no moonraker
Michael Bayles
never been made? By that I mean if they had gone to For Your Eyes Only as
originally planned. That gives us an Octopussy in '81 and AVTAK in '83. I
don't think Moore looked too bad in Octopussy, and putting him in AVTAK
might have increased the enjoyability of that film. And certainly a 1981
roger moore in Octopussy would have been very nice to see.
In addition, getting rid of Moonraker eliminates many of the overly comic
Bond moments. We'd be left with just the ridiculous Octopussy circus attack
on Kamal's palace.
By the same token, no Moonraker means a greater chance we get Roger in TLD
which I think would have been disastrous.
Thoughts?
regards,
-mike
Mike Feeney
"Michael Bayles" <bay...@wharton.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Heres a question- would the bond world have been better if Moonraker had
>never been made?
How could the world have been better by taking away one of the best Bond
films of all time?
By that I mean if they had gone to For Your Eyes Only as
>originally planned.
Only if they changed the story to make it less boring
than the one we got in 1981.
That gives us an Octopussy in '81 and AVTAK in '83. I
>don't think Moore looked too bad in Octopussy, and putting him in AVTAK
>might have increased the enjoyability of that film.
The problems with AVTAK go far beyond Moore's age. The script was uninspired
and a transparent re-hash of GF. The supporting cast (despite Walken's record
of otherwise very good acting) was weak. The direction was lackluster.
The cinematography was bland. The film never manages to generate any excitement.
The screenplay and directing bear a much greater blame for this mess than
Moore's age does.
And certainly a 1981
>roger moore in Octopussy would have been very nice to see.
>In addition, getting rid of Moonraker eliminates many of the overly comic
>Bond moments.
This is a common misconception. MR contains a few humorous moments, but
it also generates some of the most tense, exciting, and thrilling moments
delivered by the series. It also presents possibly the mose deadly threat
posed by any Bond villain. All too often, these elements are overlooked
and MR unjustly dismissed as a comedic romp. It is not. It remains the
best Bond film in the last 23 years, with a nod to DAD for second place.
Additionally, the following overly comic Bond moments would still exist were
you to remove MR from the series:
..An elephant winning at a slot machine and doing a victory dance, with
the winning combination being three elephants (DAF)
..Blofeld offering Bond a delicatessen in stainless steel (FYEO)
..Bond patting Blofeld on the top of his head (FYEO)
..Bond scoring goals by knocking the evil hockey players into the net (FYEO)
..Margaret Thatcher having a telephone conversation with a parrot and not
realizing it (FYEO)
..Bond telling a tiger to "Sit!" and it does (OP)
..Bond doing a Tarzan yell while trying to elude pursuers (OP)
..Bond doing a wristwatch time check while hiding in a gorilla suit (OP)
..Bond using an alligator-shaped submersible device (OP)
.."California Girls" playing during a chase scene (AVTAK)
..Necros single-handedly overpowering a secured MI-6 compound by tossing
exploding milk bottles around (TLD)
..An x-ray camera which displays a skeleton after taking a photo of a human's
portrait (LTK)
..A poolside fish statue that winks at the audience
Hmmm... seems to me there would still be quite a lot of overly comic moments
around if you took MR away.
We'd be left with just the ridiculous Octopussy circus attack
>on Kamal's palace.
>
>By the same token, no Moonraker means a greater chance we get Roger in TLD
>which I think would have been disastrous.
Couldn't have been any worse than Dalton. Even a weak Moore film is better
than a "good" Dalton one.
>Thoughts?
>regards,
>-mike
>
>
--Mike
"He got cut off." -- TSWLM
Barry King
> This is a common misconception. MR contains a few humorous moments, but
> it also generates some of the most tense, exciting, and thrilling moments
> delivered by the series. It also presents possibly the mose deadly threat
> posed by any Bond villain. All too often, these elements are overlooked
> and MR unjustly dismissed as a comedic romp. It is not.
You make this assertion on a regular basis, Mike. Sorry, it just ain't
so. The overall tone of Moonraker, beginning to end, is comedic. It
does contain some excellent *moments* of tension and suspense, but the
only scene in the film that contains real dramatic punch *and* does not
undermine it with juvenile comedy is the death of Corrine and as much as
I like that scene it does conflict jarringly with the tone of the film
in which it's found. Action scenes are routinely peppered with
slapstick, characters are, without exception, caricatures, Bond's quips
have the subtlety of a Carrot Top performance and Jaws turns every
single scene in which he appears into a Warner Brothers cartoon. Every.
Single. Scene. Bob Hope could have played James Bond in this film
with practically no significant changes. It is *not* a tense action
movie with "a few humorous moments," it's a comedy with occasional thrills.
--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain
Mike Feeney
Perhaps one day, Barry, you and I will have the pleasure of meeting face-to-face
and the opportunity to watch MR and LTK together in the hopes of better understanding
what it is in each of these films that the other finds so terrific. Until
then, I guess we'll simply just have to disagree.
--Mike
"I don't see the point. Oh, now I do." -- Bond commenting on Goodhead's
pen
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Mike Feeney) wrote:
> Hmmm... seems to me there would still be quite a lot of overly comic
> moments
> around if you took MR away.
But none at the centre of the story - all the examples you cite are
trimmings rather than plot essentials.
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
King) wrote:
> he
> only scene in the film that contains real dramatic punch *and* does not
> undermine it with juvenile comedy is the death of Corrine
Centrifuge machine! Centrifuge machine! Centrifuge machine!
Barry King
Mike Feeney wrote:
> Perhaps one day, Barry, you and I will have the pleasure of meeting face-to-face
> and the opportunity to watch MR and LTK together in the hopes of better understanding
> what it is in each of these films that the other finds so terrific.
Sounds great to me. Maybe at a HMSS barbeque to celebrate Paul's
recovery. Hope it's soon. (Of course, we're gonna have to get Tom and
Mac *really* drunk or the sound of their grinding teeth thru *both*
films will drown out the soundtrack.) :)
> Until then, I guess we'll simply just have to disagree.
Ya think? ;)
Tom Zielinski
"Barry King" <barry...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3E47F3DC...@attbi.com...
>
>
> Mike Feeney wrote:
> > Perhaps one day, Barry, you and I will have the pleasure of meeting
face-to-face
> > and the opportunity to watch MR and LTK together in the hopes of better
understanding
> > what it is in each of these films that the other finds so terrific.
>
> Sounds great to me. Maybe at a HMSS barbeque to celebrate Paul's
> recovery. Hope it's soon.
As do I. Perhaps this summer.
> (Of course, we're gonna have to get Tom and
> Mac *really* drunk or the sound of their grinding teeth thru *both*
> films will drown out the soundtrack.) :)
There are parts of both films I admire greatly. I'll just get everyone a
round during those scenes that are embarrassing or stupid.
Tom Zielinski
"Life Is Funny, But I'm Not Laughing"
Rhino
<rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There are parts of both films I admire greatly. I'll just get everyone a
>round during those scenes that are embarrassing or stupid.
My god. Are you rich or something? That bar bill would be
astronomical!
--
The licence to kill for the Secret Service, the double-0 prefix,
was a great honour. It had been earned hardly. It brought James Bond
the only assignments he enjoyed - the dangerous ones.
Tom Zielinski
"Rhino" <rh...@blueyonderSPAMOFF.co.uk> wrote in message
news:o24g4v4pm5q070hcb...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:14:57 GMT, "Tom Zielinski"
> <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >There are parts of both films I admire greatly. I'll just get everyone a
> >round during those scenes that are embarrassing or stupid.
>
> My god. Are you rich or something? That bar bill would be
> astronomical!
LOL!
Barry King
Rhino wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:14:57 GMT, "Tom Zielinski"
> <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There are parts of both films I admire greatly. I'll just get everyone a
>>round during those scenes that are embarrassing or stupid.
>
>
> My god. Are you rich or something? That bar bill would be
> astronomical!
>
LOL!
--
Rich Handley
>>There are parts of both films I admire greatly. I'll just get everyone a
>>round during those scenes that are embarrassing or stupid.
>My god. Are you rich or something? That bar bill would be
>astronomical!
ROTFL!
Tom Zielinski
"Rich Handley" <rhan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3e483931...@news.optonline.net...
GTBTTISH!
"Going to Bed Thinking That Is Slightly Humorous"
Rhino
<rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Rich Handley" <rhan...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:3e483931...@news.optonline.net...
>> Rhino <rh...@blueyonderSPAMOFF.co.uk>:
>> >>There are parts of both films I admire greatly. I'll just get everyone
>a
>> >>round during those scenes that are embarrassing or stupid.
>> >My god. Are you rich or something? That bar bill would be
>> >astronomical!
>>
>> ROTFL!
>
>
>GTBTTISH!
>
>
>"Going to Bed Thinking That Is Slightly Humorous"
POPWL
(Pisses Ones Pants With Laughing)
Phil G - London UK
> POPWL
>
>
> (Pisses Ones Pants With Laughing)
An acronym I hope never to have to use... <g>
Best
Phil
scojo
I think it's fair to say Moonraker is the most absurd Bond film.
Jaws falling into a circus
Pigeons
Jaws falling in love
Action scenes that have little logic. How do those fake ambulance men
find Bond after the cable car fight? They just appear out of nowhere.
To an extent all Bond films suffer from the occasional, illogical
cause and effect syndrome.
Having said all that, it's a fun film. Classic over the top Bond.
Magnificent Barry score too. Great pre-credit scene - one of the all
time best. Never seen on film before. Someone falling to earth without
a parachute. Centrifuge scene was superb, as was the death of Corrine.
Space battle was good with wonderful haunting Barry score. Final end
scene where they have to blow up the capsules is quite tense.
So it's got good stuff in there. No doubt about it. If you had a
professional edit suite, you could get all the Bond films and edit out
the silly stuff. You could probably make Moonraker a serious film.
Well almost!:) Cut out all the silly jokes and visual humour.
Oh yeah, Drax's "end of the world" speech to his followers and then to
Bond, is arguably the best written of the series. Infinitely better
than Graves's tatty old speech in DAD.
Bond
I didn't know there were any seasons in space.
Drax
For you Mr Bond, only winter.
scojo
Mike Feeney
Excellent post, Scojo. And a fair analysis of MR,
I would say. There is no question the film ventured
a bit too far into the realm of silly humor at times.
But there are also many downright tense and exciting
scenes as well, not to mention arguably the deadliest
and most serious threat ever posed by a Bond villain.
The real question then becomes:
Is Moonraker...?
(a) a comedic romp with a few scattered tense scenes thrown in
or
(b) a tense and thrilling adventure with a few scattered over-the-top humorous
scenes thrown in
I maintain that (b) is the correct answer.
--Mike
"Fairly deadly diary."
Rhino
London UK) wrote:
Give it about 60 years <;o)
Phil G - London UK
> >> POPWL
> >>
> >>
> >> (Pisses Ones Pants With Laughing)
> >
> >An acronym I hope never to have to use... <g>
> >
> >Best
> >
> >Phil
>
> Give it about 60 years <;o)
By then I imagine it'll be POPFNAR ('...For No Apparent Reason'),
unless I've misinterpreted your post and have the honour of addressing
a 93-year-old Bond fan -
Phil
Phil G - London UK
> The real question then becomes:
>
> Is Moonraker...?
>
> (a) a comedic romp with a few scattered tense scenes thrown in
>
> or
>
> (b) a tense and thrilling adventure with a few scattered over-the-top humorous
> scenes thrown in
>
> I maintain that (b) is the correct answer.
Yeah, but IMHO the humorous scenes undercut any tension which may have
been built up, and I don't think they're as scattered as you argue.
I'm trying hard to think of a five-minute stretch of MR, other than
the finale, which doesn't include a gag or two, and I'm coming up with
nothing. The comedy is laid on so thickly, and IMO gratuitously - who
really needed Alfie Bass as a consumptive Italian? - that at times it
becomes hard to take any of the movie seriously. (Of course, it
doesn't help that for the most part the jokes are especially lame.) If
the jokes had been sharp enough or the serious moments had been
powerful enough then it might have worked, but for me MR doesn't
*blend* humour and drama as TSWLM does, it just jumps from one to the
other without any consistency or throughline.
Best
Phil
Rhino
London UK) wrote:
No. The Bond I'm a fan of is much younger than that
Phil G - London UK
> On 11 Feb 2003 17:56:25 -0800, phil.g...@ntlworld.com (Phil G -
> London UK) wrote:
>
> >Rhino:
> >
> >> >> POPWL
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> (Pisses Ones Pants With Laughing)
> >> >
> >> >An acronym I hope never to have to use... <g>
> >> >
> >> >Best
> >> >
> >> >Phil
> >>
> >> Give it about 60 years <;o)
> >
> >By then I imagine it'll be POPFNAR ('...For No Apparent Reason'),
> >unless I've misinterpreted your post and have the honour of addressing
> >a 93-year-old Bond fan -
> >
> >Phil
>
> No. The Bond I'm a fan of is much younger than that
So, not a big Roger Moore fan, then...
Mike Feeney
Nice post, Phil. You present an interesting perspective on the film.
Armed with only my copy of MR and a hand-operated stopwatch, I have attempted
to measure the total elapsed time of all the "humorous" scenes. Then, by
taking the ratio of "humorous scene time" to total film time, the classification
of MR according to (a) or (b) in my original post can be better ascertained.
Here we go:
Jaws' rip-chord fails him and he lands on a circus tent
..elasped time = 18 seconds
Bond shoots a dart into the horse's ass in the painting behind M's desk,
M rolls his eyes
..elapsed time = 5 seconds
Knife-tossing assassin's coffin is knocked off its boat by the bridge, resulting
in an ironic funeral at sea
..elapsed time = 4 seconds
Bystander on bridge takes a look at his wine bottle after witnessing the
canal boat chase
...elapsed time = 3 seconds
Gondola carrying young couple in love is split in two and sinks, meanwhile
its driver continues to paddle in vein
...elapsed time = 8 seconds
One of Bond's pursuers falls out of the speedboat as the driver turns abruptly
in disgust after Bond makes landfall
...elapsed time = 4 seconds
Perplexed dog witnesses Bond's hovercraft pass by
..elapsed time = 2 seconds
Perplexed pigeon witnesses Bond's hovercraft pass by
..elapsed time = 5 seconds (for all its notoriety, a mere 5 seconds of screen
time!)
Perplexed waiter spills beer on patron's head as hovercraft passes by
...elapsed time = 3 seconds
Chang crashes head first through the piano while a concert is being performed
...elapsed time = 6 seconds
Jaws sets off the airport metal detector, frightens the bewildered security
guard
...elapsed time = 6 seconds
Jaws realizes too late that his actions will result in him crashing through
the cable car station
...elapsed time = 12 seconds
Jaws and Dolly walking off, hand-in-hand, as the Romeo & Juliet love theme
plays
...elapsed time = 7 seconds
The phony ambulance thug is catapulted head-first through the billboard,
landing in the woman's mouth
...elapsed time = 5 seconds
Theme from the Magnificent 7 is heard as Bond rides horseback to the MI-6
monastary field site
...elapsed time = 5 seconds
Jaws rips the steering wheel from the speedboat and realizes he is headed
over the waterfall
...elapsed time = 7 seconds
Bond kicks Jaws in the groin and a metallic sound is heard
...elapsed time = 4 seconds
Jaws and Dolly running towards each other with outstretched arms in slow
motion aboard the space station
...elasped time = 4 seconds
Jaws and Dolly sitting down to share a bottle of champagne instead of trying
to find a way off the disintegrating space station
...elapsed time = 8 seconds
"Well, here's to us."
...elapsed time = 2 seconds
Bond and Goodhead are caught on a live video feed making out aboard the shuttle
...elapsed time = 10 seconds
---------------------------------
Total cumulative time of all the preceeding humorous scenes is 128 seconds,
or 2 minute and 8 seconds.
With a running time of 126 minutes, or 7560 seconds we get a ratio of
128 seconds/7560 seconds = 0.0169 = 1.69%
Therefore, MR is silly 1.69% of the time and serious 98.31%
of the time. Based upon this calculation, I submit that MR clearly falls
into category (b) of my original post.
--Mike
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Mike Feeney) wrote:
> Therefore, MR is silly 1.69% of the time and serious 98.31%
> of the time. Based upon this calculation, I submit that MR clearly
> falls
> into category (b) of my original post.
You're ignoring the rhythm of the thing - it's peppered throughout rather
than allowing the tension to develop.
If you were to add all the time people spend talking as against the pauses
between, for example, you could probably argue it was a silent film as
well - doesn't make it correct.
Regards
Guy
Till Neumann
> Chang crashes head first through the piano while a concert is being performed
> ...elapsed time = 6 seconds
But keep in mind what damage they did to the clock. After 20 years,
they're still not done renovating it:
www.neubrich.de/aux/veniceclock.jpg
(I took that pic on Feb. 1. Didn't see any remains of the glass
museum, though...)
Till
--
"There's no reason to become alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest
of your flight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to
fly a plane?" - Elaine Dickinson
Rhino
London UK) wrote:
>So, not a big Roger Moore fan, then...
Course I am - 6'1" and 330lbs, you know!!
Phil G - London UK
> On 12 Feb 2003 08:10:10 -0800, phil.g...@ntlworld.com (Phil G -
> London UK) wrote:
>
>
> >So, not a big Roger Moore fan, then...
>
> Course I am - 6'1" and 330lbs, you know!!
LOL, and there really isn't a comeback to that - cheers :-)
Phil
Phil G - London UK
> Total cumulative time of all the preceeding humorous scenes is 128 seconds,
> or 2 minute and 8 seconds.
>
> With a running time of 126 minutes, or 7560 seconds we get a ratio of
>
> 128 seconds/7560 seconds = 0.0169 = 1.69%
>
> Therefore, MR is silly 1.69% of the time and serious 98.31%
> of the time. Based upon this calculation, I submit that MR clearly falls
> into category (b) of my original post.
Aaahh, curse you, Mike, now I have no choice but to go back and watch
MR again... although you did skip the 'Close Encounters' theme being
played on the keypad, or the stretcher stunt, which seemed to me to
owe more to 'The Disorderly Orderly' than anything in the Bond
universe <g>. I do, however, feel that a scene like Corinne's death
sits very uneasily with the moments you mentioned, and that IMHO the
timing of the comedic scenes *may* be more important than the
proportion of the film they take up.
Best
Phil
Dgates
A couple of these moments seem all right to me.
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 15:09:47 -0000, "Mike Feeney"
<moonr...@excite.com> wrote:
>Additionally, the following overly comic Bond moments would still exist were
>you to remove MR from the series:
>
>..Bond using an alligator-shaped submersible device (OP)
That thing seemed cool enough, very much in the Bond world. If its
tail wagged, it would have been even better. (*Did* the tail wag?)
>..Necros single-handedly overpowering a secured MI-6 compound by tossing
>exploding milk bottles around (TLD)
That part was great! Would you have accepted it if it had been Bond
doing the same thing at an enemy base?
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Mike Feeney
No, but I would accept Maxwell Smart using this technique
to attack a CHAOS base.
--Mike
"Ah yes, the old explosive milk bottle trick."
Dgates
seconds on these various scenes, you've missed just how silly it is.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:58:31 -0000, "Mike Feeney"
<moonr...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>Jaws' rip-chord fails him and he lands on a circus tent
>..elasped time = 18 seconds
The very fact that good ol' Jaws is for some reason on that plane is
instantly silly, so that kind of spans the whole scene from the moment
we first see him through the opening credits.
>Bond shoots a dart into the horse's ass in the painting behind M's desk,
>M rolls his eyes
>..elapsed time = 5 seconds
Somewhere around here is the sheer silliness of Drax's "Astronaut
Training Camp," which consists of babes working out on the steps of a
chateau that he astoundingly brought to California!
>Knife-tossing assassin's coffin is knocked off its boat by the bridge, resulting
>in an ironic funeral at sea
>..elapsed time = 4 seconds
>
>Bystander on bridge takes a look at his wine bottle after witnessing the
>canal boat chase
>...elapsed time = 3 seconds
>
>Gondola carrying young couple in love is split in two and sinks, meanwhile
>its driver continues to paddle in vein
>...elapsed time = 8 seconds
>
>One of Bond's pursuers falls out of the speedboat as the driver turns abruptly
>in disgust after Bond makes landfall
>...elapsed time = 4 seconds
>
>Perplexed dog witnesses Bond's hovercraft pass by
>..elapsed time = 2 seconds
Just a casual mention of "Bond's hovercraft," eh? (and keep in mind
that I enjoy watching this movie and definitely watch it more than the
serious ones!)
As soon as Bond's gondola turns into a hovercraft and he drives it up
onto that world famous Plaza of whatever, we once again are strictly
in comedy mode.
>Perplexed pigeon witnesses Bond's hovercraft pass by
>..elapsed time = 5 seconds (for all its notoriety, a mere 5 seconds of screen
>time!)
>
>Perplexed waiter spills beer on patron's head as hovercraft passes by
>...elapsed time = 3 seconds
>
>Chang crashes head first through the piano while a concert is being performed
>...elapsed time = 6 seconds
Wasn't there a fair amount of shenanigans first about Bond trying not
to set off an alarm or break a certain vase during a fight?
Plus all the build-up to Chang going out the window! From the moment
we saw that guy singing, we knew a body was gonna be crashing down
somewhere around him.
>Jaws sets off the airport metal detector, frightens the bewildered security
>guard
>...elapsed time = 6 seconds
Again, his sheer presence is already a punchline to Drax's
enthusiastic, "Well! If you can get *him*, then of course..." (as
though Jaws is this world renowned assassin, etc.)
>Jaws realizes too late that his actions will result in him crashing through
>the cable car station
>...elapsed time = 12 seconds
I guess that whether or not the silliness starts here depends on how
silly you find the whole car-chasing-the-sliding-people setup.
>Jaws and Dolly walking off, hand-in-hand, as the Romeo & Juliet love theme
>plays
>...elapsed time = 7 seconds
Hmm, just his surviving the crash is pure silliness, whether we've
come to accept that from him or not.
>The phony ambulance thug is catapulted head-first through the billboard,
>landing in the woman's mouth
>...elapsed time = 5 seconds
All the product placement bugged me. I guess it isn't "comedy," but
it certainly didn't seem to fit in a serious movie. How about
Goodhead tearing the guy's hair out?
>Theme from the Magnificent 7 is heard as Bond rides horseback to the MI-6
>monastary field site
>...elapsed time = 5 seconds
How about the gadgets that Q demonstrates?
>Jaws rips the steering wheel from the speedboat and realizes he is headed
>over the waterfall
>...elapsed time = 7 seconds
>
>Bond kicks Jaws in the groin and a metallic sound is heard
>...elapsed time = 4 seconds
>
>Jaws and Dolly running towards each other with outstretched arms in slow
>motion aboard the space station
>...elasped time = 4 seconds
>
>Jaws and Dolly sitting down to share a bottle of champagne instead of trying
>to find a way off the disintegrating space station
>...elapsed time = 8 seconds
>
>"Well, here's to us."
>...elapsed time = 2 seconds
>
>Bond and Goodhead are caught on a live video feed making out aboard the shuttle
>...elapsed time = 10 seconds
As Bond movies go, that last one hardly deserves to be listed. It
seems that we've accepted that Bond will somehow get caught or such
during his closing trysts (sp?).
>Total cumulative time of all the preceeding humorous scenes is 128 seconds,
>or 2 minute and 8 seconds.
>
>With a running time of 126 minutes, or 7560 seconds we get a ratio of
>
>128 seconds/7560 seconds = 0.0169 = 1.69%
>
>Therefore, MR is silly 1.69% of the time and serious 98.31%
>of the time. Based upon this calculation, I submit that MR clearly falls
>into category (b) of my original post.
Nice math skills demonstrated here, but as they say, GIGO! :-)
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com (Dgates) wrote:
> >Jaws' rip-chord fails him and he lands on a circus tent
> >..elasped time = 18 seconds
>
> The very fact that good ol' Jaws is for some reason on that plane is
> instantly silly, so that kind of spans the whole scene from the moment
> we first see him through the opening credits.
Also the fact that this scene resolves what would have been an excellent
PCS is a problem, at least to me.
>
> the sheer silliness of Drax's "Astronaut
> Training Camp," which consists of babes working out on the steps of a
> chateau that he astoundingly brought to California!
Sillier things have been done - remember the Americans bought the old
London Bridge from us in the UK (or one of those bridges) and reassembled
it.
>
> >Perplexed dog witnesses Bond's hovercraft pass by
> >..elapsed time = 2 seconds
>
> Just a casual mention of "Bond's hovercraft," eh? (and keep in mind
> that I enjoy watching this movie and definitely watch it more than the
> serious ones!)
>
> As soon as Bond's gondola turns into a hovercraft and he drives it up
> onto that world famous Plaza of whatever, we once again are strictly
> in comedy mode.
Absolutely - it's about spectacle rather than tension. And of course on
those terms it succeeds.
> >Jaws sets off the airport metal detector, frightens the bewildered
> security
> >guard
> >...elapsed time = 6 seconds
>
> Again, his sheer presence is already a punchline to Drax's
> enthusiastic, "Well! If you can get *him*, then of course..." (as
> though Jaws is this world renowned assassin, etc.)
He is, by this stage, much as 007 is a famous spy who can walk in to a gun
manufacturer in TMWTGG and get told his reputation precedes him.
>
> >Jaws and Dolly walking off, hand-in-hand, as the Romeo & Juliet love
> theme
> >plays
> >...elapsed time = 7 seconds
>
> Hmm, just his surviving the crash is pure silliness, whether we've
> come to accept that from him or not.
Jaws' indestructability is one of the less appealing aspects of the
character, I find...
And again, it's not the length of time these things take, it's the fact
that they often resolve key plot points rather than embellish them.
Regards
Guy
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Mike Feeney) wrote:
> ..Necros single-handedly overpowering a secured MI-6 compound by tossing
> exploding milk bottles around (TLD)
You think explosives couldn't be disguised in that way..?
David Duerr
I've always thought that the grenades disguised as milk bottles was not only
appropriate in a Bond movie, but very Q-like. Seems along the same line as a
tear gas cannister disguised as a can of talcum powder (FRWL), a Gieger counter
disguised as a camera (TB), plastic explosive hidden in a tube of toothpaste
(LTK), etc.
Dave
Houston, Texas
Mike Feeney
In a GET SMART episode... yes. In THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS... no.
This scene is as ridiculous and juvenile as anything we've ever witnessed
in a Bond film, even more so because it is so central to the main plot.
The double-taking pigeon (as a counterexample) happens on the side and could
easily be deleted or ignored without affecting the rest of the film at all.
But this scene is critical to the film's storyline and cannot be similarly
discounted.
First... this is supposedly a secured MI-6 facility, so why the hell do they
have milk *delivered* there? "Hmmm... we need to keep this very important
Russian defector in a secret location under very tight security. No one
is to know about his presence here. No one is to get in or out without proper
authorization. Except of course for the milkman, the newspaper delivery
boy, the vacuum cleaner repairman, the gardener, and all those other services
we have delivered to our top secret, secure compound." Please. The mere
fact that a milkman regularly comes and goes from this facility is a joke
in and of itself.
And yes, disguising explosives as containers of milk is silly. As equally
silly as if Necros had dressed up as a Girl Scout and disguised his explosives
as boxes of Thin Mints cookies. This is really no different in concept.
At least with MOONRAKER, the film recognized its humorous elements and treated
them as such. It made no false pretenses. But in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, this
absurdly ridiculous scene is played absolutely straight and seriously - as
if adult audiences would somehow accept it as plausible. And judging from
your reaction, apparently a handful did. Amazing!
Finally, are you the same GClapperton who finds fault with the adaptive camaflouged
car in DAD? Yet you are completely accepting of this scene? That boggles
my mind. Perhaps if Dalton had driven an invisible car, you would be accepting
of it.
--Mike
"Ah yes, the old dress-up-as-the-milkman-and-toss-explosive-milk-bottles
trick."
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Mike Feeney) wrote:
> >You think explosives couldn't be disguised in that way..?
>
>
> In a GET SMART episode... yes. In THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS... no.
And in real life? It would be a pushover. Hence I don't find it jars in
LD.
> First... this is supposedly a secured MI-6 facility, so why the hell do
> they
> have milk *delivered* there?
You think they should have their own cow onsite..?
> Finally, are you the same GClapperton who finds fault with the adaptive
> camaflouged
> car in DAD?
Yes.
> Yet you are completely accepting of this scene?
Sure. I've seen - or seen films of - molotov cocktails that look
completely like bottles, mostly because that's what they are. It can be
done, very easily, so it's credible.
> That
> boggles
> my mind. Perhaps if Dalton had driven an invisible car, you would be
> accepting
> of it.
No, but I'd put a question mark on the end of a question...also the
bottles were applied consistently i.e. they kept blowing up - the car was
invisible then covered Brosnan when he hid behind it which it shouldn't,
as we've discussed at some length in here (a lot of people don't think
that's what they saw...)
Dgates
<moonr...@excite.com> wrote:
>First... this is supposedly a secured MI-6 facility, so why the hell do they
>have milk *delivered* there?
You know what? When you point this out, it really doesn't make sense.
However...!
That didn't occur to me when I watched the movie. And I think that a
*lot* of movies have scenes where, if you rethink what you just saw,
it doesn't add up.
Starting with Dr. No, it seems like you could well ask how the guy got
close enough to plant a tarantula and why that was supposed to be a
good way to kill Bond, and so on, throughout not only this series, but
probably a lot of action, mystery movies, etc.
GSHATTERHAND
>From: gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
>Date: 2/13/03 11:49 AM Eastern Standard
> the car was >invisible then covered Brosnan when he hid behind it which it
shouldn't, >as we've discussed at some length in here (a lot of people don't
think >that's what they saw...)
I'm one who thinks I didn't see Brosnan covered/concealed by the invisible car.
And I watched very, very carefully the last time I saw the film. What scene are
you referring to? Bond is never shown to be concealed by the car during the
scene where he approaches it in a crouch. The camera angle is from behind him.
Is there another instance?
Mike Feeney
I tip my hat to you, Mr. Gates. I often raise what I truly
believe to be valid points -- when I'm not joking around, of course ;) --
yet rarely, if ever, has someone here acknowledged that after considering
an argument of mine that they would tend to agree with me (when before they
did not).
I am glad that you enjoy TLD so much. I've said before that the diversity
of the series may actually be one of the strongest reasons it has thrived
for 40 years.
--Mike
Jay Vonbriel
>
>First... this is supposedly a secured MI-6 facility, so why the hell do they
>have milk *delivered* there? "Hmmm... we need to keep this very important
>Russian defector in a secret location under very tight security. No one
>is to know about his presence here. No one is to get in or out without proper
>authorization. Except of course for the milkman, the newspaper delivery
>boy, the vacuum cleaner repairman, the gardener, and all those other services
>we have delivered to our top secret, secure compound." Please. The mere
>fact that a milkman regularly comes and goes from this facility is a joke
>in and of itself.
Hate to use your own words against ya, Mike but:
"Secondly, it serves to ground James Bond in reality. In the real
world, mistakes do happen. Things don't always go according to plan.
Ever hear of Murphy's Law? "If something can go wrong, it will." The
fact that the good guy's plan here gets screwed up is a nice little
touch - James Bond is human after all and not Superman."
I think it shows that security measures (he *was* frisked) break down,
people get lazy..etc. I can imagine that guard thinking 'Who the hell
is gonna show up here in the middle of rural England?'. Also, Necros
does a good job selling the part, acting like some young guy who
couldn't care less about this job and is thinking about the bird he's
meeting tonight. In that setting, maybe the guard would even think
it's below his station to search this guy carefully. Just get him
outta here. I mean, if everyone in the spy biz were diligent, then
not much would ever happen in spy fiction.
jay
Mike Feeney
Ummm... nice try, Phil, but no cigar. ;)
My contention with the scene is NOT that the security
guard makes an error in judgement and lets Necros pass.
My contention is with the concept that a highly-secured
and probably very secret MI-6 facility would have milk
delivered to it. Is milk such a necessity? Honestly,
I think the last time I drank a glass of milk was four
years ago. Who else do they routinely let pass through
the front gates to deliver such critical supplies? The
neighborhood paper route boy? The pizza delivery kid?
The chimney sweeper?
"Hello, Jake's Milk Delivery. Yes, we deliver anywhere.
Yes, I can squeeze in a delivery to Leicester Square this
afternoon. Not a problem. I'll do it on my way back from
that top secret, heavily-secured MI-6 facility in the rural
hills 15 kilometers northwest of London. Yes, that's the
one."
I mean, really, are there signs posted in the surrounding
area saying "KEEP OUT. TOP SECRET MI-6 FACILITY NEARBY."
Its like something out of Get Smart, honestly.
--Mike
Barry King
> My contention is with the concept that a highly-secured
> and probably very secret MI-6 facility would have milk
> delivered to it. Is milk such a necessity? Honestly,
> I think the last time I drank a glass of milk was four
> years ago. Who else do they routinely let pass through
> the front gates to deliver such critical supplies? The
> neighborhood paper route boy? The pizza delivery kid?
> The chimney sweeper?
Deliveries do get made to secure facilities. Vending machines get
filled, supplies arrive, plumbers are called. The milk man in TLD is
somewhat unlikely in the real world, but, Mike, you've been criticizing
the milk bottle bombs for years now and this is the first time you've
brought the security aspects up, as far as I can recall. That leads me
to believe that even *you* didn't think of it until fifteen years after
the fact. A plot hole that holds up to scrutiny that long has to be
considered pretty minor.
--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain
Mac
> Mike Feeney wrote:
>
> > My contention is with the concept that a highly-secured
> > and probably very secret MI-6 facility would have milk
> > delivered to it. Is milk such a necessity? Honestly,
> > I think the last time I drank a glass of milk was four
> > years ago. Who else do they routinely let pass through
> > the front gates to deliver such critical supplies? The
> > neighborhood paper route boy? The pizza delivery kid?
> > The chimney sweeper?
>
> Deliveries do get made to secure facilities. Vending machines get
> filled, supplies arrive, plumbers are called. The milk man in TLD is
> somewhat unlikely in the real world,
Not in 1987 Britain. Milk men regularly delivered milk to households
in their milk floats. Empties would be left on the doorstep to be
collected. I still see milkmen delivering today.
--
____________________________________________________
Mac
Dgates
<moonr...@excite.com> wrote:
Heh heh. I actually don't enjoy TLD too much. But I enjoyed the
opening scene and the milk delivery scene!
If only he had somehow ended up with the yacht woman instead of the
cello player, now we'd start to have a movie!
Get Joe Don Baker somehow involved in the whole plane climax, so we
can eliminate his final scene... Let the director tell Dalton a
couple times, "I love that you're showing some emotion here, but
actually if you could tone it down just a *little* bit... This isn't
the stage."
Dump Olivia. Drop in... hmm, a young Nicole Kidman. Make Felix
Leiter look like less of a pimp... Just a few changes would have
helped me out a lot! :-)
--
dga...@spamfreelinkline.com
Jay Vonbriel
>
>First... this is supposedly a secured MI-6 facility, so why the hell do they
>have milk *delivered* there? "Hmmm... we need to keep this very important
>Russian defector in a secret location under very tight security. No one
>is to know about his presence here. No one is to get in or out without proper
>authorization. Except of course for the milkman, the newspaper delivery
>boy, the vacuum cleaner repairman, the gardener, and all those other services
>we have delivered to our top secret, secure compound." Please. The mere
>fact that a milkman regularly comes and goes from this facility is a joke
>in and of itself.
Hate to use your own words against ya, Mike but:
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
gshatt...@aol.com (GSHATTERHAND) wrote:
> Bond is never shown to be concealed by the car during the
> scene where he approaches it in a crouch. The camera angle is from
> behind him.
> Is there another instance?
Oh come on, he's *obviously* taking cover.
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Mike Feeney) wrote:
> Is milk such a necessity? Honestly,
> I think the last time I drank a glass of milk was four
> years ago.
Fine - but in the UK it's the norm, or was until very recently.
TimSCurtin
>gshatt...@aol.com (GSHATTERHAND) wrote:
>
>> Bond is never shown to be concealed by the car during the
>> scene where he approaches it in a crouch. The camera angle is from
>> behind him.
>> Is there another instance?
>
>Oh come on, he's *obviously* taking cover.
>
>
I think the argument is that he knows he's not concealed behind the car,
because it's invisible, but he's still taking cover because it's bulletproof.
If I'm a thug who sees Bond crouching on the ground a few yards away and I
start machine-gunning, the bullets bounce off the invisible car between us, and
I make a stupid face and start looking from my Uzi to the bottle in my other
hand and back. ;)
TC
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
timsc...@aol.com (TimSCurtin) wrote:
I know what the argument is, I just don't think it stacks up. My reading
of it is the movie-makers forgot completely that you could see what wwas
on the other side of the car and will be suitably delighted that any
number of fans will happily stand by and claim 'but it works...'
GSHATTERHAND
>I know what the argument is, I just don't think it stacks up. My reading >of
it is the movie-makers forgot completely that you could see what wwas
>on the other side of the car and will be suitably delighted that any >number
of fans will happily stand by and claim 'but it works...'
I can see, gclapperton, this issue is something that really irritates you.
Sorry. I still contend Bond is never seen attempting to conceal himself behind
the car and that taking "cover" behind a solid (even if impossible to see) car,
which I'm not certain Bond is meant to be doing anyway, makes sense.
I think what the movie-makers didn't count on was ANYONE interpreting Bond
approaching the car in a crouch as an attempt to hide behind an unseen car. It
appears this issue will simmer at least until the DVD is released and maybe
longer.
All the Best
GShatterhand
Mike Feeney
Barry King <barry...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Mike Feeney wrote:
>
>> My contention is with the concept that a highly-secured
>> and probably very secret MI-6 facility would have milk
>> delivered to it. Is milk such a necessity? Honestly,
>> I think the last time I drank a glass of milk was four
>> years ago. Who else do they routinely let pass through
>> the front gates to deliver such critical supplies? The
>> neighborhood paper route boy? The pizza delivery kid?
>> The chimney sweeper?
>
>Deliveries do get made to secure facilities. Vending machines get
>filled, supplies arrive, plumbers are called.
LOL!
M: "I can assure you, Mr. Koskov, that a defector of your importance will
be quite well protected under the vigilant
security of MI-6. Tanner, make arrangements for Mr. Koskov to stay at our
safe house."
Tanner: "Err, I'm afraid I have some bad news sir. The vending machine there
ran out of Butterfingers yesterday and the next delivery isn't due until
next Friday."
M: "Damn it, man! What good is a secret, secured safehouse if its not fully
stocked with vending supplies? Oh hell, just take Mr. Koskov to EuroDisney
then. But limit him to a food allowance of only 200 pounds per day. That
should be enough to cover a couple of churros and a Mickey Dreamsicle bar."
--Mike
Mike Feeney
Barry King <barry...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Mike Feeney wrote:
>
>> My contention is with the concept that a highly-secured
>> and probably very secret MI-6 facility would have milk
>> delivered to it. Is milk such a necessity? Honestly,
>> I think the last time I drank a glass of milk was four
>> years ago. Who else do they routinely let pass through
>> the front gates to deliver such critical supplies? The
>> neighborhood paper route boy? The pizza delivery kid?
>> The chimney sweeper?
>
>Deliveries do get made to secure facilities. Vending machines get
>filled, supplies arrive, plumbers are called.
LOL!
M: "You can rest assured, Mr. Koskov, that a defector of your importance
will be quite safely protected at our very secret and highly secured MI-6
safe-house facility. Tanner, make the arrangements for Mr. Koskov to be
taken to the safe-house immediately."
Tanner: "Err, I'm afraid we have a problem, sir. The vending machines at
the safe-house are completely out of Butterfingers. The next scheduled delivery
isn't until next Friday."
M: "Damn it, man! What good is a safe-house if its not stocked with vending
supplies? Okay, then, we'll fall back on our alternate plan. Take Koskov
to EuroDisney. But limit him to no more than 2 churros and a Mickey Dreamsicle
bar per day. We don't have an unlimited budget, you know."
--Mike
Phil G - London UK
Nice one :-)
...but honestly, back in 1987 many of us in the UK still weren't going
down to the local shops and buying cartons of milk, and a lot of
government facilities were, and I believe still are, serviced by local
milkmen, especially in rural areas. C'mon, the safe-house is populated
by people who belong to a nation of tea-drinkers, so a regular supply
of milk would have been an absolute necessity to those guys <g>. The
exploding milk bottles themselves are far-fetched, but the idea of
using a milk delivery as cover for entry into a British intelligence
facility is actually a pretty good one - in fact I'm kind of surprised
that nobody has attempted it yet...
Best
Phil
Haynes'ey
"Mac" <see...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:RiX2a.3481$WR4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
I still have milk delivered.
Tom Zielinski
"Phil G - London UK" <phil.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:e21fc7dd.03021...@posting.google.com...
> ...but honestly, back in 1987 many of us in the UK still weren't going
> down to the local shops and buying cartons of milk, and a lot of
> government facilities were, and I believe still are, serviced by local
> milkmen, especially in rural areas. C'mon, the safe-house is populated
> by people who belong to a nation of tea-drinkers, so a regular supply
> of milk would have been an absolute necessity to those guys <g>. The
> exploding milk bottles themselves are far-fetched, but the idea of
> using a milk delivery as cover for entry into a British intelligence
> facility is actually a pretty good one - in fact I'm kind of surprised
> that nobody has attempted it yet...
What is the difference between exploding milk bottles, and:
Rocket launching cigarettes (YOLT)
Buzz-saw wristwatch (LALD)
"007" logo camera ("Moonraker")
Explosives in a toothpaste tube (LTK)
I submit, very little. And there are other examples, these are off the top
of my head. All these gadgets, including the milk bottles, were depicted in
a serious and deadly manner. They don't always work ("007" camera), but an
exploding milk bottle is *far* from the worst offender of Maxwell Smart
parody.
Tom Zielinski
"Life Is Funny, But I'm Not Laughing"
Mac
> What is the difference between exploding milk bottles, and:
>
> Rocket launching cigarettes (YOLT)
> Buzz-saw wristwatch (LALD)
> "007" logo camera ("Moonraker")
> Explosives in a toothpaste tube (LTK)
>
> I submit, very little. And there are other examples, these are off the
> top of my head. All these gadgets, including the milk bottles, were
> depicted in a serious and deadly manner. They don't always work
> ("007" camera), but an exploding milk bottle is *far* from the worst
> offender of Maxwell Smart parody.
I wouldn't include the camera, as the use of the "007" logo is just
a little too self-aware. Like the Tarot deck in LIVE AND LET DIE.
The use of a milkman's disguise to enter a government facility was also
used in 1964's CARRY ON SPYING. The milkman smuggled an explosive
test tube within the bottle.
Personally, I've always liked Necros's attack in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.
Horrible dubbing on his cockney accent, though...
--
____________________________________________________
Mac
Vince
<see...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net> writes:
>
>Personally, I've always liked Necros's attack in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.
>Horrible dubbing on his cockney accent, though...
What ever happen to that actor anyway?
I've only seen him in three things:
TLD
Die Hard
As a deadly Robot on SUPERBOY
thats about it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Vince
-------------------------------------------------------
Check it out
www.holvbphoto.com
Vince
Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>What is the difference between exploding milk bottles, and:
>
>Rocket launching cigarettes (YOLT)
>Buzz-saw wristwatch (LALD)
>"007" logo camera ("Moonraker")
>Explosives in a toothpaste tube (LTK)
>
Isn't it the idea (for a spy) to have deadly things look harmless in order for
them to be more effected?
The log
>TLD
>Die Hard
>As a deadly Robot on SUPERBOY
>thats about it.
The late 80's TV series Superboy? I remember that! Classic viewing for a
five-year-old, I felt.
Peace,
The log- I know what I like
Barry King
> Vince wrote:
>>I've only seen him in three things:
>>TLD
>>Die Hard
>>As a deadly Robot on SUPERBOY
>>thats about it.
>
>
> The late 80's TV series Superboy? I remember that! Classic viewing for a
> five-year-old, I felt.
>
Then no wonder V...
Nah!! Too cheap. :)
Mike Feeney
"Mac" <see...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote:
>"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote
>
>> What is the difference between exploding milk bottles, and:
>>
>> Rocket launching cigarettes (YOLT)
>> Buzz-saw wristwatch (LALD)
>> "007" logo camera ("Moonraker")
>> Explosives in a toothpaste tube (LTK)
>>
>> I submit, very little. And there are other examples, these are off the
>> top of my head. All these gadgets, including the milk bottles, were
>> depicted in a serious and deadly manner. They don't always work
>> ("007" camera), but an exploding milk bottle is *far* from the worst
>> offender of Maxwell Smart parody.
>
>I wouldn't include the camera, as the use of the "007" logo is just
>a little too self-aware. Like the Tarot deck in LIVE AND LET DIE.
>
Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with the 007 logo camera
seen in MOONRAKER? Really. I truly fail to see what the issue apparently
is here.
Drax already knows who Bond is. "Your reputation precedes you, Mr. Bond"
and "Here no doubt to apologize for your government losing my shuttle".
Who do you presume he thinks Bond is? The mail clerk at MI-6? Or perhaps
the parking lot attendant? Bond is not attempting in any way to hide his
identity while at Drax's estate. The logo appearing on the camera is therefore
a complete non-issue.
--Mike
"So, Mr. Bond. You are not the MI-6 milk delivery boy as I had presumed,
but are instead a spy!"
Mac
> >I wouldn't include the camera, as the use of the "007" logo is just
> >a little too self-aware. Like the Tarot deck in LIVE AND LET DIE.
>
>
> Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with the 007 logo camera
> seen in MOONRAKER? Really. I truly fail to see what the issue apparently
> is here.
>
> Drax already knows who Bond is. "Your reputation precedes you, Mr. Bond"
> and "Here no doubt to apologize for your government losing my shuttle".
> Who do you presume he thinks Bond is? The mail clerk at MI-6? Or
> perhaps the parking lot attendant? Bond is not attempting in any way to
> hide his identity while at Drax's estate. The logo appearing on the
> camera is therefore a complete non-issue.
Hee-hee! I could have bet money on this. It's not that Drax will know
Bond is a spy from the number on the camera (he may not know
about the 00 section), it's that Q Branch is issuing equipment with
their agents' code numbers on them. Is that in case they lose it or
get it confused with another agents' camera during break-time (recess)?
--
____________________________________________________
Mac
"Pay attention, 007, and don't lose your lunch money!"
Mike Feeney
"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>What is the difference between exploding milk bottles, and:
>
>Rocket launching cigarettes (YOLT)
A pack of cigarettes is (was) an item that is
commonly found on a person in normal, everyday
situations. Hence, it makes sense for Q-branch
to disguise the mini-rockets in this form.
>Buzz-saw wristwatch (LALD)
A wristwatch is an item that is commonly found on
a person in normal, everyday situations. Hence,
it makes sense for Q-branch to build these special
features into this device.
>I submit, very little.
On the contrary. The devices mentioned above would not raise suspicion if
found on a person. Most people wear wristwatches, and back then a lot of
people smoked cigarettes.
But how often can you get away with carrying milk bottles around? "Hey Joe,
how's it going today? Errr... what's with
all those milk bottles you're lugging around?"
The point being that exploding milk bottles are ONLY useful
in one and only one specific instance: when you happen to
be impersonating a milk delivery man. Must happen all the time
in the spy field, right? Please. THIS is the difference, and why
this scene is so ridiculous. Does Necros keep a supply of
exploding milk bottles around just in case one day he might need
to impersonate a milk delivery man? "Good thing I've had these
around for the last ten years - I finally get to use them!" Does he also
keep a stockpile of exploding orange juice bottles in the event that he needs
to impersonate an orange juice delivery man? Not
hardly. The logical presumption, then, is that he had these items specially
made up for this particular mission. But where did he get them? Where do
you go to buy exploding milk bottles? Necros doesn't work for a big, funded
agency like MI-6 who has an entire department making stuff like this. He's
a hired thug. Where does he obtain the exploding milk bottles on such short
notice? The thing here is that if you stop and think about this scene,
it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's done with absolutely no care
at all toward the background logistics which would have been required for
Necros to truly pull this caper off. Its done with the same "it doesn't
matter, its a joke" attitude of a GET SMART episode.
--Mike
Tim Pollard
"Mike Feeney" <moonr...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:v50b9mg...@corp.supernews.com...
Whereas hovercraft gondolas..... sorry, I've gone all fuzzy here... where
do they fit in?
;-)
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
If two wrongs don't make a right, try three.
>
> --Mike
>
Barry King
> The logical presumption, then, is that he had these items specially
> made up for this particular mission. But where did he get them? Where do
> you go to buy exploding milk bottles? Necros doesn't work for a big, funded
> agency like MI-6 who has an entire department making stuff like this. He's
> a hired thug. Where does he obtain the exploding milk bottles on such short
> notice? The thing here is that if you stop and think about this scene,
> it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's done with absolutely no care
> at all toward the background logistics which would have been required for
> Necros to truly pull this caper off. Its done with the same "it doesn't
> matter, its a joke" attitude of a GET SMART episode.
Okay, who the hell are you, really? This can't possibly be Mike "the
background logisticd of a hollow volcano or an invisible space station
are unimportant to the story" Feeney!
As for where he got the exploding milk bottles, I'd guess he made them,
probably along the same lines as the hand-grenade-in-a-jar bomb Bond
creates and uses on the spur of the moment on the stealth ship in TND.
Milk bottles would probably require a little more engineering and
advanced planning, but the same basic design would work fine. And the
mission was planned ahead of time, so he had plenty of time to create
these rather simple and well-disguised weapons.
Vince
writes:
>
>Then no wonder V...
>
>Nah!! Too cheap. :)
>
Careful my friend.
Vince
row...@aol.comPLICATE (The log) writes:
>
>The late 80's TV series Superboy? I remember that! Classic viewing for a
>five-year-old, I felt.
>
Well I enjoyed the show it was made by the same folks who did the SUPERMAN
films, problem the first season when Universal FLA was doing it, they had some
fair flying shots. The last three seasons they moved the show to MGM/DISNEY the
cheap bastards had almost no flying shots at all just take off and landing.
They had a number of characters from the comics, Bizarro, Mr Mxnipyx sp, young
Dracula etc
One last item if he was in college how could he still be Superboy and not
Superman?
Mike Feeney
The gondola is no different in principle than the Aston Martin. It's a vehicle
that has been modified by Q-branch with special features. Remember, MI-6
has an entire department dedicated to doing this kind of stuff.
Necros is just a hired thug. He doesn't have the resources that MI-6 has.
But apparently he has a PhD in chemistry... but then what assassin doesn't,
right?
--Mike
Tim Pollard
>
> The gondola is no different in principle than the Aston Martin. It's a
vehicle
> that has been modified by Q-branch with special features. Remember, MI-6
> has an entire department dedicated to doing this kind of stuff.
>
> Necros is just a hired thug. He doesn't have the resources that MI-6 has.
> But apparently he has a PhD in chemistry... but then what assassin
doesn't,
> right?
I just worry about *any* organisation, much less a British tazpayer funded
one that turn out items based on such left-field blue sky thinking (like
"What would happen if one of our agents was in a gondola in Venice and might
be attacked by handily placed assassins and he *needed* to escape by driving
it onto dry land in as conspicuous way as possible").
As for a PhD in chemistry, I'd have thought any self respecting assassin
could find out what he needed from the internet, and not *need* a PhD... <g>
Tim Pollard
"Tim Pollard" <t...@timpollard.com> wrote in message
news:b2qvd6$hht$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Till Neumann
>> As for a PhD in chemistry, I'd have thought any self respecting assassin
>> could find out what he needed from the internet, and not *need* a PhD...
But Tim, there *was* no Internet when TLD was made! Or do you think
that maybe Al Gore secretly worked for Brad Whitaker's organization, so
Necros could find the necessary information way before anyone else? So
I'm sure Mike has a point that all aspects of Moonraker are plausible,
while the milk bottle grenades aren't.
Till
P.S. Why do you think a Hovercraft gondola in Venice is particularly
conspicuous? Certainly not as much as a non-Hovercraft boat racing
police cars through London, is it?
--
"I think this situation absolutely requires that a really futile,
stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!" - Eric 'Otter' Stratton
Tim Pollard
news:1mz1ye9w5j4sv$.1j1tfr9847c7y.dlg@40tude.net...
> Tim Pollard schrieb/wrote:
>
> >> As for a PhD in chemistry, I'd have thought any self respecting
assassin
> >> could find out what he needed from the internet, and not *need* a
PhD...
>
> But Tim, there *was* no Internet when TLD was made!
True, but there was a network of super-villains of sorts - (Drax on 'phone)
"Well of course if you can get HIM..." (etc.)
> Or do you think
> that maybe Al Gore secretly worked for Brad Whitaker's organization, so
> Necros could find the necessary information way before anyone else?
That too! <g>
> So
> I'm sure Mike has a point that all aspects of Moonraker are plausible,
> while the milk bottle grenades aren't.
Mike does inded have a point, which I respect, no matter how wrong he is!
> P.S. Why do you think a Hovercraft gondola in Venice is particularly
> conspicuous? Certainly not as much as a non-Hovercraft boat racing
> police cars through London, is it?
I hate them both. But I suppose I should just accept 'em, and invisible cars
too. And double-taking pigeons. And Kananga exploding. And Denise Richards.
But it ain't easy...
Mike Feeney
"Tim Pollard" <t...@timpollard.com> wrote:
>And by 'tazpayer', I mean 'taxpayer', of course...
>
>
>"Tim Pollard" <t...@timpollard.com> wrote in message
>news:b2qvd6$hht$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>> "Mike Feeney" <moonr...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:v51vjmg...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> > The gondola is no different in principle than the Aston Martin. It's
a
>> vehicle
>> > that has been modified by Q-branch with special features. Remember,
>MI-6
>> > has an entire department dedicated to doing this kind of stuff.
>> >
>> > Necros is just a hired thug. He doesn't have the resources that MI-6
>has.
>> > But apparently he has a PhD in chemistry... but then what assassin
>> doesn't,
>> > right?
>>
>>
>> I just worry about *any* organisation, much less a British tazpayer funded
>> one that turn out items based on such left-field blue sky thinking (like
>> "What would happen if one of our agents was in a gondola in Venice and
>might
>> be attacked by handily placed assassins and he *needed* to escape by
>driving
>> it onto dry land in as conspicuous way as possible").
>>
Your sarcasm is duly noted Tim, but I maintain this is
precisely the logic presented by this scene and that
it is indeed valid and consistent with the series
as a whole.
Bond's Aston Martin is equipped with the capability of spraying powerful
water jets out the back. Why? Same reasoning: just in case he ever needs
it. Not likely, but it might just come
in handy one day. Oh yeah, it did - in TB. Same thing
with the gondola. Good thing it had the capability of transforming into
a hovercraft, or Bond might not have been able to escape this attack.
As for conspicious, yes - it will certainly draw attention
to Bond. Just as the water jets spraying out of the back of
the Aston Martin would catch the attention of any bystanders.
But what's more important? Keeping one of your field agents
alive, or momentarily drawing some unwanted attention?
--Mike
Tim Pollard
Yup, fair point, well made.
See *that's* why I like this group - I still don't *like* the (in my
opinion) stupid bits of (for instance) MR, but I can understand your
arguments, and that's all to the good - it's what friendly debate is all
about.
Cheers Mike!
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
spam...@neubrich.de (Till Neumann) wrote:
> But Tim, there *was* no Internet when TLD was made!
The Internet, or JANet as it was originally known, was set up in the late
sixties for the military...
Mike Feeney
>sixties for the military...
But Necros wouldn't have had access to it. Which still renders his ability
to readily manufacture the exploding milk bottles too much of a stretch.
Is he a hired thug or a chemist?
--Mike
Matthew Eric Otey
Who says that Necros himself made the bottles? Maybe he got them from
the KGB via Koskov, or maybe they're a part of the weapons that Whitaker
sells (you know: "Brad Whitaker's February Special: Buy a minimum of
$1.5 million of weapons, and get a dozen free exploding milk bottles.")
Whenever I've watched TLD, I've never assumed that Necros made the
milk bottles.
Matt
David Duerr
Keep in mind that Necros was working for (or at least, with) an arms dealer
(Whitaker). Getting hold of hand grenades or other small explosive devices
wouldn't have been that difficult for him. Hiding said devices inside of glass
bottles that have been coated on the inside to make them appear to be full of
milk is also not demanding of great talent or specialized knowledge.
All in all, the whole setup is reasonable:
1. MI-6 operates the safehouse in such a manner as to make the house appear to
be a residence. This includes getting deliveries, as were normal for that
locale and time.
2. Necros stakes out the house, notes that they receive milk deliveries, and
positions himself to take out the regular man and enter the property under the
cover of a delivery man. A milk delivery truck will be full of milk bottles,
so disguising his weapons as milk bottles makes excellent sense.
3. So disguised, he gains access to the house and launches his attack.
The only difference with today's movies is that now Eon would sell placement
rights to someone and the truck would be RotoRooter, Sears Appliance Repair,
etc.
Dave
Houston, Texas
Mac
> But Necros wouldn't have had access to it. Which still renders his
> ability to readily manufacture the exploding milk bottles too much
> of a stretch. Is he a hired thug or a chemist?
He's an assassin with "known methods." Who's to say arms dealer
Brad Whittaker didn't get them for Necros if, indeed, Necros
didn't make them himself? Why is it such a stretch to believe a
terrorist/professional killer can manufacture bombs?
--
____________________________________________________
Mac
Vince
<moonr...@excite.com> writes:
>Is he a hired thug or a chemist?
Maybe he got the stuff from "THUGS OR US".
Vince
<ote...@NOSPAMosu.edu> writes:
>Who says that Necros himself made the bottles? Maybe he got them from
>the KGB via Koskov, or maybe they're a part of the weapons that Whitaker
>sells (you know: "Brad Whitaker's February Special: Buy a minimum of
>$1.5 million of weapons, and get a dozen free exploding milk bottles.")
> Whenever I've watched TLD, I've never assumed that Necros made the
>milk bottles.
>
Either of the above sounds good to me.
Tim Pollard
"Vince" <holvb...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030217151011...@mb-fv.news.cs.com...
> In article <v527gqd...@corp.supernews.com>, "Mike Feeney"
> <moonr...@excite.com> writes:
>
> >Is he a hired thug or a chemist?
>
> Maybe he got the stuff from "THUGS OR US".
Tough choice... <g>
Mike Feeney
tw...@aol.comnospam (David Duerr) wrote:
>>gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
>>>In article <1mz1ye9w5j4sv$.1j1tfr98...@40tude.net>,
>>>spam...@neubrich.de (Till Neumann) wrote:
>>>
>>>> But Tim, there *was* no Internet when TLD was made!
>>>
>>>The Internet, or JANet as it was originally known, was set up in the late
>>
>>>sixties for the military...
>>
>>
>>But Necros wouldn't have had access to it. Which still renders his ability
>>to readily manufacture the exploding milk bottles too much of a stretch.
>> Is he a hired thug or a chemist?
>>
>>--Mike
>
>
>Keep in mind that Necros was working for (or at least, with) an arms dealer
>(Whitaker). Getting hold of hand grenades or other small explosive devices
>wouldn't have been that difficult for him. Hiding said devices inside of
glass
>bottles that have been coated on the inside to make them appear to be full
of
>milk is also not demanding of great talent or specialized knowledge.
>
>All in all, the whole setup is reasonable:
>
>1. MI-6 operates the safehouse in such a manner as to make the house appear
to
>be a residence. This includes getting deliveries, as were normal for that
>locale and time.
>
Impressive. Most impressive. Obi-Wan has taught you well, but you are not
a Jedi yet.. <g>
Seriously, I am impressed. In fact, the International Coalition For The
Defense of Moonraker could use someone with your gifted talents, Dave.
E-mail me if you would be interested in accepting a staff position. <g>
>2. Necros stakes out the house, notes that they receive milk deliveries,
and
>positions himself to take out the regular man and enter the property under
the
>cover of a delivery man. A milk delivery truck will be full of milk bottles,
>so disguising his weapons as milk bottles makes excellent sense.
>
But how does Necros know this is the place they are hiding Koskov? Am I
forgetting something, or was this never explained in the film?
>3. So disguised, he gains access to the house and launches his attack.
>
>The only difference with today's movies is that now Eon would sell placement
>rights to someone and the truck would be RotoRooter, Sears Appliance Repair,
>etc.
>
LOL! Good point.
>
>Dave
>Houston, Texas
>
Mike
5 Hours NW of Houston, Texas
Mike Feeney
LOL!
> Whenever I've watched TLD, I've never assumed that Necros made the
>milk bottles.
>
Me neither. That was Barry King's theory I was quoting.
>Matt
>
>
--Mike
Mac
"Mike Feeney" <moonr...@excite.com> wrote i
> But how does Necros know this is the place they are hiding
> Koskov? Am I forgetting something, or was this never
> explained in the film?
Because Koskov's defection is a sham and Necros is supposed
to be able to grab him back. It's all a ruse, remember?
--
____________________________________________________
Mac
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
see...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net (Mac) wrote:
Doesn't actually explain how he knows the location of the safe house,
although I personally don't have a problem with his sources tipping him
off.
Regards
Guy
Mac
> > Because Koskov's defection is a sham and Necros is supposed
> > to be able to grab him back. It's all a ruse, remember?
>
> Doesn't actually explain how he knows the location of the safe house,
> although I personally don't have a problem with his sources tipping him
> off.
Or Koskov. Or even Russian intelligence knowing where it
was (meaning Koskov knew beforehand exactly where
he'd be taken).
--
____________________________________________________
Mac
Phil G - London UK
> But how does Necros know this is the place they are hiding Koskov?
Radioactive lint. Just a theory <g>
Best
Phil
Tim Pollard
"Phil G - London UK" <phil.g...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:e21fc7dd.03021...@posting.google.com...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > But how does Necros know this is the place they are hiding Koskov?
>
> Radioactive lint. Just a theory <g>
Cool redoactive lint that is how they found Captin KIRK in the StarTREK film
with Dr SPOCK doing it on his sholder when they went to the ICE PLANET just
like in DIE ANOTER DAY!
JAMES BOND is CAPTIN KIRK!
HAH HAHH AH!
--
Regards
Tim *cough* Pollard
LuckyAtLoveAgain
>JAMES BOND is CAPTIN KIRK!
>
>HAH HAHH AH!
i understood the socialized medicine system over there gave everyone access to
drugs, but i had no idea that you could get so many at a time. : )
Mike Feeney
Precisely. This was my original question. How can
Necros possibly know where Koskov is taken, since Koskov
shouldn't know ahead of time where he will be taken.
It's a considerable plot hole.
--Mike
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Mike Feeney) wrote:
No, read Mac's post again - Soviet intelligence has presumably told Koskov
where the safe houses are. Or Whitaker has sources. It's not a big deal.
Tom Zielinski
> Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with the 007 logo camera
> seen in MOONRAKER? Really. I truly fail to see what the issue apparently
> is here.
Answer one question for me, Mike. Please.
What purpose does the logo serve?
I'd be really interested in your rationale if the answer is anything but,
"None."
The camera was developed for the surreptitious procurement of top secret
information. Whether or not Drax knew who Bond was at the time is moot. In
the world of espionage, the advertising of one's spy status is dangerous.
And stupid.
'Course...I could be wrong.
Tom Zielinski
"Life Is Funny, But I'm Not Laughing"
Tom Zielinski
>
> "Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >What is the difference between exploding milk bottles, and:
> >
> >Rocket launching cigarettes (YOLT)
>
>
> A pack of cigarettes is (was) an item that is
> commonly found on a person in normal, everyday
> situations. Hence, it makes sense for Q-branch
> to disguise the mini-rockets in this form.
>
>
> >Buzz-saw wristwatch (LALD)
>
>
> A wristwatch is an item that is commonly found on
> a person in normal, everyday situations. Hence,
> it makes sense for Q-branch to build these special
> features into this device.
>
>
> >I submit, very little.
>
>
> On the contrary. The devices mentioned above would not raise suspicion if
> found on a person. Most people wear wristwatches, and back then a lot of
> people smoked cigarettes.
>
> But how often can you get away with carrying milk bottles around? "Hey
Joe,
> how's it going today? Errr... what's with
> all those milk bottles you're lugging around?"
That's leaving out the salient point that Necros *was* posing as a milkman.
Yeah, had he been depicted as the copy machine repairman, it might have
raised suspicion to have milk bottles, but he wasn't. It was a specific
device for a specific situation. And if Necros *was* depicted as the copy
machine repairman, perhaps he would have had exploding printer cartridges.
> The point being that exploding milk bottles are ONLY useful
> in one and only one specific instance: when you happen to
> be impersonating a milk delivery man. Must happen all the time
> in the spy field, right? Please. THIS is the difference, and why
> this scene is so ridiculous. Does Necros keep a supply of
> exploding milk bottles around just in case one day he might need
> to impersonate a milk delivery man? "Good thing I've had these
> around for the last ten years - I finally get to use them!"
>
> Does he he also
> keep a stockpile of exploding orange juice bottles in the event that he
needs
> to impersonate an orange juice delivery man? Not
> hardly. The logical presumption, then, is that he had these items
specially
> made up for this particular mission. But where did he get them? Where do
> you go to buy exploding milk bottles? Necros doesn't work for a big,
funded
> agency like MI-6 who has an entire department making stuff like this.
He's
> a hired thug. Where does he obtain the exploding milk bottles on such
short
> notice?
See above. They were indeed developed for a specific scenario. And a
milkman is a fairly innocuous cover, allowing for entrance to perhaps many
other locales. Being that Whitaker is an arms dealer, it isn't really a
stretch at all to think an inventory of several innocent-looking items could
be developed for deadly purpose.
> The thing here is that if you stop and think about this scene,
> it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's done with absolutely no
care
> at all toward the background logistics which would have been required for
> Necros to truly pull this caper off.
I just can't believe you truly believe that. I see problems with "The
Living Daylights", but this scene is not one of them. It is a highlight of
the film, and the milk bottles work perfectly well, logically and
logistically.
> Its done with the same "it doesn't matter, its a joke" attitude of a GET
SMART episode.
I took the scene as deadly serious, especially when compared to a grossly
unhealthy tally of "Get Smart" inspired scenes of the 1970's, and into the
early 1980's.
gclap...@cix.compulink.co.uk
rt...@earthlink.net (Tom Zielinski) wrote:
> What purpose does the logo serve?
So that he knows it's his one. Like the fact that he has his name sewed in
all of his clothes. And a piece of cord on his gloves that's looped
through the arms of his coat.
You do ask some silly questions...
Barry King
> Precisely. This was my original question. How can
> Necros possibly know where Koskov is taken, since Koskov
> shouldn't know ahead of time where he will be taken.
> It's a considerable plot hole.
How's about Koskov wormed the information out of Saunders in the course
of their negotiations? I can easily see that scenario fitting both
their characters and of course Koskov would then pass the info on to
Necros and/or Whittaker.
--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain
Phil G - London UK
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > But how does Necros know this is the place they are hiding Koskov?
> >
> > Radioactive lint. Just a theory <g>
>
>
> Cool redoactive lint that is how they found Captin KIRK in the StarTREK film
> with Dr SPOCK doing it on his sholder when they went to the ICE PLANET just
> like in DIE ANOTER DAY!
>
> JAMES BOND is CAPTIN KIRK!
>
> HAH HAHH AH!
So you must be *salt* or *vinegar*...? <g>
Phil
Steve Keeley
>> Precisely. This was my original question. How can
>> Necros possibly know where Koskov is taken, since Koskov
>> shouldn't know ahead of time where he will be taken.
>> It's a considerable plot hole.
>>
>> --Mike
>>
>
>No, read Mac's post again - Soviet intelligence has presumably told Koskov
>where the safe houses are. Or Whitaker has sources. It's not a big deal.
Miranda Frost spilled the beans.
___________________________________________
Steve Keeley
When responding by e-mail, please remove "xspam"
Phil G - London UK
> > Precisely. This was my original question. How can
> > Necros possibly know where Koskov is taken, since Koskov
> > shouldn't know ahead of time where he will be taken.
> > It's a considerable plot hole.
> >
> > --Mike
> >
>
> No, read Mac's post again - Soviet intelligence has presumably told Koskov
> where the safe houses are. Or Whitaker has sources. It's not a big deal.
...or Koskov has already worked out a way of letting Whitaker and
Necros know exactly where he's going to be taken. Koskov isn't a POW,
he's a prized defector, so one could presume that whatever messages he
sends to the outside world - particularly to people who might be
associated with Whitaker, who's not the most communistic of guys -
wouldn't be scrutinised in the same way that a captured Russian
agent's would be...
OK, in terms of real-life espionage, the film probably doesn't work,
but I'd argue that in terms of the worldview of the movies it's OK -
and Mike, isn't that what you've always argued about MR? I just don't
buy the argument you're putting forward, which seems to me to be that
in your opinion MR fulfils both real-world logic and movie logic
whereas TLD doesn't. IMHO even the most 'down-to-earth' Bond movies
have been utter fantasies, FWIW...
Best
Phil
Mike Feeney
"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Feeney" <moonr...@excite.com> wrote in message
>news:v509s4...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> Could someone please explain to me what is wrong with the 007 logo camera
>> seen in MOONRAKER? Really. I truly fail to see what the issue apparently
>> is here.
>
>
>Answer one question for me, Mike. Please.
>
>What purpose does the logo serve?
>
>I'd be really interested in your rationale if the answer is anything but,
>"None."
>
>The camera was developed for the surreptitious procurement of top secret
>information. Whether or not Drax knew who Bond was at the time is moot.
In
>the world of espionage, the advertising of one's spy status is dangerous.
>And stupid.
>
Please explain how the numbers '007' on the camera
advertise Bond's spy status. How many people would
know that these three digits refer to a British Secret
Service agent having a license to kill? Very few.
These three numbers would mean nothing to the vast
majority of people who might happen to come across
Bond using this camera. If asked what the numbers
mean, Bond could easily reply "Its the model of this
camera: The Minolta 007 with auto-focus."
I therefore humbly maintain that the camera does
not advertise Bond's spy status nor does it
compromise him in any way.
>'Course...I could be wrong.
>
>
Nah, you're not wrong.... just not right. <g>
>
>Tom Zielinski
>"Life Is Funny, But I'm Not Laughing"
>
>
--Mike