69 replies to this topic

[zencat]

So the story goes

[Qwerty]

[quote name='zencat' date='21 July 2004 - 00:51'] Sure, Moonraker is definitely influenced by Star Wars (laser guns, etc), but in light of this article, I don't think we can say that Moonraker was a reaction to Star Wars. It was Cubby

[zencat]

I also found some articles about how Eon sued Mego in 1980 over non-payment of fees in connection with their Moonraker merchandise. This was also news to me.

[Qwerty]

I also found some articles about how Eon sued Mego in 1980 over non-payment of fees in connection with their Moonraker merchandise. This was also new to me.

Any chance of seeing those featured?

[Triton]

Wow, Cubby certainly was ambitious if he felt he could return to the Summer, and then Christmas. and then Summer release schedule of the early James Bond films.

If Moonraker was originally planned to be the next film after The Spy Who Loved Me, I wonder what changed their minds that they decided to announce For Your Eyes Only during the end credits of The Spy Who Loved Me.

I have read that Gerry Anderson, co-creator of Thunderbirds, was approached by Harry Saltzman to produce Moonraker, before the film that was to be The Spy Who Loved Me went into production. The story goes that Anderson developed a screen treatment that featured a super tanker that could launch rockets. Anderson sued Broccoli over the super tanker idea, but then dropped the case because he felt that he was over-his-head legally. Of course this ignores the fact that Richard Maibaum had a laser armed super tanker in an early draft of Diamonds Are Forever.

I wonder if the problems with Anderson caused Cubby to announce For Your Eyes Only after The Spy Who Loved Me?

[Athena007]

Seriously interesting stuff. THIS is true Bond History...

[J J]

I also found some articles about how Eon sued Mego in 1980 over non-payment of fees in connection with their Moonraker merchandise. This was also news to me.

A while ago I a saw xerox of a MEGO catalogue in which they not only announced the 12" characters, but also a more elaborate range of Moonraker toys including a Spacestation and spaceship... obviously something happened along the way

Edited by J J, 21 July 2004 - 08:23 AM.

[[dark]]

Now that you mention it, this sounds vaguely familiar. I'm could have read it in one of the books I own. The Legacy? Martinis, Girls & Guns? They're the only two I can think of that are in my possession and would contain such information. Let me have a look, Zen. Nice find!

[SimplyMoore]

My son is into Star Wars, so naturally I have seen all Star Wars movies. He is also crazy about Moonraker. However, while the story is correct, and Broccili did want to capitalize on Star Wars' success, I remember him saying that James Bond wasn't really sci-fi, and they had always tried to keep it more or less as close to real life as possible. Many may disagree with me, but the only similarity I see between these movies is that they were all about space. Nothing special about that anymore, since with all our modern technology and spaceshuttle's frequent flights, Moonraker don't feel, to me anyway, as a sci-fi movie anymore. Star Wars on the other hand is very much sci-fiction. Nothing about Star Wars is close to reality exect the actors that play the parts. I love Star Wars but prefer Star Trek, because the ideas on it not only influenced some of today's technology, but seem to be closer to the idea of what life might be in the future like.

I love Moonraker. And I think that in today's times, most fans will find DAD's invisible car more weird than Bond going into space in Moonraker.
But I bet in the 70's this made a lot of people's mouths drop.

[Qwerty]

I remember him saying that James Bond wasn't really sci-fi, and they had always tried to keep it more or less as close to real life as possible.

You're correct on that Simply Moore. I believe his term was "We're not science fiction, we're science fact."

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I love Moonraker. And I think that in today's times, most fans will find DAD's invisible car more weird than Bond going into space in Moonraker.
But I bet in the 70's this made a lot of people's mouths drop.

It did. Words cannot describe what a mind-blowing experience it was to have Moonraker as your first Bond film in the cinema as a kid. An enjoyable adventure ending with a Star Wars-type finale featuring state-of-the-art(for 1979 standards anyway) special effects in a huge theater on a wide screen totally rocked.

[stromberg]

I remember him saying that James Bond wasn't really sci-fi, and they had always tried to keep it more or less as close to real life as possible.

You're correct on that Simply Moore. I believe his term was "We're not science fiction, we're science fact."

Could very well be that the original MR project was postponed due to the delay of the Space Shuttle program. Sounds plausible to me.

As to the science fact bit... one could not know what will happen with the Space Shuttles. This was the big thing back then. I remember sitting in front of the TV as a young boy, watching the first launch and the first landing. There were many speculations going on about the possibilities, and the idea of having something like the Drax space station within the next few years didn't seem too far fetched. It looked indeed like it was only one or maybe two steps into the future. Looking back knowingly today, it's easy to say "That was nonsense." It wasn't that obvious in '78/'79.

Nice catch, zencat.

[Qwerty]

I remember him saying that James Bond wasn't really sci-fi, and they had always tried to keep it more or less as close to real life as possible.

You're correct on that Simply Moore. I believe his term was "We're not science fiction, we're science fact."

Could very well be that the original MR project was postponed due to the delay of the Space Shuttle program. Sounds plausible to me.

I think you may have a point there Stromberg. Seem to remember either hearing that on the DVD or reading that they planned the two to coincide with eachother, but naturally, delays occurred.

[stromberg]

I remember him saying that James Bond wasn't really sci-fi, and they had always tried to keep it more or less as close to real life as possible.

You're correct on that Simply Moore. I believe his term was "We're not science fiction, we're science fact."

Could very well be that the original MR project was postponed due to the delay of the Space Shuttle program. Sounds plausible to me.

I think you may have a point there Stromberg. Seem to remember either hearing that on the DVD or reading that they planned the two to coincide with eachother, but naturally, delays occurred.

Yep, I think it's on the DVD. They had planned to use archival footage for the take-offs. They couldn't get any because the Shuttle program was delayed, and so everything had to be done with special effects.

[Genrewriter]

Fascinating find, zencat. You learn something new every day around here.

[SimplyMoore]

I envy those of you who were able to see Moonraker in theatres. Or any of Roger's Bonds for that matter. Unfortunately I was too young then and in Russia where I am originally from Bonds used to be shown on TV in the 80s and 90s, but I have no idea if they were ever shown in theatres. These days they have Bond marathons on TV all the time. (of course, I live in the States now).

[PrinceKamalKhan]

[quote name='zencat' date='20 July 2004 - 22:51']So the story goes

[stromberg]

.....  So Moonraker was already on EON's minds long before Star Wars came along.

Of course it was: they were running out of material. Anything that was left by that time was TSWLM (of which it was forbidden by Fleming himself to use anything of his orignal story), MR and a few short stories. There weren't even continuation novels back then (except CS).

[hrabb04]

I always thought Moonraker and Gil Gerard's Buck Rogers show were a lot a like. I keep looking for Twiggy to be on that space station near the end.

[Turn]

The thing that bothers me about that paragraph is it claims the following productions would be filmed in consecutive years. Bonds were being filmed every other year (okay, in fairness TMWTGG came a year-and-a-half after LALD) rather than consecutively, which leads me to wonder if stating MR would come first was what was actually said or just a guess by the story's writer.

[[dark]]

Now that you mention it, this sounds vaguely familiar. I'm could have read it in one of the books I own. The Legacy? Martinis, Girls & Guns? They're the only two I can think of that are in my possession and would contain such information. Let me have a look, Zen. Nice find!

The Legacy, it was! In the section between The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, it talks of a Variety article announcing The Spy Who Loved Me to go into production, followed immediately by Moonraker in '77 and For Your Eyes Only in '78.

[zencat]

Doh!

Well, John Cork has said to me on more than one occasion... "There's this book called James Bond, The Legacy...you should really read it some time!"

Good thing I just made this a main page story.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Do not concur. I think he got on the outer space Bandwagon because of SW and just because he changed his plan in 76 to do MR before FYEO doesn't mean SW wasn't an influence. I also think Octopussy was influenced by Raiders of the lost Ark(The more exotic India locales, safari stuff). Still, Bond had done outer space stuff already so it wasn't such a huge crime and SW was influenced by Star Trek too so originality was in short supply, then and now.

[Qwerty]

,21 July 2004 - 23:14] Now that you mention it, this sounds vaguely familiar.  I'm could have read it in one of the books I own.  The Legacy?  Martinis, Girls & Guns?  They're the only two I can think of that are in my possession and would contain such information.  Let me have a look, Zen.  Nice find!

The Legacy, it was! In the section between The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, it talks of a Variety article announcing The Spy Who Loved Me to go into production, followed immediately by Moonraker in '77 and For Your Eyes Only in '78.

I thought I had read everything there was to read in that book, and I look over something as large as this, and even about my two favorite James Bond films. Thanks though [dark], I know what I'll be looking for next time.

[[dark]]

Here's the Legacy passage, which, for those of you playing at home, is at the top of page 165 in the chapter titled Nobody Does It Better...

UA immediately announced a rapid production schedule for new 007 flms. Variety reported that the studio wanted The Spy Who Loved Me in cinemas by the end of the year: "Moonraker to roll in 1977 and For Your Eyes Only in 1978."

And John: read The Legacy. You won't regret it. Your back might, since it's such an epic of a book, but the Bond fan in you won't.

[Qwerty]

Here's the Legacy passage, which, for those of you playing at home, is at the top of page 165 in the chapter titled Nobody Does It Better...

UA immediately announced a rapid production schedule for new 007 flms. Variety reported that the studio wanted The Spy Who Loved Me in cinemas by the end of the year: "Moonraker to roll in 1977 and For Your Eyes Only in 1978."

Many, many thanks. I believed you saying it, but there's just something about reading it right in the book itself.

[zencat]

And John: read The Legacy. You won't regret it. Your back might, since it's such an epic of a book, but the Bond fan in you won't.

Oh, I have read Legacy. I even reviewed it for CBn. It's great! I just don't remember reading this.

[[dark]]

Suddenly Cork's comment to you just oozes sarcasm.

[brendan007]

Why is everyone assuming that this 1977 Moonraker would be space themed?

[Jim]

Why is everyone assuming that this 1977 Moonraker would be space themed?

Quite; strikes one that the only reason it was mentioned is because it was one of the last available titles, Broccoli wanted to show that after the Salztman split he meant business, so started sounding off about all the Bond films he was going to make to give potential investors confidence in him and there would have been mild curiosity if he had left Moonraker out of such hoop-la.