130 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

The final act could have played out somewhat more engaging no doubt. MOONRAKER suffers for having to deliver the obligatory battle-of-the-armies when the story could have centred on Bond trying to foil Drax' plans largely on his own. Personally, I would have preferred if Bond had wrecked Drax' station and then tried to reach and enter the abandoned Skylab with its remaining reserves of oxygen and water.

[David_M]

That could've been cool.  Skylab fell to Earth in '79, so we could've seen the "real" reason it happened. :-)

 

There's a neat sequence in the Wood novelization where Bond has to get from one area of Drax's station to another and it's impossible to do from inside, so he does a desperate space walk sans suit.  I'm not sure how that holds up, science-wise, but it could've made for a dramatic sequence on film.

 

Anyway, I feel like it played out one of two ways, as-is: either (1) "We did it, we finally got Bond into space! Umm...now what?"  or (2) "We need a space battle to rival Star Wars and I don't care how you make it happen."

 

Interesting point upthread about this being far from the series' first foray into space-related themes.  I always interpreted the tag line, "Where All The Other Bonds End, This One Begins" to mean, "This is what would've happened in YOLT if Blofeld hadn't stopped Bond from getting in the rocket.  But we ran out of money building the volcano."

[sharpshooter]

I think where it tipped too far into fantasy was with the arrival of the Space Marines, which we all knew good and well was not a thing.  

That's true. It pushed Moonraker further than 5 minutes into the future, which is still okay in my book, but facts are facts. Even if the space marines didn't arrive or exist in the first place, I think turning off the radar jamming system was still the right thing to do. If Bond was killed during his attempts to stop Drax's scheme, people on Earth would've been completely ignorant of the station's existence. 

[SecretAgentFan]

What I do like about the space marines is this tapdancing into the unrealistic.  

 

I never get the feeling that the filmmakers actually want to make us believe that this is all accurate.  Instead I sense the arched eyebrows and the smirk, a kind of "you think we would not go for this, well, of course we will".

 

Which is extremely amusing and entertaining to me.  And in ample display throughout MOONRAKER ("you think we would not throw Bond out of the airplane, well, we do - and we throw out Jaws to follow him, too") and during lots of the first 20 films.  It actually defines Bond films for me - this showman´s attitude, never taking the whole thing too seriously.

 

I miss that in the Craig era. 

[sharpshooter]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Going into space was the culmination of everything that preceded the film - the glass globes, the nerve gas, the orchids and the 'Master Race'. Connery almost boarded a shuttle. Moore did board a shuttle, went into space, docked at a secret station and witnessed a laser gun shootout. The Moore era used the Connery era as a stepping stone for an even greater level of fantasy.

[SecretAgentFan]

In my mind, the first 16 films did understand the movie Bond principle better than the Brosnan and Craig films.  

 

Movie-Bond is not about the dark layers of this hero, it is about embracing the silliness of a (in Sir Roger´s words) secret agent who is known by name everywhere in the world, defying the biggest threats to his life and having a good time doing that.

 

But it´s this whole idea of the later years in which every pulp fiction hero suddenly was promoted as "multi-dimensional" when in fact the only dimension they were given was: depression with all its consequences.

 

I wonder: Why do so many people these days always hunger for a hero that is "dark" and "broken"?  In my mind, that is not what people really want to see.  But they were spoon-fed this ideology for the last 17 Years, I guess, and react accordingly.

 

My litmus test is always my nephews (now in their early 20´s) and they have grown up during the "Nolan mood years", and like a reflex they are drawn to those kinds of characters.  But when I ask them what they enjoy about these they have no real answer.  When I show them films made before that era they actually do enjoy them and have lots of fun watching them.  But there is also a big peer pressure factor involved: you have to at least pretend to love the "new and edgy" to be considered relevant.

 

MOONRAKER - to get back to this thread´s topic - understands fully what Movie-Bond is all about and delivers on all accounts.

 

I know that people call it "cheesy".  But again: This is a James Bond movie.  

[sharpshooter]

That's part of why I dig OHMSS. It has all the tropes of 'realistic Bond'....as far as how realistic this character can be. Meaning he punches hard, relies on his wits and not gadgets and has a sense of vulnerability. But Bond himself isn't dour, nor is the tone of the film. It's still a good time at the movies and doesn't take itself too seriously, which makes the untraditional ending with Tracy all the more powerful.

[SecretAgentFan]

Yes, absolutely.  OHMSS is so delightfully mixed with seriousness and silliness that it works.  Imagine that film being made now...   

[David_M]

 

But it´s this whole idea of the later years in which every pulp fiction hero suddenly was promoted as "multi-dimensional" when in fact the only dimension they were given was: depression with all its consequences.

 

I wonder: Why do so many people these days always hunger for a hero that is "dark" and "broken"?  In my mind, that is not what people really want to see.  But they were spoon-fed this ideology for the last 17 Years, I guess, and react accordingly.

 

Here is my theory:

 

Fans used to be able to laugh at the sillier aspects of their obsessions, and by extension themselves, and now they are not.

 

Whether you're talking about Star Trek or Batman or James Bond or whatever, there is an inherent silliness to the concepts that cause a good deal of angst for fans with thin skins and limited perspective.  They wonder: how do I justify my love of this thing to friends and family who see it as childish or dumb?  So the response has been to dress it up as somehow more "mature" or "grim and gritty" or whatever, and consequently suck all the fun out of everything.

 

No matter how many people die in a Batman film or how "emotionally tortured" he's presented as being, at the end of the day he's still a grown man who dresses in a Halloween costume and goes out in the streets to fight crime.  That's as ridiculous now as it was on TV in 1966. Likewise no matter how hard the modern Bonds bow and scrape for Oscars, they're still as full of ridiculous plots and impossible stunts as ever.  Craig's survival of the fall at the start of SF puts that film as much in fantasy territory as anything Roger does in Moonraker.  No amount of angst from Brosnan over Elektra undoes the physics-defying boat chase at the start of TWINE.  And so on.  The foolishness endures, but the sense of perspective, and humility, has been lost.

 

Modern fanboys love the same kind of ridiculous, impossible nonsense as the generation that loved Adam West and Roger Moore, but the difference is they are extremely defensive and unwilling to acknowledge the fact that it is, in fact, nonsense.  They are unable to laugh at their passions or themselves, so they cloak all this goofiness with a veneer of "depth" and "meaning" and "gravitas."  I would argue it ultimately makes them more ridiculous, not less.

 

And yes, I will keep your frisbee if it lands on my lawn.

[mattjoes]

These are some provocative thoughts. Interesting to read.

I sincerely don't know if the primary driving force that has led to the current era of "dark and gritty" is a desire to dress playful fantasies as mature. It could be, but whether or not that is the case, I still think there is merit in the creative exercise of trying to take "nonsense", as you say, and giving it a deeper illusion of realism, whether through depth of narrative themes or of character (and without necessarily falling into angst). It's just interesting to see how far can something fantastical be pushed into "realism". There might be, at first sight, a disconnect between expecting to find (or wanting to convey) something of some depth and resonance when the premise is essentially silly, but in principle, I think one can watch a fantasy or science-fiction film and come away from it with a lesson, small as it may be, on the human condition or on the way we relate to each other. It's the same with a fable, and it's feasible simply because we get to watch characters who have emotions and thoughts, like we do. They have hopes and fears, virtues and flaws; they love and hate. That's the case whether they are underpaid office workers or superheros. So I think "realism" has its worth, once it's clear we aren't watching documentaries here-- this is, first and foremost, entertainment, with hopefuly a slight dose of depth to feed the mind.

It can be done right or wrong, though. In the case of the Bond films, I think Casino Royale succeeds at "realism", but Skyfall loses the plot a bit. Its attempt at depth feels, in retrospective, not quite organic, as if someone came up with themes they wanted to explore and shoehorned them into a Bond film. On the other hand, in Casino Royale, the depth is born naturally out of the story.

Lastly, I'd say that one can't and shouldn't expect every film to be the same. Variety is good. I love Moonraker, and I love Casino Royale. I even enjoy The Dark Knight. I want more films in the style of all three, and in any style in between. Let's jusut not get stuck in a rut, I say.

[SecretAgentFan]

Fans used to be able to laugh at the sillier aspects of their obsessions, and by extension themselves, and now they are not.

 

Modern fanboys love the same kind of ridiculous, impossible nonsense as the generation that loved Adam West and Roger Moore, but the difference is they are extremely defensive and unwilling to acknowledge the fact that it is, in fact, nonsense.  They are unable to laugh at their passions or themselves, so they cloak all this goofiness with a veneer of "depth" and "meaning" and "gravitas."  I would argue it ultimately makes them more ridiculous, not less.

 

I think you´re very right.

 

The ability to laugh at the silliness of all this is so important - and it still does not diminish its entertainment value at all.

 

It´s irritating, however, when the silliness is not even recognized anymore.

 

MOONRAKER, at no time, tries to cover up the silliness and is all the better for it.

[sharpshooter]

MOONRAKER, at no time, tries to cover up the silliness and is all the better for it.

I found this quote about the film and I agree with it 100%:

"Moonraker should be cherished for its courage, ambition and, yes, its silliness, rather than dismissed for failing to chime with modern ideas of what a Bond flick should or should not be. Lest we forget, moody Daniel Craig-era Bond will eventually slip from favour too."

I like Craig, but the fact Moonraker is so different to the current business model makes it so refreshing.

[SecretAgentFan]

Couldn´t agree more.

 

And I would not be surprised if a few decades from now the Craig era were considered as a bit one-note, struggling to find the right tone, marred by the constant lack of motivation to move forward.

 

This is not to say that I don´t like the Craig films.  I do.  But the range that the Connery and the Moore era showed, even the too-short Dalton era with only two films, and yes, even the Brosnan films - I don´t see it in the Craig era at all.

 

MOONRAKER, actually, has it all: the serious, the silly and everything in between, sometimes changing the tone within moments which makes the film so energized and unpredictable, therefore amazingly entertaining.

[glidrose]

Not sure I agree with David_M's theory, tho' I'm sure there's some truth in what he says. But I think Anthony Lane writing in the New Yorker is closer to the mark.
 
http://www.newyorker...2/18/first-bite
 

"[Thomas Harris] has written one great Lecter book, 'The Silence of the Lambs,' and two lesser ones, so why produce a fourth that is not merely the weakest but that makes you wonder if the others were so gripping after all? There is a puff of grand delusion here, of the sort to which all thriller-writers are susceptible. Compare 'The Friends of Eddie Coyle,' an early novel by George V. Higgins, with the bulky solemnities of his later work; or, for that matter, 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' with more recent le Carré like 'The Night Manager' or 'The Constant Gardener.' At some point, each man started to hear that he was so much more than the master of a genre (as if that were an ignoble thing to be), and responded to such flattery by expanding his fiction beyond its confines, not realizing that what he felt as a restriction was in fact its natural shape. That is how a writer loses thrust and form[.]"
 
Kingsley Amis himself had similar issues with genre fiction way back in the 1970s. I posted the following in another thread,
 
 

For my taste, the whole "let´s look deeper at Bond´s character" is completely played out.
 
If you look any deeper you will see there is nothing else.  Orphan, anti-social behaviour that made him perfect for the spy job, losing his first love turned him into a what the heck-womanizer, and the second love of his life was killed by his main enemy, turning him into an even more determined lone assassin.
 
What else is there?

 
Bingo.
 
One other problem. Kingsley Amis in one of his many dazzling essays complained that he got into jazz and science fiction as they were going to pot ("becoming utter tosh" for those of you who think it has something to do with drugs). Amis pointed the finger at modernism. The need to peel back the layers. To make Serious Statements ™ about The World We Live In ™. Nothing can be a skillful, intelligent entertainment. Oh no. That won't do. Amis argued that modernism was the death-knell for any creative venture and that it inevitably leads to creative paralysis.
 
Wish I could remember the rest of the article, let alone had it copied when the book passed my way. The essay probably appears in his book "The Amis collection: selected non-fiction, 1954-1990". Mandatory reading. As a bonus, there are several Bond-related articles including reviews of Christopher Wood's TSWLM novelisation (grudgingly positive) and Gardner's FSS (brutally negative).

[Professor Pi]

Another thing about Moonraker is it is a graceful film.  Its cinematography is gorgeous, its music elegiac.  It has the serious moments of any Bond film--the gassing of the scientists (a scene which truly terrified me when I was 11), the G-Force torture scene, Corrine being put down.  But also it takes us to Venice, Brazil, and Southern California (and by way of Drax's Disney Vegas prescient fakery, France.)  Corrine Clery is beautiful and tragic.  Holly Goodhead is an intelligent character despite that name and wooden acting from Lois Chiles.  Still, Roger is the glue that holds it all together with a smirk belying his pornographic quips ("Dom Perignon--if it's '69, you were expecting me.")  Sure, the gondola and Jaws romance are against the grain of the rest of the film, but they work better than another JW Pepper cameo. But all these incongruities can't hide the fact that Moonraker is easy on the eyes and ears.  It's a comforting bond film, when all is said and done (its soundtrack the only one not to have the JB theme featured on it.)  The only Connery movie that has a similarly fun feel is Diamonds Are Forever.

 

I'd much rather live in Moonraker's world than QoS'.  There's something existentially barren about both SF and SP.  I like them, but wouldn't want to be an extra in either (CR, however, is an exception to this.  Book me into the Ocean Club now!)  And Brosnan's films always seem more like call backs to other Bonds than anything new or original (fake lake in GE, James Bond island in TND, Turkey in TWINE, and DAD's dips into 40th anniversary references, including Moonraker.)

[SecretAgentFan]

Another thing about Moonraker is it is a graceful film.  Its cinematography is gorgeous, its music elegiac.  It has the serious moments of any Bond film--the gassing of the scientists (a scene which truly terrified me when I was 11), the G-Force torture scene, Corrine being put down.  But also it takes us to Venice, Brazil, and Southern California (and by way of Drax's Disney Vegas prescient fakery, France.)  Corrine Clery is beautiful and tragic.

 

Yes, absolutely!  And despite MOONRAKER often compared as a copy of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, in fact, only the hijacking and the idea to repopulate the planet re-appear.  Everything else is either new or a sly variation, and the whole film, at least to me, feels totally different, more playful, with a bigger swagger (if that is possible).

[sharpshooter]

MOONRAKER, actually, has it all: the serious, the silly and everything in between, sometimes changing the tone within moments which makes the film so energized and unpredictable, therefore amazingly entertaining.

That's the best way to describe it. Moonraker has it all. Sure, it literally goes out of this world, but the complete package contains variety.

 

Holly Goodhead is an intelligent character despite that name and wooden acting from Lois Chiles. 

I like Holly as a character because she's a strong, independent woman. She takes time to warm to Bond and that gives their scenes an amusing edge, and I guess a greater sense of accomplishment when they finally decide to team up. 

 

I'd much rather live in Moonraker's world than QoS'.  

It's a world where anything is possible. That's the power of not having creative limitations. 

[DaveBond21]

 

Bond as a charmer – seducing Corrine, Manuela and Holly, who he sleeps with twice.

 

 

Indeed, the first time we see Bond he is seducing an air stewardess.

 

_________________________________________________________________

[sharpshooter]

Indeed, the first time we see Bond he is seducing an air stewardess.

Roger's reaction to being double crossed is really great. He's seems both quietly disgusted and unfazed. 

 

I think the short sequence in the back of the ambulance is an overlooked gem. Roger’s wink is hilarious, as is the British Airways ‘we’ll take more care of you’ sight gag. Holly gets to look beautiful, and Bond gets to be resourceful. It packs in a lot of goodness in a short space of time.

[David_M]

 

 

Roger's reaction to being double crossed is really great. He's seems both quietly disgusted and unfazed. 

 

This is one of the things I love about Roger's Bond: he's a veteran who's seen it all before, and some parts of the routine are, when they inevitably roll around, less welcome than others.  When a twist like this happens, his reaction is not so much "What?  What?!  You're on the other side?!!?" as it is, "Great, here we go with this bit again..." 

 

Similarly, when Gobinda crushes the dice in OP, Roger all but rolls his eyes.  I half expected him to say, "That trick was more impressive with a golf ball."

[chrisno1]

Short answer, judging by the very informed and welcome discussion points above :

 

No one knows.

[mattjoes]

 

 

 

Roger's reaction to being double crossed is really great. He's seems both quietly disgusted and unfazed. 

 

This is one of the things I love about Roger's Bond: he's a veteran who's seen it all before, and some parts of the routine are, when they inevitably roll around, less welcome than others.  When a twist like this happens, his reaction is not so much "What?  What?!  You're on the other side?!!?" as it is, "Great, here we go with this bit again..." 

 

Similarly, when Gobinda crushes the dice in OP, Roger all but rolls his eyes.  I half expected him to say, "That trick was more impressive with a golf ball."

 

Fully agree with this.

I also want to say that perhaps it's easy to forget, but acting wise, Richard Kiel actually is terrific in this film. On my last rewatch I noticed how good he is in the Rio alley scene, especially when taken away by the crowd at the end. He resists at first, then starts dancing with them (!). That works as well as it does only because of Kiel's acting skills. Thanks to him, Jaws is a sort of Frankenstein's monster: simultaneously scary, funny, sad, pathetic. Quite a brilliant character, really, both in concept and in execution.

[sharpshooter]

I also want to say that perhaps it's easy to forget, but acting wise, Richard Kiel actually is terrific in this film. On my last rewatch I noticed how good he is in the Rio alley scene, especially when taken away by the crowd at the end. He resists at first, then starts dancing with them (!). That works as well as it does only because of Kiel's acting skills. Thanks to him, Jaws is a sort of Frankenstein's monster: simultaneously scary, funny, sad, pathetic. Quite a brilliant character, really, both in concept and in execution.

Yep. And in my opinion, Jaws becoming an ally isn't a blight on the film like the detractors think. Yes, the filmmakers wanted to make the young fans happy. But nonetheless, it was a master stroke in demonstrating Bond's negotiation/manipulation skills. "Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?" The introduction of Dolly gave the film an element of the bizarre, but it also was a big factor in Jaws' transformation. He used to be a mercenary for hire. He found something he valued more than money. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I´ve said it before and I will say it again (sorry): Jaws appearing in that alley during the Rio sequence was the stuff of nightmares for me as a young teenager - and it still chills me to the bone.  The fact that MOONRAKER can go from that kind of horror to the campy Dolly meeting without the need to overexplain (as films do these day) adds to the quality of this Bond adventure.

[David_M]

 

Short answer, judging by the very informed and welcome discussion points above :

 

No one knows.

 

If you want an answer to the question posed in the thread, here goes:

 

Moonraker did NOT have "a bad rap" in 1979: it was hugely popular and even had fans among critics.  It made a boatload of money and it wasn't until Goldeneye that a Bond movie made more.

 

BUT...and this is key...while it's fair to say most moviegoers enjoy a Bond movie now and then, most are NOT hard-core Bond fans.  They go to see a Bond film, they enjoy it to one extent or other, then they move on to something else.  They don't obsess about individual entries and talk about them for years after, and they don't compare one to another.  When I was growing up, no "guy on the street" even knew any of the titles, except maybe "Goldfinger."  To most people, the way to distinguish one Bond from another was by what was in it:  there was "the one with the volcano" or "the one with the alligators" or "the one with the flying car" (took me a while to figure out that one).  The "best" movies were the ones that managed more than one such memorable detail.  For example, Goldfinger had "the car with the ejector seat" AND "the naked girl painted gold" AND "the fat guy with the killer hat."  TSWLM had "the ski jump off the side of a cliff" AND "the car that goes under water" AND "the guy with the steel teeth," etc.

 

In the Summer of '79, Joe Public paid his ticket for Moonraker, had a good time and went back to his life.  From then on, MR's legacy was in the hands of hardcore Bond enthusiasts, who picked it apart like vultures.  You had the "if it's not Connery, it's crap" crowd, the "Bond should never go to space" crowd, etc etc.  If like me you were living in a no-account town in the middle of nowhere, pre-internet, you had no contact with fans elsewhere in the world so you relied on books and magazines.  So there was Steven Jay Rubin's "James Bond Films" and Benson's "Bedside Companion" and Brosnan's "James Bond in the Cinema" telling us how awful MR was from their lofty perches as "professional critics" and we had to think, "Wow, was it awful?  They're the experts, so I guess it must have been."  And so it became one of the fundamental, sacred tenets of received wisdom imparted to all fans who wanted to be taken seriously by their own kind.  "Let the word go forth:  Thou shalt have no favorites before Connery, Goldfinger is the Sacred Text, Moonraker is an abomination, forever and ever amen. " 

 

Moonraker has a bad rap because a small handful of fans got to stand on a soapbox and excoriate it for many years before the internet leveled the playing field and let everyone express their opinions with equal weight.  Before we were ready to admit that every fan is entitled to his or her most and least favorite.  Before we had to courage to go against "consensus" (and the revelation that fandom is not so monolithic as we were led to believe). And the further we get from those days of tyranny by the minority, the more MR will be taken on its own merits: wonderful in some respects, awful in others, just like all the other Bonds.  Ain't none of 'em art, but ain't none of 'em trash, either.  It's largely down to personal preferences.  

 

In a just world, MR will be remembered as "the one with the space shuttles" and we'll let it go at that.

[Dustin]

Perfectly put.

[chrisno1]

 

 

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"

[glidrose]

Bang on. I was about to post something along the same lines.

MR had a great reception. Several prominent critics had it on their runner-up list of the year's best films. But the holier-than-thou fanboys and certain people in the media who like to tell everybody else what to think hated it. Or perhaps the lazy media just assumed that if Benson-Brosnan-Rubin-Schenkman hated it, then so must everybody else. After all the film was a big hit. The original "fake news", if you will. Also, there's no denying MR was far and away the most over-the-top Bond film. Not until DAD and it was around that time that MR came back into its own.

 

If you want an answer to the question posed in the thread, here goes:
 
Moonraker did NOT have "a bad rap" in 1979: it was hugely popular and even had fans among critics.  It made a boatload of money and it wasn't until Goldeneye that a Bond movie made more.
 
BUT...and this is key...while it's fair to say most moviegoers enjoy a Bond movie now and then, most are NOT hard-core Bond fans.  They go to see a Bond film, they enjoy it to one extent or other, then they move on to something else.  They don't obsess about individual entries and talk about them for years after, and they don't compare one to another.  When I was growing up, no "guy on the street" even knew any of the titles, except maybe "Goldfinger."  To most people, the way to distinguish one Bond from another was by what was in it:  there was "the one with the volcano" or "the one with the alligators" or "the one with the flying car" (took me a while to figure out that one).  The "best" movies were the ones that managed more than one such memorable detail.  For example, Goldfinger had "the car with the ejector seat" AND "the naked girl painted gold" AND "the fat guy with the killer hat."  TSWLM had "the ski jump off the side of a cliff" AND "the car that goes under water" AND "the guy with the steel teeth," etc.
 
In the Summer of '79, Joe Public paid his ticket for Moonraker, had a good time and went back to his life.  From then on, MR's legacy was in the hands of hardcore Bond enthusiasts, who picked it apart like vultures.  You had the "if it's not Connery, it's crap" crowd, the "Bond should never go to space" crowd, etc etc.  If like me you were living in a no-account town in the middle of nowhere, pre-internet, you had no contact with fans elsewhere in the world so you relied on books and magazines.  So there was Steven Jay Rubin's "James Bond Films" and Benson's "Bedside Companion" and Brosnan's "James Bond in the Cinema" telling us how awful MR was from their lofty perches as "professional critics" and we had to think, "Wow, was it awful?  They're the experts, so I guess it must have been."  And so it became one of the fundamental, sacred tenets of received wisdom imparted to all fans who wanted to be taken seriously by their own kind.  "Let the word go forth:  Thou shalt have no favorites before Connery, Goldfinger is the Sacred Text, Moonraker is an abomination, forever and ever amen. " 
 
Moonraker has a bad rap because a small handful of fans got to stand on a soapbox and excoriate it for many years before the internet leveled the playing field and let everyone express their opinions with equal weight.  Before we were ready to admit that every fan is entitled to his or her most and least favorite.  Before we had to courage to go against "consensus" (and the revelation that fandom is not so monolithic as we were led to believe). And the further we get from those days of tyranny by the minority, the more MR will be taken on its own merits: wonderful in some respects, awful in others, just like all the other Bonds.  Ain't none of 'em art, but ain't none of 'em trash, either.  It's largely down to personal preferences.  
 
In a just world, MR will be remembered as "the one with the space shuttles" and we'll let it go at that.

[sharpshooter]

Moonraker did NOT have "a bad rap" in 1979: it was hugely popular and even had fans among critics.  

From what I've read this is completely true. Here's just a couple of critic reactions:

 

• Vincent Canby of the NY Times said it was "one of the most buoyant Bond films of all. Almost everyone connected with the movie is in top form, even Mr. Moore. Here he's as ageless, resourceful, and graceful as the character he inhabits."
• The Globe and Mail's Jay Scott said it was second only to Goldfinger and added "in the first few minutes – before the credits – it offers more thrills than most escapist movies provide in two hours."
• Frank Rich of Time said "the result is a film that is irresistibly entertaining as only truly mindless spectacle can be."
• Critic James Monaco said Moonraker was a "minor masterpiece" and even said it was the best Bond film of them all.

[David_M]

 

David_M, on 20 Jun 2017 - 3:51 PM, said:

 

Quote

 

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"

 

 

No.

 

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.