Revolver66 wrote:I always say that Bond films are best compared with other Bond films.
I totally agree. I just meant the space-related special effects and models comparison.
Speaking of Kubrick, I was just reading this article about how Stephen King still hates the film version of The Shining
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/step … ing-2017-2What stood out to me was the author's closing remarks about how a fan can still enjoy the novel and film versions as totally separate works. I would encourage any Fleming purists out there to keep that in mind and give the Moonraker film a fair chance for what it is.
"The safest thing to do is to remember movies and novels serve different purposes when telling stories. It's totally possible for fans to enjoy the hell out of Jack Nicholson's balls-out nutty caretaker in the Kubrick film and still dive deep into the King novel again—they're equally awesome if you love both art forms. "
Ah forgive me. I thought you meant the films themselves and not the effects and model work. In regards to that then, I would say that 2001 has the wood on it, however Moonraker's effects and models are very, very good and definitely hold their own. So they're pretty close in quality. Also I love how King hated Kubrick's film, it drives him nuts 
He got the tv adaption happening yet it bombed and Kubrick's film is now a bona fide classic. Apparently Kubrick liked the story but didn't think that King was a good writer