81 replies to this topic

[Guy Haines]

I guess I'm going to have to rain a little on the MR lovefest. I don't hate MR by any means, in fact I loved it when I was 11 years old in 1979. My biggest problem with the movie is not the cheesiness or outer space battle (although it does bother me a bit) but that they Drax is so damned stupid for such a smart guy. Bond visits Drax at the beginning of his investigation, Drax is not yet a suspect. However Drax tells Chang "Make sure some harm comes to Mr. Bond" WHILE ON DRAX's PROPERTY! As I mentioned, Drax was not yet a suspect, well something happening to Bond sure would make Drax (or someone at Drax industries) a suspect. Why would Drax want to call that attention to himself??? It also has far too many scenes put in the film just for the sake of adding a scene that does nothing to further the plot (all Bond movies are guilty of this, but MR does it in a bit of excess).

That said, it is a fun romp not to be taken seriously and is a very well made film. Technically the crew were at the top of their game.

Good point about Mr. Drax. Mind you, in the book, Sir Hugo also tried to "accidentally" bump off Bond on site, and when Bond survived more or less made it clear that he expected Bond and Gala Brand to be dead - when they returned to his mansion they found two less places set for dinner. That said, Sir Hugo couldn't have cared less - he expected to be out of England by the end of the week. Mr. Drax, on the other hand.... well, he expected to be off the planet before long, so maybe he thought an unexpected death on his grounds was a small price to prevent Bond's snooping.

Thinking about it, that scene is a link, however tenuous, between the book and the film. Others being - the rocket blast chamber scene (the most obvious link), the reference to Drax's bridge playing, and his investing his entire fortune in a manned space programme for supposedly benevolent purposes (compare with Sir Hugo's gift of £10 million to build a super missile for the UK).

Yes, actually, MR the movie is a bit closer to the original story than it appears. But, sadly, nowhere near close enough for my liking.

[Colossus]

Damn quote doesn't work argh... oh well

"Are you sure that MR is the most "fun" Bond film? I was under the impression that it was Casino Royale - 1967 David Niven/Peter Sellers version, of course. Well, the cast seemed to be having fun, anyway (whether the audience did is another matter entirely - I know of someone who, when it was shown on ITV recently, tried to watch it and turned it off after five minutes.)

I've taken aim and fired at some of the excesses of MR on this site, but compared to CR 1967, MR is a model of restraint! "

You basically pointed out why CR 67 isn't as fun as MR, because everyone on there is having fun and it just comes off annoying for us moreso, a million directors on it, it's a huge trainwreck.

Also yes MR is more fun than OP, if by going pure fun factor. OP is fun but has a bit too much drama (which isn't bad but takes off the FUN) like the train/bomb parts and has a sort of glummy 80s mood like Moore is a little past his prime. MR still has that high feel just over TSWLM with Bondmania firmly back and everything is pure pulpy goodness in the first post-Star Wars movie when people were out of that early 70s glummy post-Vietnam/Watergate and everything was back to fun again and Moonraker delivered it in spades.

[Matt_13]

Comparing Moonraker to Die Another Day is doing MR a disservice. Die Another Day is a terrible, terrible movie. It was not an 'homage,' as there were no subtle nods to past Bond films. Everything simply hits you like a smack in the face, rubbing it in that what we are watching is (really!) a James Bond movie. There's no wit to be seen or heard, no excitement to be had (save the teaser). Moonraker has a wonderful self awareness to it that allows the gags to work, yet it also has enough investigation and (I use the term lightly) drama to allow it to sit most honorably in the Bond canon. Moore is at the top of his game, and the quips roll of his tongue with ease. DAD is just a mess, an ignorant film that takes itself far too seriously. Brosnan did what he could, and to an extent did an admirable job with what he was given, but he is drowned in bad camp and poor acting. And slow mo, mustn't forget that.

[Guy Haines]

And what's all this talk about Drax's character? Nothing was said about his background apart from his being obsessed with the conquest of space. His megalomania becomes apparent, but as far as I can see all they did was take the neon sign that flashes 'villain' from wherever Curt Jurgens left it and put it around Michel Lonsdale's neck. If he'd at least selected only tall, blonde nordic types to repopulate the Earth we could assume he was some sort of neo-nazi, but the racial diversity of his crew makes me feel (in my more pessemistic moments) that he was onto something.

The film is ripe for remaking. There are so many different directions this film could have gone in that would have made it even better. No use in trying to rewrite history; the 70's were the decade where Bond was all about trying to get a laugh and, I guess, if I had been waiting in lines at the gas pump for 4 hours, or dealing with double-digit inflation, or having to watch the nightly news and see how Iran was pushing the U.S. around like a red-headed step-child, I'd probably need some escapism to.

Imagine if the writers had given us Zorin and Hans Glaub as villains in MOONRAKER instead of AVTAK, and you take out the over-the-top, unnecessary camp and humor, you might have one of the best Bond films ever, irrespective of what you think of Lois Chiles acting (which I loved).

Again, this is one film I wouldn't mind seeing remade. The whole issue of having a God-complex...of repopulating the earth...of resetting the "start" button on humanity, was very much under explored in this film. I would like to see them take another crack at this one.

I agree it is ripe for a remake. Along the lines of the original Fleming novel. Change the locations, the target if needs be, even the method of delivery. But the story was down to a battle between Bond and a villain who only Bond and his ally Gala had worked out was a villain. To everyone else he was a hero. Drax in the novel made a change from the understated, even reclusive types he would take on in other stories. Here was a villain almost begging to be found out, but confident that the so called British "establishment" would be too stupid to rumble him. Which they were. If it hadn't been for M's suspicions and Bond's fixed deck of cards!

I would have liked to have seen a story like the Moonraker novel on screen. The closest we've come to it is Bond versus Graves in DAD, and although to me it is clear who Graves is based upon from the novels, not enough screen time was available to develop the character.

[Turn]

I guess I'm going to have to rain a little on the MR lovefest. I don't hate MR by any means, in fact I loved it when I was 11 years old in 1979. My biggest problem with the movie is not the cheesiness or outer space battle (although it does bother me a bit) but that they Drax is so damned stupid for such a smart guy. Bond visits Drax at the beginning of his investigation, Drax is not yet a suspect. However Drax tells Chang "Make sure some harm comes to Mr. Bond" WHILE ON DRAX's PROPERTY! As I mentioned, Drax was not yet a suspect, well something happening to Bond sure would make Drax (or someone at Drax industries) a suspect. Why would Drax want to call that attention to himself??? It also has far too many scenes put in the film just for the sake of adding a scene that does nothing to further the plot (all Bond movies are guilty of this, but MR does it in a bit of excess).

That said, it is a fun romp not to be taken seriously and is a very well made film. Technically the crew were at the top of their game.

To be fair, Holly asked Bond if he wanted to try out the simulator and that was Chang's opportunity to bring some harm to Bond. Also, Drax may have just thought of Bond as just a ministry stooge, not somebody from MI6's 00 section and that was his attempt to scare him off, but who knows?

Trying to knock him off again before he leaves, knowing he's probably already reported in, that was stupid and sets it up for more. But Drax's arrogance makes him view Bond more as a fly in the ointment than a serious threat to his plan, a mistake made by so many of Bond's enemies.

Another thing came to mind, I wonder if Bond ever inquired with Holly or anybody of what became of Corinne. Did he not know he was indirectly responsible for her death?

[AMC Hornet]

So, Matt_13, would you say that Moonraker occupies its proper place in the cinematic 007's chronology? That after Stopping Stromberg's plot to start WWIII with hijacked atomic submarines, Bond then left the Earth with a fleet of shuttles to do battle on an enourmous space station which had been secretly built in orbit, then returned to earth to investigate Greek smugglers and locate a lost code transmitter?

Submarines encounter problems all the time. In the last thirty years plenty of privately-financed space fleets have constructed enormous orbiting platforms which remain undetected. Spies and secret agents frequently attempt to obtain each other's codes and equipment.

Which of the above statements is the least factual?

I rant, I know. Please don't regard this as a personal attack. But in my considerable opinion it is easier to say that Moonraker was an exaggeration - a case of "hey, let's have fun with this one, treat is as a one-off. Sure, the technology will take decades to catch up, but no-one will regard this one as a serious entry. Let's consider it a Bond film from the future."

This attitude works especially when you read the words at the end of TSWLM: "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only." I know that the decision to change the next title came later, but it makes it possible to distance Moonraker from the series' chronology. Consider how Bond and Blofeld meet for the second time in OHMSS, yet they don't seem to recognize each other, suggesting that YOLT didn't really happen either.

As for Die Another Day, sure it had its excesses. There are less elaborate ways of invading South Korea that don't involve conflict diamond trading, gene therapy and slipping giant space weapons into orbit. Like Moonraker, however, the film was paced in such a way that it arrives at its conclusion more or less 'logically.' Personally, I liked the homage moments. As a trivia buff I enjoyed picking them out. The slow-mo and ram-zooms were a bit jarring, but that was the least criminal of Lee Tamahori's trademarks. And they were only in the one film. We can't have John Glen (or Martin Campbell) every time.

To repeat what I said in an earlier post, I enjoy Moonraker as an exaggeration of what a Bond movie could be, in the hands of the makers of Matt Helm or Derek Flint. It was a break before we got back to basics (it's also the one non-fans tend to pick on as 'typical' - or at least it was before DAD).

Edited by AMC Hornet, 12 September 2010 - 12:15 AM.

[Matt_13]

Since I don't want the thread closed this will be my only response to the matter.

First of all John Glenn was a terrible directer who filmed the flattest looking films in the series. They lacked the flair that I like to see in my Bond films. Gilbert, who directed Moonraker, directed some of the most visually compelling films in the series (Terrence Young and Martin Campbell did exceptionally well also, as did the underrated Forster). I do believe Moonraker sits comfortably in the Bond "chronology" because there really isn't a chronology. Each film can sit on it's own without a reliance on any of the previous ones. In this sense, I've never thought of any of the films (Dr.No/From Russia with Love, Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace aside) as being interconnected. Moonraker sits perfectly well as a textbook Moore entry in the canon (beautiful women, beautiful locations, class, wit, travelogue, and some excellent action). The space stuff isn't even that ludicrous when compared to that electronic suit and giant space laser in DAD.

The biggest difference between the films has nothing to do with their logic, but their tone. You can get away with a lot if the tone is right, and Moonraker succeeds in keeping things light and fun, but never falling into the realm full blown camp, thanks largely to Moore. DAD, on the other hand, attempts to be a serious, "gritty" Bond adventure (Purvis and Wade admitted that this was a harder edged film in their eyes). DAD features the single worst script in the series, as well as the worst acting. I wouldn't count the zip shots against the film one bit, but the overabundance of CG effects, slow mo, awkward running, and poorly choreographed fight sequences just topple onto the already goofy as hell plot and poor direction. Even the costuming is ridiculous. If they hadn't kept such a straight face it would have turned out fine (see the invisible Aston Martin reveal, that scene is exceptionally well played out when compared to the rest because of it's tone, why didn't we get more of that?). In any case, I'm more of a Daniel Craig Bond fan and I haven't watched the Moore films in some time. The bottom line is that I can enjoy Moonraker for what it is because Moonraker enjoys itself for what it is. Gilbert's direction and Roger Moore make it feel like a Bond film, even while the main characters are ascending into outer space. DAD on the other hand I refuse to watch. It's just far too much. It was trying too hard to be a Bond film, and that's the best explanation I can give for my contempt.

[zencat]

Even though I don't dislike DAD or John Glen, I think you make excellent points, Matt_13.

[AMC Hornet]

I too don't want to create any animosity between us, Matt_13, and I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you that your opinion is wrong. Like you, I have my preferences and opinions, and I respect where yours are coming from. I happily admit that I am a proud defender of some of the series' less popular entries. I agree with you that Moonraker is fun, but I maintain that I can't take it seriously in what passes for the series' 'chronology.' (Consider this: if you discount DAD as a legitimate entry, that would make TWINE the last film in the 'old' series - and I hear a lot of critical bleating about that one, too.)

I'm content to agree to disagree, and I'll try to refrain dissing Moonraker in a thread that is supposed to be a forum for those who appreciate it more than I do. I certainly had no problem with it when it was new, as it never fell short of living up to its hype. Moreover I agree with your assessment of John Glen's directing - all five of his films do seem to have an identical pace and rythm (but that doesn't mean I don't like some of them).

Fortunately for us both ("or perhaps I should say all of you?") we have a variety of films in a variety of styles to enjoy, praise and criticize. See you later at the "DAD: Your hatred is misplaced" thread.

[David_M]

Re: Drax stupidly drawing attention to himself, he was hardly the first villain to do this. Blofeld is a great example: in YOLT, Bond has no idea where SPECTRE's base is and says as much as he flies "Little Nellie" over the volcano. Then Blofeld sends in his fleet of attack copters, which has the same effect as erecting an arrow-shaped neon sign atop the volcano reading, "Secret SPECTRE HQ Here!"

[Matt_13]

I too don't want to create any animosity between us, Matt_13, and I'm not trying to change your mind or convince you that your opinion is wrong. Like you, I have my preferences and opinions, and I respect where yours are coming from. I happily admit that I am a proud defender of some of the series' less popular entries. I agree with you that Moonraker is fun, but I maintain that I can't take it seriously in what passes for the series' 'chronology.' (Consider this: if you discount DAD as a legitimate entry, that would make TWINE the last film in the 'old' series - and I hear a lot of critical bleating about that one, too.)

That's a very fair point. If I can level a compliment at DAD it's that it has more color than TWINE and serves as a better bookend to the Bond of old. No hard feelings in any case, it is a forum after all!

[Mike00spy]

I guess I'm going to have to rain a little on the MR lovefest. I don't hate MR by any means, in fact I loved it when I was 11 years old in 1979. My biggest problem with the movie is not the cheesiness or outer space battle (although it does bother me a bit) but that they Drax is so damned stupid for such a smart guy. Bond visits Drax at the beginning of his investigation, Drax is not yet a suspect. However Drax tells Chang "Make sure some harm comes to Mr. Bond" WHILE ON DRAX's PROPERTY! As I mentioned, Drax was not yet a suspect, well something happening to Bond sure would make Drax (or someone at Drax industries) a suspect. Why would Drax want to call that attention to himself??? It also has far too many scenes put in the film just for the sake of adding a scene that does nothing to further the plot (all Bond movies are guilty of this, but MR does it in a bit of excess).

That said, it is a fun romp not to be taken seriously and is a very well made film. Technically the crew were at the top of their game.

The space battle between Drax's men and the US Army (?) is gotta be the most embarassing scene in any Bond movie.

[jaguar007]

(Consider this: if you discount DAD as a legitimate entry, that would make TWINE the last film in the 'old' series - and I hear a lot of critical bleating about that one, too.)

I'm going to disagree with you here AMC, and it has nothing to do with MR. I don't consider DAD to be the last of the 'old' series, I consider LTK. It was the last film that involved any of the 'original' Bond members such as Cubby Broccoli (as full time producer)and Richard Maibaum. I consider GE to be as much of a reboot of the series as CR. LTK marked the end of the Albert R. Broccoli Bond films and GE marked the beginning of the Barbara Broccoli/ MGW series.

[AMC Hornet]

Yours is a good point, Jag, although one might also argue that TLD could have been the launch of a new series - and may well have been if not for the hiatus of the early 90s. Had Dalton made two more films, they would have involved the original crew as well. But times change, actors and crew change, yet the films go on, and I for one prefer controversial new films to debate over, to no new films at all.

Another way one can look at it is to regard Moonraker as the end of the early Bond era, and FYEO as the start of a new era, but with Roger Moore still in the lead (remember, he was almost replaced at this point). In any event, the emphasis on popcorn entertainment waned for a while, and when it returned with a vengeance in '02, the ultimate response to it was...Casino Royale - so no complaints from me this time.

[winstoninabox]

I don't hate MR. I don't hate James Cameron's Avatar either. But take away Avatar's technical achievements and you're left with an embarrassingly naive story. And so too with MR. Take away its technical achievements and what is left? When you think of the greats of the Bond franchise - the great villains, the great Bond girls, the great scenes, etc - I can't think of any category where MR would be near the top. Except 'Great Bond with a fight on a space station'.

And I think that is where MR's problems begin. As an earlier poster pointed out the whole movie is written backwards. Somehow by the end Bond has got to be having a fight on a space station. It's a journey so far that is distorts what a Bond film is. YOLT suffered from the same problem, but not to the extent that MR did. In order to push the film into the genre of SciFi, other facets of the film suffer. Humor is used to ease the audience into accepting that this is still Bond. Hey, don't think about it so much, just have a laugh. Also the plot is extremely basic. As Jaguar007 pointed out, Drax's actions make little sense. But they don't have to make sense, they just have to propel the story along so fast that the audience doesn't have time to think about it. Besides, it's just TSWLM, only blander.

At least TSWLM gave Bond the murder of XXX's lover to work with for character. But MR offers nothing. Bond in MR is the epitome of the know-it-all, good-at-everything Bond that was to leech out of the character what little character there was in the Moore years. And it's not only Bond. There are no people in MR, just mouthpieces to get to the next stunt or Ken Adam set. Holly Goodhead could have been replaced by Bond finding a computer disk containing the same information. Women sleep with Bond within minutes of meeting him, because that's what women do in a Bond movie. Villains have Bond killed just because he asks some questions, because that's what villains do in a Bond movie. And then there is the misstep of trying to make Jaws a sympathetic character... But hey, it doesn't have to make any kind of sense because it's not really real, because in the end the whole cast is going to be shot up into space for a zero-G fight on an invisible-to-radar space station.

MR is riding on its 'pure entertainment' factor. And that fine if that's all you want from a Bond movie. Like I said I don't hate MR. And I wouldn't tell someone they're wrong for liking it. We all have our own expectations for a film when we watch it. MR certainly filled my expectations when I first saw it as a lad back in 1979. It was the second Bond movie I'd ever seen in the cinema and matched TSWLM in every way I could have hoped. But over the years I began to ask for different things from movies, and MR while filling some of those needs, doesn't come close to most of them. It's a Bond movie, so I'll never hate it. But likewise I'll probably never try and convince a non-Bond fan that it's must-watch Bond movie, let alone good cinema.

[Guy Haines]

Re: Drax stupidly drawing attention to himself, he was hardly the first villain to do this. Blofeld is a great example: in YOLT, Bond has no idea where SPECTRE's base is and says as much as he flies "Little Nellie" over the volcano. Then Blofeld sends in his fleet of attack copters, which has the same effect as erecting an arrow-shaped neon sign atop the volcano reading, "Secret SPECTRE HQ Here!"

Of course, you are quite right. Drax was just following a grand tradition for Bond villains of needlessly giving away their locations. Another example - Trevelyan in GoldenEye. Bond had no idea where the radio telescope was until that missile came flying out of the pond! (and Alec had no excuse for that blunder - he used to work with Bond, for pity's sake!) Other villain conventions include not shooting our hero dead when he is completely in your power (Goldfinger), believing our hero is still of some use to you alive (GF again!), and letting Bond leave your secret headquarters before getting your hired goon squad to chase after him and try and kill him instead (Stromberg of TSWLM providing one of the most elaborate but unsuccessful examples of this!)

If, instead of being holed up in their underwater volcano lairs these evil geniuses got out a bit more often -say, took a trip to the cinema to see, oh I don't know, perhaps a Bond film? - they would realise that these conventions never work!

I don't hate MR. I don't hate James Cameron's Avatar either. But take away Avatar's technical achievements and you're left with an embarrassingly naive story. And so too with MR. Take away its technical achievements and what is left? When you think of the greats of the Bond franchise - the great villains, the great Bond girls, the great scenes, etc - I can't think of any category where MR would be near the top. Except 'Great Bond with a fight on a space station'.

And I think that is where MR's problems begin. As an earlier poster pointed out the whole movie is written backwards. Somehow by the end Bond has got to be having a fight on a space station. It's a journey so far that is distorts what a Bond film is. YOLT suffered from the same problem, but not to the extent that MR did. In order to push the film into the genre of SciFi, other facets of the film suffer. Humor is used to ease the audience into accepting that this is still Bond. Hey, don't think about it so much, just have a laugh. Also the plot is extremely basic. As Jaguar007 pointed out, Drax's actions make little sense. But they don't have to make sense, they just have to propel the story along so fast that the audience doesn't have time to think about it. Besides, it's just TSWLM, only blander.

At least TSWLM gave Bond the murder of XXX's lover to work with for character. But MR offers nothing. Bond in MR is the epitome of the know-it-all, good-at-everything Bond that was to leech out of the character what little character there was in the Moore years. And it's not only Bond. There are no people in MR, just mouthpieces to get to the next stunt or Ken Adam set. Holly Goodhead could have been replaced by Bond finding a computer disk containing the same information. Women sleep with Bond within minutes of meeting him, because that's what women do in a Bond movie. Villains have Bond killed just because he asks some questions, because that's what villains do in a Bond movie. And then there is the misstep of trying to make Jaws a sympathetic character... But hey, it doesn't have to make any kind of sense because it's not really real, because in the end the whole cast is going to be shot up into space for a zero-G fight on an invisible-to-radar space station.

MR is riding on its 'pure entertainment' factor. And that fine if that's all you want from a Bond movie. Like I said I don't hate MR. And I wouldn't tell someone they're wrong for liking it. We all have our own expectations for a film when we watch it. MR certainly filled my expectations when I first saw it as a lad back in 1979. It was the second Bond movie I'd ever seen in the cinema and matched TSWLM in every way I could have hoped. But over the years I began to ask for different things from movies, and MR while filling some of those needs, doesn't come close to most of them. It's a Bond movie, so I'll never hate it. But likewise I'll probably never try and convince a non-Bond fan that it's must-watch Bond movie, let alone good cinema.

Some good points here. Couldn't have put them better myself.

I guess I'm going to have to rain a little on the MR lovefest. I don't hate MR by any means, in fact I loved it when I was 11 years old in 1979. My biggest problem with the movie is not the cheesiness or outer space battle (although it does bother me a bit) but that they Drax is so damned stupid for such a smart guy. Bond visits Drax at the beginning of his investigation, Drax is not yet a suspect. However Drax tells Chang "Make sure some harm comes to Mr. Bond" WHILE ON DRAX's PROPERTY! As I mentioned, Drax was not yet a suspect, well something happening to Bond sure would make Drax (or someone at Drax industries) a suspect. Why would Drax want to call that attention to himself??? It also has far too many scenes put in the film just for the sake of adding a scene that does nothing to further the plot (all Bond movies are guilty of this, but MR does it in a bit of excess).

That said, it is a fun romp not to be taken seriously and is a very well made film. Technically the crew were at the top of their game.

The space battle between Drax's men and the US Army (?) is gotta be the most embarassing scene in any Bond movie.

I think the US side was described as "Space Marines". I know the USMC has travelled "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli", but I thought that sending them into battle in space was stretching credulity a bit!

[Turn]

I don't hate MR. I don't hate James Cameron's Avatar either. But take away Avatar's technical achievements and you're left with an embarrassingly naive story. And so too with MR. Take away its technical achievements and what is left? When you think of the greats of the Bond franchise - the great villains, the great Bond girls, the great scenes, etc - I can't think of any category where MR would be near the top. Except 'Great Bond with a fight on a space station'.

And I think that is where MR's problems begin. As an earlier poster pointed out the whole movie is written backwards. Somehow by the end Bond has got to be having a fight on a space station. It's a journey so far that is distorts what a Bond film is. YOLT suffered from the same problem, but not to the extent that MR did. In order to push the film into the genre of SciFi, other facets of the film suffer. Humor is used to ease the audience into accepting that this is still Bond. Hey, don't think about it so much, just have a laugh. Also the plot is extremely basic. As Jaguar007 pointed out, Drax's actions make little sense. But they don't have to make sense, they just have to propel the story along so fast that the audience doesn't have time to think about it. Besides, it's just TSWLM, only blander.

At least TSWLM gave Bond the murder of XXX's lover to work with for character. But MR offers nothing. Bond in MR is the epitome of the know-it-all, good-at-everything Bond that was to leech out of the character what little character there was in the Moore years. And it's not only Bond. There are no people in MR, just mouthpieces to get to the next stunt or Ken Adam set. Holly Goodhead could have been replaced by Bond finding a computer disk containing the same information. Women sleep with Bond within minutes of meeting him, because that's what women do in a Bond movie. Villains have Bond killed just because he asks some questions, because that's what villains do in a Bond movie. And then there is the misstep of trying to make Jaws a sympathetic character... But hey, it doesn't have to make any kind of sense because it's not really real, because in the end the whole cast is going to be shot up into space for a zero-G fight on an invisible-to-radar space station.

MR is riding on its 'pure entertainment' factor. And that fine if that's all you want from a Bond movie. Like I said I don't hate MR. And I wouldn't tell someone they're wrong for liking it. We all have our own expectations for a film when we watch it. MR certainly filled my expectations when I first saw it as a lad back in 1979. It was the second Bond movie I'd ever seen in the cinema and matched TSWLM in every way I could have hoped. But over the years I began to ask for different things from movies, and MR while filling some of those needs, doesn't come close to most of them. It's a Bond movie, so I'll never hate it. But likewise I'll probably never try and convince a non-Bond fan that it's must-watch Bond movie, let alone good cinema.

I agree with Guy Haines, some very good points here. I'd be interested in more of your thoughts in other forums along these lines, winstoninabox.

That said, I don't agree with all of your points.

You mention taking away the technical achievements and not having anything left in MR. I disagree to an extent. True, MR is mostly remembered for its FX, stunts and humor, but when you don't concentrate on that there's some gritty stuff in there, as there was a whole thread devoted to somewhere on the Moore forum.

There are some gruesome deaths - Corinne's being foremost, the Drax scientists when Bond leaves the nerve gas vial behind in the Venice lab, the way the pilots are incinerated when the Moonraker is hijacked in the teaser.

For much of the film Bond gets to do some actual spying and undercover work. Sure most of what results later is set up to do goldola chases and boat chases and cable car fights, but there is some genuine Bond in there. I still don't think that part is really any worse than FYEO in that respect as far as something setting up an elaborate stunt/action sequence.

I definitely agree there aren't many interesting characters, but I don't know that these are necessarily any worse than those in some of the other films. Holly does become a means to an end as she could, albeit conveniently, pilot a space shuttle.

As for Drax, I find him superior to Stromberg in almost every way. Stromberg barks orders and threats and pushes buttons and hardly ever stands. Drax is an arrogant, cool-headed mad genius. As others have pointed out, he makes the same stupid mistakes countless other Bond villains do. Although so many seem to love the keelhauling scene in FYEO as it's true to Fleming, isn't that as stupid and time-wasting a way to kill somebody as some of the other death traps other villains come up with? Spear them and throw them to the sharks or whatever.

[jaguar007]

Moonraker certainly does have some great moments. Unfortunately it has some awful ones as well.

I mentioned earlier how I don't like Drax decision to have Bond killed, however both the attempts (centerfuge and pheasant shoot) are some of the best scenes in the film.

I have not watched MR in its entirety in years, perhaps it is about time I give that Blu Ray some attention.

[Mr. Blofeld]

letting Bond leave your secret headquarters before getting your hired goon squad to chase after him and try and kill him instead (Stromberg of TSWLM providing one of the most elaborate but unsuccessful examples of this!)

It would've been even more suspicious had Bond and Amasova died in Atlantis; therefore, Stromberg had good reason to try and stage some "accidents" once they were on shore...

[Guy Haines]

letting Bond leave your secret headquarters before getting your hired goon squad to chase after him and try and kill him instead (Stromberg of TSWLM providing one of the most elaborate but unsuccessful examples of this!)

It would've been even more suspicious had Bond and Amasova died in Atlantis; therefore, Stromberg had good reason to try and stage some "accidents" once they were on shore...

True. But the succession of attempts at Bond and Anya's lives, all in broad daylight, and all of them with the subtlety of a sledgehammer - Stromberg might just as well have tried to quietly bump them off aboard Atlantis. If his goons had succeeded it wouldn't have taken Bond's superiors long to work out who was behind it.

[Bryce (003)]

Some fine points here and this has been the most civil of threads I've come across in years. The right to respectively agree to disagree.

Moonraker holds a very special place in my heart. First, it's my favorite Bond novel. Second, it was a MAJOR experience in my life with my parents. Once I scan some pics from a family album, you'll all understand. I'll start another thread about it.

Zencat can attest to what I have. He damn near had a stroke when he saw what I revealed during one night of lounging about with the Admiral and Quartermaster in town along with Mister Asterix.

As a few have stated, yes, a true adaptation would/could be excellent. With what Eva Green did with Vesper could be done by some non-mainstream actress with Gala Brand, I'd kill for it off Craig's Bond. The difference being that Bond doesn't get the girl again, but she's not killed off. Along with him picking up his new Bentley as opposed to an Aston in the end, it could be fantastic.

[Guy Haines]

Some fine points here and this has been the most civil of threads I've come across in years. The right to respectively agree to disagree.

Moonraker holds a very special place in my heart. First, it's my favorite Bond novel. Second, it was a MAJOR experience in my life with my parents. Once I scan some pics from a family album, you'll all understand. I'll start another thread about it.

Zencat can attest to what I have. He damn near had a stroke when he saw what I revealed during one night of lounging about with the Admiral and Quartermaster in town along with Mister Asterix.

As a few have stated, yes, a true adaptation would/could be excellent. With what Eva Green did with Vesper could be done by some non-mainstream actress with Gala Brand, I'd kill for it off Craig's Bond. The difference being that Bond doesn't get the girl again, but she's not killed off. Along with him picking up his new Bentley as opposed to an Aston in the end, it could be fantastic.

You can quite easily envisage Daniel Craig as Bond exposing Sir Hugo Drax as a cheat (Dame Judi as M, at the same card table? Can't quite see it myself.) And you can also see him, trapped with his leading lady, listening to Graf Hugo von der Drache's life story, before dismissing it with complete and withering contempt. And taking the consequences, physically.

If the Bond film makers actually read the posts on this site, can I suggest I film along these lines? Casino Royale was an outstandingly successful film. Ian Fleming's third novel could perhaps be described as Casino Royale with extra added (rocket propelled) menace. One of our Cbn members has already suggested (on the unused Bond elements thread) the MR novel as a basis for a future Bond film, title and character names changed perhaps.

Might not be a bad idea for Bond 23? (Moonraker is my favourite Bond novel also, and Sir Hugo Drax is my favourite Bond novel villain. Partly because I'm amused by the idea of an outsider - a foreigner, no less - taking on the "moneyed oafs" - Drax's term - who run my country and almost getting away with it.)

[Mr. Blofeld]

letting Bond leave your secret headquarters before getting your hired goon squad to chase after him and try and kill him instead (Stromberg of TSWLM providing one of the most elaborate but unsuccessful examples of this!)

It would've been even more suspicious had Bond and Amasova died in Atlantis; therefore, Stromberg had good reason to try and stage some "accidents" once they were on shore...

True. But the succession of attempts at Bond and Anya's lives, all in broad daylight, and all of them with the subtlety of a sledgehammer - Stromberg might just as well have tried to quietly bump them off aboard Atlantis. If his goons had succeeded it wouldn't have taken Bond's superiors long to work out who was behind it.

What, you expect Stromberg to use carefully-place banana peels? I think not; after the fact, Stromberg could've easily bribed the Sardinian authorities into spinning the "accident" as a Mafia drug-hit gone wrong... and both MI6 and the KGB could do absolutely nothing about it.

Might not be a bad idea for Bond 23? (Moonraker is my favourite Bond novel also, and Sir Hugo Drax is my favourite Bond novel villain. Partly because I'm amused by the idea of an outsider - a foreigner, no less - taking on the "moneyed oafs" - Drax's term - who run my country and almost getting away with it.)

Why not? He almost seems like someone the Quantum organization would use to their advantage... or, possibly, try to stop his evil plan before it kills one of Quantum's major assets in the leaky MI6. Can you imagine Bond having to work to the same end as the people he hates?

[Guy Haines]

letting Bond leave your secret headquarters before getting your hired goon squad to chase after him and try and kill him instead (Stromberg of TSWLM providing one of the most elaborate but unsuccessful examples of this!)

It would've been even more suspicious had Bond and Amasova died in Atlantis; therefore, Stromberg had good reason to try and stage some "accidents" once they were on shore...

True. But the succession of attempts at Bond and Anya's lives, all in broad daylight, and all of them with the subtlety of a sledgehammer - Stromberg might just as well have tried to quietly bump them off aboard Atlantis. If his goons had succeeded it wouldn't have taken Bond's superiors long to work out who was behind it.

What, you expect Stromberg to use carefully-place banana peels? I think not; after the fact, Stromberg could've easily bribed the Sardinian authorities into spinning the "accident" as a Mafia drug-hit gone wrong... and both MI6 and the KGB could do absolutely nothing about it.

Might not be a bad idea for Bond 23? (Moonraker is my favourite Bond novel also, and Sir Hugo Drax is my favourite Bond novel villain. Partly because I'm amused by the idea of an outsider - a foreigner, no less - taking on the "moneyed oafs" - Drax's term - who run my country and almost getting away with it.)

Why not? He almost seems like someone the Quantum organization would use to their advantage... or, possibly, try to stop his evil plan before it kills one of Quantum's major assets in the leaky MI6. Can you imagine Bond having to work to the same end as the people he hates?

Regarding the Mafia - I thought concrete overshoes were more their style. Cheaper than rocket propelled sidecars, armed helicopters, mini submarines and so on.

Regarding your suggestion that Bond and Quantum have to work together to stop an out of control villain - I think you are on to something there. Imagine - Quantum supporting a project which only threatens nuclear terrorism (expecting the powers that be to cave in), only to discover that the person they are supporting actually wants to push the nuclear button. A bit like SPECTRE supporting the likes of Stromberg or the movie Drax. It would put Quantum, and MI6, in a bit of a predicament, to put it mildly.

[DR76]

I've always liked "MOONRAKER". I'm just not that fond of the movie's last half hour.

[jaguar007]

I would love to see the novel Moonraker made into a film a bit more faithfully, especially the character of Drax. While Michael Londsdale is a fine actor, he brought absolutely zero charisma to the character, every word he spoke in the movie was so monotone. He was a far cry from the Drax in the book. I would love to see Drax being played as the somewhat annoying person he was in the book. For some reason I see someone like Rip Torn playing Drax.

[ConnerysToupee1983]

Just to throw in my concurrence with the majority here; I too am a fan of Moonraker. I think it's well acted, shot and paced. Sure it's a bit over the top, but Bond is OFTEN over the top. I don't think there's anything hellishly offensive to the series in it. Roger looks great, has some good lines and moments. The effects are great. The pre-title sequence is worth "admission" alone. Bassey's theme is the most emotionally draining of all the themes. My only complaint is that Drax is a bit weak and a couple of the Jaws moments are a TAD groan inducing. Otherwise it gets a 9 out of 10 from me.

Die Another Day is the only Bond film I DESPISE (followed closely by Quantum of Solace), but I still watch it regularly.

[Guy Haines]

I would love to see the novel Moonraker made into a film a bit more faithfully, especially the character of Drax. While Michael Londsdale is a fine actor, he brought absolutely zero charisma to the character, every word he spoke in the movie was so monotone. He was a far cry from the Drax in the book. I would love to see Drax being played as the somewhat annoying person he was in the book. For some reason I see someone like Rip Torn playing Drax.

The closest the series has come to a villain in the style of the Drax of the book was, I think, Toby Stephens as Sir Gustav Graves in DAD. There's a quote in the book "The Art Of Bond" from the film's director in which he admits that Graves is somewhat based on Drax - flamboyant, arrogant, with an exaggerated impression of being British. And underneath a very different character. Even the whole "gene therapy" stuff could be loosely compared to Drax's reconstructive surgery in the book, after he blew himself up during the war.

But I agree. It would be interesting to see Drax played as Ian Fleming envisaged him.

[ChristopherZ22]

Pierce-Daniel;

I am not the biggest fan of Moonraker, although I think it is an improvement over The Spy Who Loved Me. I consider The Spy Who Loved Me to be the worst of Roger Moore's films. I would much rather see The Spy Who Loved Me get slammed by fans than Moonraker.

It is probably more appropriate for me to discuss my problems with The Spy Who Loved Me in another thread since this is a discussion about Moonraker.

I will say that Moonraker is going to become more appreciated in the coming years, and perhaps I too will look at it more favorably. I just have to give it another chance.

The reason Moonraker fell out of popularity with fans in the decade of the 2000s (2000-2009) is because it does not conform to the trend in action films of the time. It was felt that action films should be more serious, darker, and as realistic as possible. So we got a bunch of dark, serious, and more realistic action pictures like the Bourne films and Casino Royale.

But we see with Avatar and many recent 3D blockbusters, that the trend in action pictures is changing. Action films (many of them in 3D) are growing increasingly cartoony and less dark. If Bond 23 were made today, it would probably have conformed to this new trend. Perhaps it would have been more cartoony and over the top like Moonraker, and maybe even in 3D. This new trend could make Moonraker popular and appreciated again as it was in the 1980s and 1990s.

[David_M]

I think some of the lingering dislike out there for MR could result from what it seemed to represent to some fans at the time; confirmation that the series had strayed from its roots into something unrecognizable, something unwanted and something permanently, horribly different.

Moonraker was, among other things, humorous to near-slapstick levels, "trendy" in the sense that it aped the fad-du-jour of laser-blasting space epics, and even, for the most part...shudder!...kid-friendly. Set it next to Dr No or FRWL and it might not even feel like part of the same series.

Not that I have a problem with any of that, mind you; at age 14, I thought MR was the height of movie-making. But for fans who had a different idea of what a Bond film should be, it must have seemed a sign of the Apocalypse. They'd already seen -- or feared they did -- the way things were going, but MR took it all the way. And the fact that the public lapped it up (the film made scads of money) must have left them utterly despondent.

I say all this because with DAD, the shoe was on the other foot. *I* was the fan who saw the series spiraling downward into some horrible thing I no longer wanted a part of, and I was miserable. It was more than a case of DAD being bad; it was that DAD, and the films immediately preceeding it, seemed to be saying, "James Bond isn't what you liked anymore. It is now this other thing, and you can be on your way. Thanks but we no longer require your support."

In that context, I think a lot more fans can enjoy MR now because 30 years have passed and we know it was not the "death of the series," nor even the shape of things to come; indeed the very next film did an about-face. MR may never be your cup of tea, but it's no longer a *threat* in the way it once was. You can look at it now and enjoy it for what it is, without worrying that it's destroying "your" James Bond or that the next 10 or 15 films will follow its lead; we now know they didn't.

Who knows, maybe in 30 years I'll be able to watch DAD with that same sort of detachment and get something positive out of it. And on that day, in the words of a certain sage from Aurora, Illinois, maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.