I HATE the lack of love for MOONRAKER
One of the BETTER Bond films, certainly better than most of Pierce f-cking Brosnan's output.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
It's the worst 007 film of the official franchise except for DIE ANOTHER DAY.
Send her to the snakes!
F-ck you, at least it's a great action plot with possibly the most dastardly and FEASIBLE plan in all of Bond history, and Drax is a great Frenchman villain!
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
FEASIBLE
That made me laugh.
Send her to the snakes! share
That made me laugh.
Sshhh, don't tell Hugo Drax that, he thinks he's onto a winner here.
Seriously, I still liked the plot, even if it may be silly.
Why do you think it's unfeasible then, Doctor? Is the dispersement of the nerve gas in the upper atmosphere one thing? I suppose so. Never mind 50 globes, he'd need a million of the bleeders.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
share
http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/moonraker/35134/james-bond-007-revisiting-moonraker
This sums up why I like Moonraker, because you can't take it seriously and frankly, NONE of the Bond films can be taken seriously - that is, until Daniel Craig made everything Uber-serious, that is.
But I like watching stuff like this, it's fictional, it's entertainingly inconsistent and zany, but most of all, it's FUN.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
NONE of the Bond films can be taken seriously - that is, until Daniel Craig made everything Uber-serious, that is.
And thank God, too. As a fan of the Fleming novels I've been gratified to see the franchise return to its roots (the books and early Connery films -- more grounded in reality but with touches of the fantastic.
MOONRAKER, alas, has it backwards.
You do know, don't you, that when space shuttles were transported on the back of airliners, they were completely drained of fuel?
Or that even if fully fueled, it'd still be totally impossible for it launch off the back of the plane?
Do you really expect me to swallow Bond -- using a bird-shot firing shotgun -- being able to kill a sniper using a telescopic sight? (Ever fired real birdshot? Compare the maximum effective range to that of a rifle...)
Aside from the stupidity I noted above, there is way too much to really list here)... I can only speak for myself when I say that, yes, I like things to be FUN -- but not to insult my intelligence.
Which MOONRAKER does.
Send her to the snakes! share
And thank God, too. As a fan of the Fleming novels I've been gratified to see the franchise return to its roots (the books and early Connery films -- more grounded in reality but with touches of the fantastic.
Yeah, but Bond is fictional to begin with. There aren't REALLY secret agents pulling off the kind of things that Bond does, armed with a "Licence to Kill" (how ridiculous is that in itself, eh?)
Or that even if fully fueled, it'd still be totally impossible for it launch off the back of the plane?
What do you mean, "launch"? I never for one moment thought it was going off into space off the back of an airliner, it was simply going to that South American base of Drax's where the rest of the shuttles were.
Do you really expect me to swallow Bond -- using a bird-shot firing shotgun -- being able to kill a sniper using a telescopic sight? (Ever fired real birdshot? Compare the maximum effective range to that of a rifle...)
I see nothing wrong with that scene: Bond simply saw the sniper in the tree with his own eyesight (you can see the sniper wasn't that well hidden) and simply mimicked aiming the shotgun at a bird when he was going to train it onto the sniper and fire before the sniper did. And it may be a shotgun blast with the spreading of the pellets, but the sniper was still wounded enough to fall from the tree and have the fall finish him off. Simples.
Aside from the stupidity I noted above, there is way too much to really list here)... I can only speak for myself when I say that, yes, I like things to be FUN -- but not to insult my intelligence.
Then leave your brain at the door and don't think too much when watching stuff like this. Do you think critically of the rubbish that is Michael Bay's Transformers movies? Or do you just accept their ludicrousness?
Which MOONRAKER does.
I'm sure Moonraker is not the only Bond movie that insults your intelligence?
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
share
What do you mean, "launch"? I never for one moment thought it was going off into space off the back of an airliner
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a space shuttle to fly off the back of a 747 -- PERIOD. Its engines are used for maneuvering in space. (When returning to earth, they used a glide path. And the vehicles were NEVER loaded with fuel when piggybacking. NEVER.
Bond simply saw the sniper in the tree with his own eyesight (you can see the sniper wasn't that well hidden) and simply mimicked aiming the shotgun at a bird when he was going to train it onto the sniper and fire before the sniper did.
The sniper was so far away he had to use a telescopic sight for a good shot at Bond. Therefore, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY he would have been within range of Bond's bird-shot. At that distance the sniper could have been jumping up & down, waving a red flag and yelling, "C'mon! Shoot me! Shoot me!"... and Bond could NEVER have hit him with the weapon/load he was using.
Do you think critically of the rubbish that is Michael Bay's Transformers movies?
Who the hell other than 10-year old boys watches that stuff?
Jaws biting through a thick cable-car cable isn't fun... It's just STUPID.
Let's say in the next Bond film, Q issues 007 a pill -- looks like an aspirin. "Should you ever be at the point of being captured by the opposition, swallow this pill. Within 20 minutes you will be able to fart a powerful stun gas... Range, oh, about 10 feet. Be sure and hold your breath when you break wind."
Wouldn't that be "fun"? Would you accept it?
Send her to the snakes! share
Wow, you really take the fun out of movies, don't you? Although I do realise now about the sniper, who I thought was closer than that - I forgot about the scope shot.
As for Jaws and the cable - it was actually liquorice if I recall correctly.
Let's say in the next Bond film, Q issues 007 a pill -- looks like an aspirin. "Should you ever be at the point of being captured by the opposition, swallow this pill. Within 20 minutes you will be able to fart a powerful stun gas... Range, oh, about 10 feet. Be sure and hold your breath when you break wind."
No less ludicrous than some of the stuff Q's department actually did.
But really, I guess I prefer to see Bond as the old stuff that sadly ended after Brosnan, before it became as gritty and dull as Jason Bourne.
Why are you here if you haven't seen the movie yet?
share
Wow, you really take the fun out of movies, don't you?
No, not me... You what really takes the fun out of a movie? It's when something is so stupid that it's face-palm worthy.
I happen to find the Craig films to be plenty of fun.
You know what's also fun? THE SPY WHO LOVED ME... which is the best of the over-the-top "comic book" Bonds. (Which, to me, are sort of like Austin Powers-like spoofs of Bond, yet within the official franchise.)
Yes, there's a lot of dumb stuff in it, but it works.
At least Jaws isn't a goofy doofus.
Yes, him ripping apart the Cairo phone company van is kind of dumb, but it's nowhere near as silly as the stuff in MOONRAKER.
Send her to the snakes! share
dumb stuff in it
Yep like calling it official every bloody time like an autistic when we know full well what you're talking about.... regretfully. share
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a space shuttle to fly off the back of a 747 -- PERIOD...And the vehicles were NEVER loaded with fuel when piggybacking. NEVER.
But we already know Drax made "special" space shuttles designed to "take off and land like any other conventional airplane" so it's POSSIBLE that it COULD happen as shown.
And as for the fuel, there were Drax henchmen inside right? So isn't is possible they somehow fueled it up AFTER it was drained and loaded?
The sniper was so far away he had to use a telescopic sight for a good shot at Bond. Therefore, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY he would have been within range of Bond's bird-shot.
And Craig's "one shot" wonders where he shoots down helicopters ARE realistic? It's all the same, regardless of era. Only REAL difference is Moore's films were fun and Craig's are boring as *beep*.
Who's strangling the cat?
share
Superdevildolt fück off yes the OP can be a tit but you're a prized turd.
shareworst OO7 film of the official franchise
You see I knew you were retarded the minute I read your ramblings saying every dumpster Craig Bond film was better than any DC or Marvel movie, I just don't know how your stench evaded me for this long - I can usually weed out the pretentious fan fücks who think they know Bond. share