69 replies to this topic

[Dunph]

Hmm...Nice find John, but I don't think this really changes anything. I think Moonraker was definitely influenced by Star Wars whatever way you look at it. As Brendan007 and Jim comment, all Broccoli was talking about was the title of the film, You Only Live Twice had virtually no connection to the book in any way but it still used the title.

Moonraker had to be about space, whatever one might say, but I feel that the film certainly was influenced greatly by the style of Lucas and the lucre that could be gained by the bandwagon-jumping.

[B007GLE]

Good point Jim.

I wonder if the MR that Cubby discussed back in '76 might not have been more like the book. (Pitty such a film was never made.)

Maybe Drax would give England a space shuttle which in reality was a doomsday weapon whcih immediately after take off would turn towards London and destroy it?

I think sending Bond up into space was a reaction to Star Wars and a bad one at that.

I remember seeing MR in the theaters and enjoying the 1st half but by the time Jaws starts falling off of cliffs I became nauseous. I thought "well there goes the franchise!"

[IndyB007]

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.

I am very interested in reading those articles...... will we see them up on CBN?

[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.

I am very interested in reading those articles...... will we see them up on CBN?

You just might...

[DLibrasnow]

Good point Jim.

I wonder if the MR that Cubby discussed back in '76 might not have been more like the book. (Pitty such a film was never made.)

Broccoli said the plot was a little tame considering that in the previous movie the villain had wanted to destroy the world.

[IndyB007]

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

I've heard rumors about a 3 3/4 inch series of Moonraker figures were in the planning stages from Mego and that they were in a couple of catalogs, but have never seen any pictures of this proposed line. A while back there was a little bit of discussion about the figures in this thread: http://debrief.comma...showtopic=16809 We found some photos of the catalogs, but not of the contents. You wouldn't be able to post any pictures of the figures and these spacestation and spaceship would you?

[B007GLE]

Good point Jim.

I wonder if the MR that Cubby discussed back in '76 might not have been more like the book. (Pitty such a film was never made.)

Broccoli said the plot was a little tame considering that in the previous movie the villain had wanted to destroy the world.

Kind of sad that the destruction of London wasn't big enough for the Bond franchise by then.

Its amazing that FYEO ever got made!

[DLibrasnow]

Good point Jim.

I wonder if the MR that Cubby discussed back in '76 might not have been more like the book. (Pitty such a film was never made.)

Broccoli said the plot was a little tame considering that in the previous movie the villain had wanted to destroy the world.

Kind of sad that the destruction of London wasn't big enough for the Bond franchise by then.

Its amazing that FYEO ever got made!

Well actually the plot of For Your Eyes Only was diabolical and grand in scope. Think about it, in The Spy Who Loved Me we were talking about three nuclear submarines and their payloads.

Then in For Your Eyes Only we are talking about control of every nuclear submarine in the British Royal Navy and conceivably total destruction of every NATO country. It certainly is a grand scale and scary plot.

/spoiler.gif

Interestingly the plot for 1995's GoldenEye revolved around the destruction of London

/gen_line.gif

???

[B007GLE]

Good point Jim.

I wonder if the MR that Cubby discussed back in '76 might not have been more like the book. (Pitty such a film was never made.)

Broccoli said the plot was a little tame considering that in the previous movie the villain had wanted to destroy the world.

Kind of sad that the destruction of London wasn't big enough for the Bond franchise by then.

Its amazing that FYEO ever got made!

Well actually the plot of For Your Eyes Only was diabolical and grand in scope. Think about it, in The Spy Who Loved Me we were talking about three nuclear submarines and their payloads.

Then in For Your Eyes Only we are talking about control of every nuclear submarine in the British Royal Navy and conceivably total destruction of every NATO country. It certainly is a grand scale and scary plot.

/spoiler.gif

Interestingly the plot for 1995's GoldenEye revolved around the destruction of London

/gen_line.gif

???

While control of all subs was the potential of the FYEO plot that was a few steps down the road. The film really concerns itself with getting back the ATAC which could have been called "the McGuffin Machine".

There is no "Countdown to Armageddon" like in TSWLM or MR or a half a dozen other Bond films.

[Qwerty]

For Your Eyes Only does indeed have a scary plot and the consequences of the villain winning are grave. However they never really seemed to put too much focus on what Kristatos selling it to the Soviets would do. There was talks of what they could do, but I think because the didn't highlight it enough, it didn't have as large an impact as the plot for The Spy Who Loved Me for example.

[marktmurphy]

Haven't read anything else said in this thread so apologies if I'm covering old ground, but my reaction to this news is that it changes nothing. John says MR was to be Cubby's space-themed Bond, but has no evidence. It was just a title in 1976- NASA moving back the shuttle launch would mean nothing to a man who had no idea shuttles would have been in his version of Moonraker.
The idea to turn Moonraker into a plot based around space was undeniably themed around Star Wars- the title just came in handy. If it was called For Your Eyes Only would that have changed anything?

[Qwerty]

Good point Jim.

I wonder if the MR that Cubby discussed back in '76 might not have been more like the book. (Pitty such a film was never made.)

Broccoli said the plot was a little tame considering that in the previous movie the villain had wanted to destroy the world.

Kind of sad that the destruction of London wasn't big enough for the Bond franchise by then.

Its amazing that FYEO ever got made!

I wonder if the destruction of London element in Moonraker would have made it to the film version if it had been made before The Spy Who Loved Me which had the monumental plot of Armageddon.

[Janus Assassin]

It wasn't just Star Wars it was influenced by. You also had Star Trek and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Thats where the jingle when Bond put in the code to get into Drax's lab. The late 70's was all up in the Sci-Fi hype and thats when Bond came in.

[Qwerty]

There has always been little things that have gotten into the Bond films though. Moonraker had 'The Magnificent Seven', The Spy Who Loved Me had Mozart simply, as Hamlisch put it.

[zencat]

John says MR was to be Cubby's space-themed Bond, but has no evidence... The idea to turn Moonraker into a plot based around space was undeniably themed around Star Wars- the title just came in handy. If it was called For Your Eyes Only would that have changed anything?

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

Maybe for the same reason that even years before they were made we could assume that OHMSS would be snow-themed, YOLT would be set in Japan, Thunderball would have an underwater element, LALD would have African-American villains, DAF would be set in Las Vegas, TMWTGG would feature...well, a man with a golden gun!

The Spy Who Loved Me was a completely original story only because it had to be contractually. Up until then, the essence of each novel was very much the essence of the film. Moonraker has a rocket/space technology theme bigtime. Take a look at any paperback edition of the book and tell me it doesn

[PrinceKamalKhan]

For Your Eyes Only does indeed have a scary plot and the consequences of the villain winning are grave. However they never really seemed to put too much focus on what Kristatos selling it to the Soviets would do. There was talks of what they could do, but I think because the didn't highlight it enough, it didn't have as large an impact as the plot for The Spy Who Loved Me for example.

Exactly. I wish that For Your Eyes Only had placed greater emphasis on the element that the Russians could use the ATAC to order British submarines to attack U.K. cities. They could have done that without sacrificing the more serious and less sci-fi(relative to both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me anyway) aspect of the film.

[Qwerty]

For Your Eyes Only does indeed have a scary plot and the consequences of the villain winning are grave. However they never really seemed to put too much focus on what Kristatos selling it to the Soviets would do. There was talks of what they could do, but I think because the didn't highlight it enough, it didn't have as large an impact as the plot for The Spy Who Loved Me for example.

Exactly. I wish that For Your Eyes Only had placed greater emphasis on the element that the Russians could use the ATAC to order British submarines to attack U.K. cities. They could have done that without sacrificing the more serious and less sci-fi(relative to both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me anyway) aspect of the film.

Quite so Prince Kamal Khan. I think that's what kind of seperates this serious Moore film from Connery's serious From Russia With Love. In From Russia With Love there was more emphasis on all the objects in the plot and that sort. For Your Eyes Only could have worked on it.

[Triton]

For Your Eyes Only does indeed have a scary plot and the consequences of the villain winning are grave. However they never really seemed to put too much focus on what Kristatos selling it to the Soviets would do. There was talks of what they could do, but I think because the didn't highlight it enough, it didn't have as large an impact as the plot for The Spy Who Loved Me for example.

Exactly. I wish that For Your Eyes Only had placed greater emphasis on the element that the Russians could use the ATAC to order British submarines to attack U.K. cities. They could have done that without sacrificing the more serious and less sci-fi(relative to both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me anyway) aspect of the film.

But a greater emphasis on the potential danger that the ATAC transmitter posed to the Western democracies may have run counter with Eon Production's goal of creating a fun action/adventure with a dash of light comedy.

Did audiences at the time really want to have images in their minds of a nuclear Holocaust or reminded of the anti-Soviet "evil empire" speeches of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan?

I believe that stories featuring weapons of mass destruction need to have a big dose of fantasy to be palatable to audiences. Who really wants to go into a movie theatre and be reminded that death from nuclear war was a very real possibility?

[Qwerty]

For Your Eyes Only does indeed have a scary plot and the consequences of the villain winning are grave. However they never really seemed to put too much focus on what Kristatos selling it to the Soviets would do. There was talks of what they could do, but I think because the didn't highlight it enough, it didn't have as large an impact as the plot for The Spy Who Loved Me for example.

Exactly. I wish that For Your Eyes Only had placed greater emphasis on the element that the Russians could use the ATAC to order British submarines to attack U.K. cities. They could have done that without sacrificing the more serious and less sci-fi(relative to both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me anyway) aspect of the film.

But a greater emphasis on the potential danger that the ATAC transmitter posed to the Western democracies may have run counter with Eon Production's goal of creating a fun action/adventure with a dash of light comedy.

Did audiences at the time really want to have images in their minds of a nuclear Holocaust or reminded of the anti-Soviet "evil empire" speeches of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan?

I believe that stories featuring weapons of mass destruction need to have a big dose of fantasy to be palatable to audiences. Who really wants to go into a movie theatre and be reminded that death from nuclear war was a very real possibility?

However Triton, For Your Eyes Only was supposed to be the film that downsized the fantasy after two such dazzling fantasy laden Bond films, The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. It makes sense to me that there wasn't that same amount in For Your Eyes Only, but there is a point of explaining the plot elements (ATAC) to let them create an impact.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

For Your Eyes Only does indeed have a scary plot and the consequences of the villain winning are grave. However they never really seemed to put too much focus on what Kristatos selling it to the Soviets would do. There was talks of what they could do, but I think because the didn't highlight it enough, it didn't have as large an impact as the plot for The Spy Who Loved Me for example.

Exactly. I wish that For Your Eyes Only had placed greater emphasis on the element that the Russians could use the ATAC to order British submarines to attack U.K. cities. They could have done that without sacrificing the more serious and less sci-fi(relative to both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me anyway) aspect of the film.

But a greater emphasis on the potential danger that the ATAC transmitter posed to the Western democracies may have run counter with Eon Production's goal of creating a fun action/adventure with a dash of light comedy.

Did audiences at the time really want to have images in their minds of a nuclear Holocaust or reminded of the anti-Soviet "evil empire" speeches of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan?

I believe that stories featuring weapons of mass destruction need to have a big dose of fantasy to be palatable to audiences. Who really wants to go into a movie theatre and be reminded that death from nuclear war was a very real possibility?

But EON did do that in 1983 with Octopussy. Remember Orlov's speech in the Soviet war room with the Kutzov computer? And the down-to-the-last-second scene with the bomb in the circus tent?

[Qwerty]

I think, that can be attributed to the fact that while For Your Eyes Only was a clear cut serious Bond film with very minimal amounts of fantasy compared to Moonraker for example, Octopussy had a larger dose of the fantasy elements than For Your Eyes Only did.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I think, that can be attributed to the fact that while For Your Eyes Only was a clear cut serious Bond film with very minimal amounts of fantasy compared to Moonraker for example, Octopussy had a larger dose of the fantasy elements than For Your Eyes Only did.

True but Octopussy mainly relegated its comic elements to the India scenes. The East & West Germany scenes were played very straight and were a lot more intense than For Your Eyes Only IMHO.

[Qwerty]

I think, that can be attributed to the fact that while For Your Eyes Only was a clear cut serious Bond film with very minimal amounts of fantasy compared to Moonraker for example, Octopussy had a larger dose of the fantasy elements than For Your Eyes Only did.

True but Octopussy mainly relegated its comic elements to the India scenes. The East & West Germany scenes were played very straight and were a lot more intense than For Your Eyes Only IMHO.

You are right, some of the scenes in Octopussy such as those are very serious and deadly in nature. However you also make the point that there is some comic elements also, something IMO, For Your Eyes Only had a much lower amount of, along with fantasy spectacle.

[CommanderBond]

well youve got me sonld on a couple of points but i still think he followed Star Wars for the fact that he didnt go with the plan UNTIL Star Wars came out. If he didnt follow then why did he wait?

[B007GLE]

2 things re the above posts:

1) Even pushing the consequences of the ATAC, FYEO is a cracking good cold war thriller. I caught a little of it on SPike the other night- the scene where BOnd and Melina retrieve the ATAC. Is holds up almost 25 years later.

2) Of course Cubby was influenced by Star Wars. the entire Moore cannon (except TSWLM) up to 1979 was influenced by other genres:

LALD - Blaxploitation

TMWTGG - Bruce Lee Chop-socky flicks

TSWLM - (every Bond before but rolled into one)

MR - Star Wars.

I personally find it a little sad how the 70s Bonds did follow those trends when in the 60s they were the trend to be followed. (THe BOnd influence on "Enter the Dragon" is far greater than the Bruce Lee influence on MWTGG but that influence is still there.)

I have a feeling that I'm mixing up my points a bit so I'm going to stop now.

[Qwerty]

1) Even pushing the consequences of the ATAC, FYEO is a cracking good cold war thriller. I caught a little of it on SPike the other night- the scene where BOnd and Melina retrieve the ATAC. Is holds up almost 25 years later.

I would agree B007GLE. While not my favorite of the Roger Moore Bond films, it is definitely a very good one nonetheless. Scenes like that, the keelhauling, the climb, and others all do contribute to supporting the word thrilling as a description. I think this movie could have been even better if they had better followed and described the ATAC plot. Still good though.

[Turn]

2) Of course Cubby was influenced by Star Wars. the entire Moore cannon (except TSWLM) up to 1979 was influenced by other genres:

LALD - Blaxploitation

TMWTGG - Bruce Lee Chop-socky flicks

TSWLM - (every Bond before but rolled into one)

MR - Star Wars.

I personally find it a little sad how the 70s Bonds did follow those trends when in the 60s they were the trend to be followed. (THe BOnd influence on "Enter the Dragon" is far greater than the Bruce Lee influence on MWTGG but that influence is still there.)

I have a feeling that I'm mixing up my points a bit so I'm going to stop now.

Some people have said OP was influenced somewhat by Raiders of the Lost Ark, while others think AVTAK was influenced by GF.

[Qwerty]

2) Of course Cubby was influenced by Star Wars. the entire Moore cannon (except TSWLM) up to 1979 was influenced by other genres:

LALD - Blaxploitation

TMWTGG - Bruce Lee Chop-socky flicks

TSWLM - (every Bond before but rolled into one)

MR - Star Wars.

I personally find it a little sad how the 70s Bonds did follow those trends when in the 60s they were the trend to be followed. (THe BOnd influence on "Enter the Dragon" is far greater than the Bruce Lee influence on MWTGG but that influence is still there.)

I have a feeling that I'm mixing up my points a bit so I'm going to stop now.

Some people have said OP was influenced somewhat by Raiders of the Lost Ark, while others think AVTAK was influenced by GF.

I read that A View To A Kill was somewhat influenced also by The Temple of Doom, in that the finale is quite similar.

[Triton]

2) Of course Cubby was influenced by Star Wars. the entire Moore cannon (except TSWLM) up to 1979 was influenced by other genres:

LALD - Blaxploitation

TMWTGG - Bruce Lee Chop-socky flicks

TSWLM - (every Bond before but rolled into one)

MR - Star Wars.

I personally find it a little sad how the 70s Bonds did follow those trends when in the 60s they were the trend to be followed. (THe BOnd influence on "Enter the Dragon" is far greater than the Bruce Lee influence on MWTGG but that influence is still there.)

I have a feeling that I'm mixing up my points a bit so I'm going to stop now.

Some people have said OP was influenced somewhat by Raiders of the Lost Ark, while others think AVTAK was influenced by GF.

I believe that Richard Attenborough's best picture winning bio-pic Gandhi in 1981 had something to do with the decision to shoot the film in India. The early 1980's had many films and television series set in India after Gandhi:

Heat and Dust (1983)

The Jewel in the Crown miniseries (1984).

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1984)

A Passage to India (1984)

[blofeld123]

Moonraker could quite possibly be the worst excuse for a bond film ever. It's plot is stupid, the villain is down right unrealisitc. When in reality will we ever have a space fight with lasers?