130 replies to this topic

[chrisno1]

 

 

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.  

 

 

But it is the personal opinions of those fans who derided MR which has [possibly] misled many to believe it has always had a bad rap. As you point out, the playing field has been levelled by other personal opinions. Even when those opinions feel to some to be quite valid [e.g. a good music score] there will be some others whose personal opinion differs. Ultimately any arbiter of taste / fashion / art critique etc is offering a personal opinion, informed or not. They use what they interpret with their own eyes allied to external data and learnings to assess what they personally feel and wish to present. Other people with other learnings will disagree and you will have a debate, as we are here.

 

Without subjective opinion you cannot have any form of art or artistic movement as it thrives on debate. For every person who for instance adores Michelangelo's David or Miles Davis' Bitches Brew, you'll have some one saying WTFWT? This was happening with MR in 1979 as much as it was in 2017. I remember it - I was there, although young, and while I loved it, my mum thought it was preposterously silly.

 

When you say there is "no real reason why MR should be singled out for disdain" that is your opinion, others would tell you there are many. The debate, if anything, is what causes the bad reputation and a debate in itself, which will never have a resolution - even a show of hands or a Parliamentary vote does not stop debate - simply can't be explained objectively. 

 

I tend not to pontificate in forums. I prefer to offer short answers. So sorry to ramble on and I'll repeat it again: given the informed and welcome discussion points above, no one knows.

[Professor Pi]

I'll admit, reading the Benson/Brosnan/Rubin critiques of this film lowered my opinion of it (much like reading cbn lowered my opinion of Pierce's entries.)  And despite its humor dragging it down in the eyes of these critics, to this day it has some of the most horrifying scenes for childhood Bond fans--the scientists gassed to death, Corrine being put down by dogs, the prospect of global gassing from orbital space.  Oh, and water moccasins.  Plus the cold corporate ruthlessness of Drax himself, feeling entitled to his megalomania by virtue of birth and wealth alone.

 

As if to balance all this out, MR also has phenomenal charm to it--something TND and QoS lack in droves.  It may not achieve the heights of TSWLM, or Roger's first two eighties Bonds, but it's more welcoming and warm than each of the other actor's worst Bonds.  OHMSS and LTK may be better films, but they are nowhere near as fun.

[SecretAgentFan]

Just talking/writing about MOONRAKER here has elevated it in my opinionated ranking. 

[sharpshooter]

OHMSS and LTK may be better films, but they are nowhere near as fun.

Yep. Over the years I've come to realise it's not really about what's better. It's about what you enjoy...and ultimately what you ending up watching the most. I've seen Moonraker countless times - probably more than other highly regarded films in the franchise. I always have a good time with it, and that should be the point of watching anything creative. I'm of the opinion Moonraker and Octopussy provide the best balance of light and dark. In Moonraker's case, for every hovercraft gondola we have scientists being gassed to death, and so this sequencing continues throughout the film. 

 

Just talking/writing about MOONRAKER here has elevated it in my opinionated ranking. 

 

That's good to hear. It's a film I really enjoy talking about, and I hope that comes across in my posts.

 

[Tiin007]

 

OHMSS and LTK may be better films, but they are nowhere near as fun.

Yep. Over the years I've come to realise it's not really about what's better. It's about what you enjoy...and ultimately what you ending up watching the most. I've seen Moonraker countless times - probably more than other highly regarded films in the franchise. I always have a good time with it, and that should be the point of watching anything creative. I'm of the opinion Moonraker and Octopussy provide the best balance of light and dark. In Moonraker's case, for every hovercraft gondola we have scientists being gassed to death, and so this sequencing continues throughout the film. 

 

Just talking/writing about MOONRAKER here has elevated it in my opinionated ranking. 

 

That's good to hear. It's a film I really enjoy talking about, and I hope that comes across in my posts.

 

 

Very much agree with everything here.

 

When I was younger, I felt guilty about enjoying MR as much as I did-- which is why I tried my best to not express my admiration of it to others.

 

Thankfully, in recent years, more and more MR fans have been outing themselves.

 

And yes, I agree that MR and OP have some of the best balance. Granted, MR may have taken the camp a bit too far in some respects (and I love it for that!), but OP certainly strikes a perfect chord. There's a reason OP is my favorite Moore film (and one of my top 3 or 4 favorites overall) and MR is not far behind. 

[David_M]

 

But it is the personal opinions of those fans who derided MR which has [possibly] misled many to believe it has always had a bad rap.

 

I get the impression we're saying the same thing, here, but somehow it's coming off as an argument.

 

What I'm saying is that when one asks the question, "Why does MR have a bad rap," the answer is the same as "Why is GF so often considered the best?"  In both cases it's because there was a long stretch of time where certain commentators held tremendous sway and were able to create the impression that their personal opinions were some kind of objective fact, or at the very least representative of consensus.  Thus, for a long time anyone coming into Bond fandom after MR was inclined to take these views at face value:  "These guys got a book deal, so they must know what they're talking about."  Similarly, even those of us who enjoyed MR were systematically brow-beaten into questioning our own judgement.  There came to be a stigma attached to defending MR:  If we wanted to have a productive discussion about Bond, we were pressured to give into a sort of "group think" as part of the ground rules.  If we let slip that we liked MR, then our bonafides as "real Bond fans" became instantly suspect: obviously we couldn't know what we were talking about.

 

Yes, what those guys wrote was their personal opinion. But for a long stretch of time, their personal opinion might as well have been fact, because it was all we had access to.  Thus -- I l believe -- there is an objective answer to why MR has a bad rap: it's because these guys gave it one.  Today, it couldn't happen that way: there are too many websites, too many magazines, too many podcasts, etc for a handful of reviews to sway anyone.  Thus, we'll have to look elsewhere to diagnose why, say, DAD has a bad rap (like MR, it did big box office and many fans praised it on release, but over time it's become largely hated: it'd be interesting to know why, but the reasons would be different in the age of the internet from what they were in the 80s), or why QoS has a bad rap (this one's a bit different in being largely disliked by the general public but defended strongly by pockets of fandom).  In the case of MR there is a disconnect between what happened in the Summer of '79 and the way the film is often remembered now.  I'm interested in why that happened and I believe I know why.  

 

 

What you say is correct: Yes, the opinions of a few influential fans/historians gave MR a bad rap.  And what I am saying is correct:  we therefore know why MR has a bad rap.  So it's not a case of "no one knows" or "we'll never know."

 

 

 

 

When you say there is "no real reason why MR should be singled out for disdain" that is your opinion, others would tell you there are many. The debate, if anything, is what causes the bad reputation and a debate in itself, which will never have a resolution - even a show of hands or a Parliamentary vote does not stop debate - simply can't be explained objectively. 

 

 

What I mean is if you want to pick a Bond movie to dump on,  there are plenty of viable candidates.  Presented on a continuum of "best to worst," fine if one wants to put MR at the bottom.  My objection is to having the film invoked as some kind of ultimate symbol of awfulness, the worst misstep in series history.  Even in articles that show at best a passing knowledge of the series, MR is always mentioned as "the low point."  I have no objection to anyone disliking the film or putting it at the bottom of their list, provided they've seen it and compared it closely to all the other candidates, but I don't feel that's always happened.  I think the "GF is best" and "MR is worst" tropes are so ubiquitous by now that poseurs can just toss them out to "prove" they know something about Bond.  Like any "truths" that "everybody knows," I think both positions deserve to be questioned and tested.  Ironically, the only thing that seems likely to save MR from an eternity at the bottom of the pile is the equally "universal" disdain for DAD.  Which is not to say I like DAD at all, but there comes a point where, when "everyone" agrees that film is the worst, I'll want to give it another chance, as well, just to be contrary.

 

 

 

 

I tend not to pontificate in forums. I prefer to offer short answers. 

 

What are forums for, if not to pontificate?  :-)  Thanks for the discussion.

[chrisno1]

 

 

But it is the personal opinions of those fans who derided MR which has [possibly] misled many to believe it has always had a bad rap.

 

I get the impression we're saying the same thing, here, but somehow it's coming off as an argument.

 

What I'm saying is that when one asks the question, "Why does MR have a bad rap," the answer is the same as "Why is GF so often considered the best?"  In both cases it's because there was a long stretch of time where certain commentators held tremendous sway and were able to create the impression that their personal opinions were some kind of objective fact, or at the very least representative of consensus.  Thus, for a long time anyone coming into Bond fandom after MR was inclined to take these views at face value:  "These guys got a book deal, so they must know what they're talking about."  Similarly, even those of us who enjoyed MR were systematically brow-beaten into questioning our own judgement.  There came to be a stigma attached to defending MR:  If we wanted to have a productive discussion about Bond, we were pressured to give into a sort of "group think" as part of the ground rules.  If we let slip that we liked MR, then our bonafides as "real Bond fans" became instantly suspect: obviously we couldn't know what we were talking about.

 

Yes, what those guys wrote was their personal opinion. But for a long stretch of time, their personal opinion might as well have been fact, because it was all we had access to.  Thus -- I l believe -- there is an objective answer to why MR has a bad rap: it's because these guys gave it one.  Today, it couldn't happen that way: there are too many websites, too many magazines, too many podcasts, etc for a handful of reviews to sway anyone.  Thus, we'll have to look elsewhere to diagnose why, say, DAD has a bad rap (like MR, it did big box office and many fans praised it on release, but over time it's become largely hated: it'd be interesting to know why, but the reasons would be different in the age of the internet from what they were in the 80s), or why QoS has a bad rap (this one's a bit different in being largely disliked by the general public but defended strongly by pockets of fandom).  In the case of MR there is a disconnect between what happened in the Summer of '79 and the way the film is often remembered now.  I'm interested in why that happened and I believe I know why.  

 

 

What you say is correct: Yes, the opinions of a few influential fans/historians gave MR a bad rap.  And what I am saying is correct:  we therefore know why MR has a bad rap.  So it's not a case of "no one knows" or "we'll never know."

 

 

 

 

When you say there is "no real reason why MR should be singled out for disdain" that is your opinion, others would tell you there are many. The debate, if anything, is what causes the bad reputation and a debate in itself, which will never have a resolution - even a show of hands or a Parliamentary vote does not stop debate - simply can't be explained objectively. 

 

 

What I mean is if you want to pick a Bond movie to dump on,  there are plenty of viable candidates.  Presented on a continuum of "best to worst," fine if one wants to put MR at the bottom.  My objection is to having the film invoked as some kind of ultimate symbol of awfulness, the worst misstep in series history.  Even in articles that show at best a passing knowledge of the series, MR is always mentioned as "the low point."  I have no objection to anyone disliking the film or putting it at the bottom of their list, provided they've seen it and compared it closely to all the other candidates, but I don't feel that's always happened.  I think the "GF is best" and "MR is worst" tropes are so ubiquitous by now that poseurs can just toss them out to "prove" they know something about Bond.  Like any "truths" that "everybody knows," I think both positions deserve to be questioned and tested.  Ironically, the only thing that seems likely to save MR from an eternity at the bottom of the pile is the equally "universal" disdain for DAD.  Which is not to say I like DAD at all, but there comes a point where, when "everyone" agrees that film is the worst, I'll want to give it another chance, as well, just to be contrary.

 

 

 

 

I tend not to pontificate in forums. I prefer to offer short answers. 

 

What are forums for, if not to pontificate?  :-)  Thanks for the discussion.

 

 

No problem. I actually enjoyed it.

I agree, we are probably saying the same thing, just from different angles or viewpoints. Perhaps we're being too esoteric.

 

I'll certainly give you the points for suggesting "We'll never know" and consider my late night postings a little more carefully in future   

 

I ought also to mention I am not a MR hater and it has always ranked in my Bond Top 10 - for what that's worth. Despite its many and obvious issues, it also has many and obvious successes and I prefer to take the latter's smoothness to the former's rough....

[SecretAgentFan]

 

OHMSS and LTK may be better films, but they are nowhere near as fun.

Yep. Over the years I've come to realise it's not really about what's better. It's about what you enjoy...and ultimately what you ending up watching the most. I've seen Moonraker countless times - probably more than other highly regarded films in the franchise. I always have a good time with it, and that should be the point of watching anything creative. I'm of the opinion Moonraker and Octopussy provide the best balance of light and dark. In Moonraker's case, for every hovercraft gondola we have scientists being gassed to death, and so this sequencing continues throughout the film. 

 

Just talking/writing about MOONRAKER here has elevated it in my opinionated ranking. 

 

That's good to hear. It's a film I really enjoy talking about, and I hope that comes across in my posts.

 

 

Yeah, kind of...  

 

And I readily admit: I was, too, influenced by the badmouthing of MOONRAKER (and even some of Sir Roger´s later Bond films) by the critics who, let´s face it, basically hated the Moore era because they either favoured the Connery era (older reviewers) or they hated the 80s in general (because they grew up in the 90´s).  

 

And the Craig era, of course, let the Moore era indeed seem light-weight and silly.

 

But... with the benefit of hindsight I can now recognize with full pleasure that I miss light-weight and silly Bond.  And that I even prefer Bond films light-weight and silly.  Because those did never pretend to be anything but full force entertainment, instead of deep, personal, character-based darkness.

 

No, no, I do enjoy the Craig films, too.  They are full of light-weight and silly entertainment as well (although they try to mask that).  

 

But if I had to choose between the Moore era and the Craig era...  well, it´s not even a close contest.

[sharpshooter]

If you say Moonraker is your favourite Bond film in a general discussion, you're going to have to fight your corner. Fans like us have embraced the film, but a stigma still exists and it probably always will. Some people just can't get past the finale in space and everything that precedes it is written off. In my opinion that's their loss.

Another scene I'll give focus to is Bond returning to Drax's laboratory with gas masks...only to find the entire interior has been impossibly refurbished in a short space of time. Is this realistic/feasible? No, probably not. But it's a top notch surprise that makes Bond look like a fool, and Drax like a man of incredible resources and instinct. It's another little gem from Moonraker.

[David_M]

I agree a lot of folks write off MR because Bond goes to space.  Similarly, a lot of folks say OP is awful because Roger dresses as a clown.  I am firmly convinced such people either never saw the films or are incapable of interpreting anything in context.  The question is, did MR handle the space scenes well?  I think it did, very much.  Was there a reason for him to go and in fact was Connery's Bond not ready to go 12 years earlier?  Yup.  Did Bond have a logical reason for dressing like a clown?  Yes.  Did it in fact build on an earlier, suspense-filled scene where another spy dressed as a clown and died in the clown suit?  Yes.  Did Bond put on a clown ACT while in the costume. No.  Such subtleties seem beyond some people who have an agenda and are determined not to enjoy certain entries, period.

 

Bond goes into space?  Ridiculous.  Bond is shot and falls 300+ feet into a river and survives?  Perfectly plausible.  Drax builds a space station without anyone on Earth noticing?  Insane.  Blofeld builds a rocket base inside a volcano without anyone in Japan noticing?  Hey, it could happen.  Fans ignore the outlandish, impossible elements of the films they like, but in the end they're all hokum.

[sharpshooter]

Drax builds a space station without anyone on Earth noticing?  Insane.  Blofeld builds a rocket base inside a volcano without anyone in Japan noticing?  Hey, it could happen. 

Heh, exactly. The space station follows the same suspensions of disbelief as the other villain lairs, just that it's located in a different environment - space.