David_M, on 20 Jun 2017 - 3:51 PM, said:
Short answer, judging by the very informed and welcome discussion points above :
No one knows.
It's largely down to personal preferences.
Correct. Personal preference is subjective, which I believe, given the informed and welcome discussion points above, means "no one knows"
If the question had been "was Moonraker a good Bond film," then the answer is a matter of taste. But the question was "why does it get a bad rap?" and we do know the answer to that: It's because certain well-placed fans with the ability to express their opinions exercised that ability at a crucial point in time. There have always been fans convinced that their opinion is the only correct one: the difference is that now there's thousands upon thousands of us canceling each other out because the internet's leveled the playing field. In those days, the few with publishing contracts had a disproportionate degree of influence.
Objectively, there's no real reason MR should be singled out for disdain. Goldfinger was the film that detoured the series into the realm of impossible gadgets and OTT plots. YOLT was the one that made Bond a second banana to technology and big sets. DAF was the one that dragged us into full-on comedy. Yes, MR was arguably the apex of all those trends, but it didn't start any of them. It just had the misfortune of running afoul of a few folks in charge of writing the history books. Because...horrors!...it managed to be a phenomenal success. If there was anything that upset old school fans more than an "inferior Roger Moore film," it was a Roger Moore film that threatened to be as big a success -- or bigger -- than anything in the Connery era.
But it is the personal opinions of those fans who derided MR which has [possibly] misled many to believe it has always had a bad rap. As you point out, the playing field has been levelled by other personal opinions. Even when those opinions feel to some to be quite valid [e.g. a good music score] there will be some others whose personal opinion differs. Ultimately any arbiter of taste / fashion / art critique etc is offering a personal opinion, informed or not. They use what they interpret with their own eyes allied to external data and learnings to assess what they personally feel and wish to present. Other people with other learnings will disagree and you will have a debate, as we are here.
Without subjective opinion you cannot have any form of art or artistic movement as it thrives on debate. For every person who for instance adores Michelangelo's David or Miles Davis' Bitches Brew, you'll have some one saying WTFWT? This was happening with MR in 1979 as much as it was in 2017. I remember it - I was there, although young, and while I loved it, my mum thought it was preposterously silly.
When you say there is "no real reason why MR should be singled out for disdain" that is your opinion, others would tell you there are many. The debate, if anything, is what causes the bad reputation and a debate in itself, which will never have a resolution - even a show of hands or a Parliamentary vote does not stop debate - simply can't be explained objectively.
I tend not to pontificate in forums. I prefer to offer short answers. So sorry to ramble on and I'll repeat it again: given the informed and welcome discussion points above, no one knows.