's just a retread of the diamond satellite of Diamonds are Forever. It was too... godlike? The first half of the film is solid for me but the second half, sans the excellent Car battle just ruins the movie for me.

BondJasonBond006 · July 2017

Well if I simply go with my ranking it's: MR - DAD - TWINE - SF

Interestingly Moonraker and Die Another Day (and Diamonds Are Forever) are a threesome in my ranking that can change places anytime within those three ranks (15th, 16th, 17th).

TWINE and SF also are back to back in my ranking (23rd, 24th). That looks like I don't like TWINE which is not true. When you have no misses in a franchise of 24 films then some films simply have to be at the bottom.

I still rank TWINE a solid 7.5 / 10.0 film.

Skyfall is in fact the only film I really dislike to some extend and it will forever be at the bottom of my ranking. It doesn't matter it's technically almost perfect, editing, direction, cinematography, sound editing, sound effects, etc.

Because the film is the only Bond film that has no humour and the little it tries to have doesn't work, except a few lines of dialogue like the Q introduction in the museum.

Skyfall is the only Bond film that takes itself overly seriously and then it fails miserably because of the glaring, sometimes grotesque plot holes. In a film like DAD or MR plot holes don't matter, because it's pure fun and escapism.

Skyfall taking in a billion USD is simply because of the perfect marketing storm around it, the 50th Anniversary and even the Olympics. And then the film, sadly, is mainstreamed to death with soap opera moments galore and a main villain that is so grotesquely Austin Powers level that it already works again.
That and evoking the past (DB5) worked wonders at the BO but it produced a film that is miserably the worst in many regards when looking at it as a Bond film.

TWINE could be a Top 10 film easily. I think its weak point is Apted's boring directing, cinematography may be one of the weakest in the series too. Carlyle hurts the film quite a bit as well, everything after Elektra's death is just boring, annoying and unnecessary.
But other than that, TWINE is 100% Bond, more than anything in the Craig era ever will be (except SP to a great extend).

MR, DAD: that is escapism at its best, scores, fun, humour, OTT, it's all there, it's all Bond and I love it.

chrisisall · July 2017

When I'm in the mood for it, DAD is just a total blast. I can even enjoy Jinx to a degree. That CGI para surf is the only thing that always makes me look away for a few seconds. There is nothing in TWINE I dislike. Nothing. Well, I didn't like Zukovsky's death, but I read they had a shot showing that he survived, so it doesn't really bother me anymore.

Dirty Punker · July 2017

This is a tough cookie. I would personally rank them as Moonraker>Die Another Day The World Is Not Enough>Skyfall
Moonraker is a film that I always turn to whenever I want be entertained while still watching a bonafide, excellent Bond movie.
Even the bondola chase doesn't bother me

.
It's a film that I truly love, with each and every element being perfect.
Everything, except Drax's bodyguard, Cha. It doesn't drag during the space battle, it creates tension very well.
I would've been very satisfied if the Moore era ended on such a high note, because it truly was an end of an era.
Another era-ending movie was Die Another Day, which, coincidentally, is a film that I also am very fond of.
We've heard it all before; everything from the NK bit to the Ice Palace party was good.
However, Moonraker was better. In my mind, the silliness cannot be compared between the two because Moonraker knows it's silly and entertains you along the way. Die Another Day believes and really believes that it is a serious movie.
That is why Moonraker wins out between the two. Side note: everything felt to be of a much higher quality/calibre in Moonraker, the special effects still look excellent unlike the ones in DAD.

The World is Not Enough is a movie that I don't know how I feel about. I love it, I hate it.
It's the definition of a mixed bag for me but it balances it out.
Bond gets injured<Bond was in a kickass pre title sequence
Elektra is a b*tch<M slaps her
Weak henchman (Renard)<"Booon Jaaames Booond!" Valentin Zukovsky
Renard has a bullet lodged in his head<Excellent, emotional plot for Bond
As much as I love the Craig era, Skyfall was a real downer, a low point.
TWINE was a much better executed movie.

Firemass · July 2017

MR & TWINE joining forces would be almost unbeatable. The only combo that could top it might be TSWLM & TND.

DAD & SF together is not going to beat anything. I have a soft spot for DAD, but no love for SF. It's easily dead last in my rankings with no chance for advancement. How it did so well at the box office is a mystery...

MilleniumForce · July 2017

MR > DAD
SF > TWINE

The difference between MR and DAD was that although both were sci fi, MR accomplished it pretty well. The effects were incredible, and the tone of MR fits more with the film's at the time than DAD did with the films of its time. MR isn't out of place when compared to, say, TSWLM, but DAD is out of place compared to the rather grittier tones of the first three Brosnan films.

On the other hand, DAD is just weird. Unlike MR, the effects are horrible (I'd say the effects in MR hold up today more than the effects in DAD) and the whole thing is just implausible. When being made, MR was described as 'not science fiction, but science fact', and really, it's not too far off from both reality and the standards of the previous few Bond films. The idea that a millionaire who runs a business building space shuttles supports the plot, and it's not as implausible as a North Korean general faking his death, undergoing gene surgery, and making himself a millionaire all in the space of a year, which is ridiculous.

Bond has always been slightly unrealistic and ahead of its time with the technology presented, and MR is no different - indeed, the space shuttles were to debut in 1979, but were pushed back a few more years. On the other hand, the technology presented in DAD is completely sci fi, with no reason behind it - I believe Drax was able to accomplish all what he did in 1979 compared to believing an invisible car that perfect could have been made in 2002.

caractacus potts · July 2017

the Moonraker novel was tied to its time, less than a decade after the end of WWII. The experience of V2 rocket attacks on London was still fresh in peoples memories, as was the fear that German saboteurs may have survived and may be living in their midst. By 1979, these crucial elements of the novel were long forgotten, the audience's grandparents memories.

Much of the broad concept of the book had already been used in Diamonds are Forever, with the Whyte/Blofeld surprise switch replacing the Drax/van der Drache revelation. The use of satellites was a good technological update from the no longer relevant V2 threat, and we got scenes of moonbuggies and other space program stuff.

So when they really did adapt Moonraker eight years later, they couldn't use V2s, and they'd already used satellites. The space shuttle was the new new technology. The other possible new advancement they might have used would be deep space probes, but that would make Moonraker's space shuttle plot look down to earth. the first Star Trek film, also released 1979, used deep space probes for its plot, I don't think we'd want to see that for a James Bond movie now would we?

the tone of the film comes from the success of the previous film, after years of declines. Do all the same things, except biggererer. There are some elements of Moonraker that I think actually improve on ...Spy..., namely there's John Barry music, and Holly Goodhead is written much more persuasively as an equally competent rival spy than was Anya Amasova.

Die Another Day was explicitly sold to us as a Moonraker adapatation, and yes it resembles Diamonds are Forever more so than the Moonraker film, I believe adding credence to my theory that DaF is the real MR adaptation. I don't like the tone of this film much at all, I suppose they were trying for something bigger than the biggest for the 20th film/40th anniversary thing, and in doing so they threw out much of what had been working with the previous Brosnan films.

Remington · July 2017

I finally started to appreciate MR a little while ago. I consider it a solid and fun movie. Pure spectacle.

I've always enjoyed DAD. Apart from the occasional CGI and the beach dialogue, the film is awesome up until Graves is revealed to be Moon. Even after there is still the classic car chase and a couple good scenes in North Korea. Overall as long as you don't take it hella seriously and instead think of it as a modern mixing of LTK and MR, it's a great anniversary flick.

Both ridiculous and fun movies. However, I have nostalgia for DAD so it wins this round.

TWINE is pretty good despite a weak climax. Yes Denise Richards is awful but she's so damn hot. I love Elektra and Renard is a good villain but underused. Great to see Zukovsky. Love the PTS and helicopter sequence. I also don't think it gets to melodramatic.

SF disappointed me from the start. The stuntwork during the PTS is excellent but is just unexciting. Great theme though. The scenes in China and Scotland are probably the best parts. The scenes in London are nothing special apart from the train crash. There really isn't much wrong with this film. Like 006 said, the movie is very well made. However, its just dull.

TWINE wins here.

I don't dislike any Bond film though. Can't bring myself to do that.
-{

Gassy Man · July 2017

SF
MR
TWINE
DAD

Moonraker was a huge hit in its day -- I recall all the promotion and elementary school classmates going on about it. Much of it is still a traditional Bond movie, with the sweep and adventure of some of the 60s but with a disco sensibility. It's still a Bond film.

Skyfall has a dumb plot and too many recycled elements from better movies, but its sentimentality carries it through. That's what audiences most identified with, which is why it had such broad appeal.

The World is Not Enough is a missed opportunity. It brings up some interesting ideas -- what if a villain feels no pain? -- and then does nothing with them. It relies too much on previous Bonds to establish its emotional center, such as trying to remind audiences of On Her Majesty's Secret Service with the brunette love interest and all the skiing. It fails too often.

Die Another Day is not quite the abortion its reputed to be. The first half of the film is reasonably well done but nothing remarkable. The rest feels like a Bond movie directed by Joel Schumacher. Halle Berry adds almost nothing to the story, and like all of the Brosnan Bonds, the result is uneven and discordant.

IcePak · July 2017

MilleniumForce wrote:

MR > DAD
SF > TWINE

The difference between MR and DAD was that although both were sci fi, MR accomplished it pretty well. The effects were incredible, and the tone of MR fits more with the film's at the time than DAD did with the films of its time. MR isn't out of place when compared to, say, TSWLM, but DAD is out of place compared to the rather grittier tones of the first three Brosnan films.

On the other hand, DAD is just weird. Unlike MR, the effects are horrible (I'd say the effects in MR hold up today more than the effects in DAD) and the whole thing is just implausible. When being made, MR was described as 'not science fiction, but science fact', and really, it's not too far off from both reality and the standards of the previous few Bond films. The idea that a millionaire who runs a business building space shuttles supports the plot, and it's not as implausible as a North Korean general faking his death, undergoing gene surgery, and making himself a millionaire all in the space of a year, which is ridiculous.

Bond has always been slightly unrealistic and ahead of its time with the technology presented, and MR is no different - indeed, the space shuttles were to debut in 1979, but were pushed back a few more years. On the other hand, the technology presented in DAD is completely sci fi, with no reason behind it - I believe Drax was able to accomplish all what he did in 1979 compared to believing an invisible car that perfect could have been made in 2002.

- {[]

Firemass · July 2017

MilleniumForce wrote:

The difference between MR and DAD was that although both were sci fi, MR accomplished it pretty well. The effects were incredible, and the tone of MR fits more with the film's at the time than DAD did with the films of its time. MR isn't out of place when compared to, say, TSWLM, but DAD is out of place compared to the rather grittier tones of the first three Brosnan films.

All in all, an excellent post MF! I agree completely and get annoying when people compare MR to DAD as being equivalent.

Moonraker & The World Is Not Enough VS. Die Another Day & Skyfall

Comments