›

Moonraker- Why the hate?

1…468910

Comments

  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    It's a film that gets better with every watch.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,403
    Always had been a favorite for me. I enjoy it every time.
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    edited April 2017 Posts: 3,000
    I literally wouldn't change anything about MR. It's all the silliness and fun that it's meant to be. I'd just have Bond actually use his PPK, other than that, I'd change nothing.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    Posts: 5,185
    Murdock wrote: »
    It's a film that gets better with every watch.

    Agreed. I was suprised how much i liked it all of a sudden when I rewatched it last year.
    Great villain, great Bond Girl, beautiful Locations, very good Soundtrack. MR has a lot going for it
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,079
    I don't know what kind of camera Moonraker was shot with, but every Bond film should be shot that way. And the Title sequence is gorgeous! Beautiful colours and models. :)
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    BMW_with_missiles wrote: »
    I literally wouldn't change anything about MR. It's all the silliness and fun that it's meant to be.
    Exactly. MR was intended to be that way, as a contrast to the more serious TSWLM (Gilbert choosing to essentially repeat the plot but change up the tone). They are very distinct films, despite being so similar, on account of that choice.

    Highlights for me in MR are Moore and of course Lonsdale. If one watches Roger's performance closely in MR vs. TSWLM, one will note how different he is tonally. Yet, he is spot on for both films.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,530
    Moore rocked in MR. I doubt Connery would have.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,964
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Moore rocked in MR. I doubt Connery would have.

    Sean would have rocked a version with the silliness removed.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited April 2017 Posts: 8,079
    We enjoy the silliness.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,964
    Some are....some aren't. I do like Moonraker but think it jumped the shark with the comedic gags.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2017 Posts: 23,883
    I get your point about the fact that the film could have been much more without the gags @talos7, and that's why I didn't like it for many years.

    However, more recently I realized that it had to be this way, to differentiate it from TSWLM, which it aped in so many other ways. EON/Gilbert were looking at the big picture in the context of the Moore entries and I'm glad they gave us this film, which complements the earlier one and serves as the height of extravagance and ambition in the Bond oeuvre. It represents the apex of the 70's Bond films in terms of budget, scope & sets - but doesn't take itself too seriously on account of the outlandish premise.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,894
    All the hate is justified. My feelings, of which are on the first page, haven't changed. Unlike or Moore Bonds such as FYEO and OP, MR hasn't improved with time.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 7,964
    Just to be clear I like MR a great deal. From Moore's performance, Barry's score, Lonsdale's villain to the stunning cinematography, there is a tremendous amount to like about it. it is the Bond of my adolescence and I remember seeing it on the day of it's release. For me TSWLM is the peak of the 70's Bonds, MR is a half step too far.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    talos7 wrote: »
    Just to be clear I like MR a great deal. From Moore's performance, Barry's score, Lonsdale's villain to the stunning cinematography, there is a tremendous amount to like about it. it is the Bond of my adolescence and I remember seeing it on the day of it's release. For me TSWLM is the peak of the 70's Bonds, MR is a half step too far.

    That is the problem, isn t it? If they had settled for equalling TSWLM, it probably would have been a great film. But no, they had to try to top it. That has been the problem several times during the series run, they get carried away. You can see this clearly in the older commercials-BIGGER! BETTER! No, bigger does not equal better.
  • FoxRoxFoxRox
    Posts: 12,258
    My reasons for why it’s one of my least favorite Bond films:

    -My least favorite Moore performance as Bond. He’s not bad, but of his 7, this one felt like his most autopilot and least memorable to me.
    -Jaws falling in love and becoming good... it just doesn’t work. The scene where he first sees Dolly is just... ugh. I just didn’t like it for his character.
    -The Bond girls are not that good - at least to me. They are some of the least memorable and bland of the series’ Bond girls.
    -I still haven’t warmed to the idea of sending Bond to space. I guess in theory it could be okay maybe, but it just doesn’t seem to fit? Anyway, it happened because of Star Wars, and I don’t like Bond being a trend-follower rather than a trend-setter.
    -Feels like a weaker TSWLM, which did pretty much everything better.
    -The silliness goes too far. Double take pigeon, space laser battle, Jaws with a girlfriend, etc. IMO, this is when it went too over-the-top.

    Those are my biggest gripes. The things I like most about MR are the PTS and title song. They’re both pretty good. Drax isn’t too bad either. I just think it’s one of the series’ weakest, but a weak Bond film is far from the worst kind of movie out there.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    edited January 2018 Posts: 1,984
    @FoxRox - LALD and TMWTGG are trend-followers as well. As are the Brosnan movies with all their machine gunnery. Arguably even the Craig movies (post-CR, anyway). But I agree that it's hard to see Bond being a follower of trends. I don't think it's realistic to think Bond will set a whole lot of trends in the future though.

    I think Moore's acting was very good early on, particularly in the centrifuge scene but even the nuances in his interactions with Drax and Goodhead. It does steadily dip into autopilot later on but to me that's because he played Bond so naturally.

    Don't the sets or score or effects or anything impress?

    I don't mind the Bondola or space lasers anymore, really. But I still find Jaws' comedic love story quite jarring indeed.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    They didn't even need the love angle to make Jaws turn against Drax. He could've just been fighting for his own self-preservation once he learned the truth. That way, instead of "turning good", he would've been on his own side. Would've been more compelling than what we got.
  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    The love story makes no sense from a story angle anyway. I think they just wanted to make him more endearing too.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    It was the 'younger' viewers who wanted Jaws to come back,so by popular demand he did,as well as the 'falling in love and turning good' aspect.

    Bad move all round,changing everything because some little brats demanded it.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    barryt007 wrote: »
    It was the 'younger' viewers who wanted Jaws to come back,so by popular demand he did,as well as the 'falling in love and turning good' aspect.

    Bad move all round,changing everything because some little brats demanded it.

    Tell us the truth. Weren t you one of those brats in the late 70s?
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    It was the 'younger' viewers who wanted Jaws to come back,so by popular demand he did,as well as the 'falling in love and turning good' aspect.

    Bad move all round,changing everything because some little brats demanded it.

    Tell us the truth. Weren t you one of those brats in the late 70s?

    I was indeed a brat (I was 9 when MR came out),but not one of those brats.

  • TorgeirtrapTorgeirtrap
    Posts: 17,272
    FoxRox wrote: »
    My reasons for why it’s one of my least favorite Bond films:

    -My least favorite Moore performance as Bond. He’s not bad, but of his 7, this one felt like his most autopilot and least memorable to me.
    -Jaws falling in love and becoming good... it just doesn’t work. The scene where he first sees Dolly is just... ugh. I just didn’t like it for his character.
    -The Bond girls are not that good - at least to me. They are some of the least memorable and bland of the series’ Bond girls.
    -I still haven’t warmed to the idea of sending Bond to space. I guess in theory it could be okay maybe, but it just doesn’t seem to fit? Anyway, it happened because of Star Wars, and I don’t like Bond being a trend-follower rather than a trend-setter.
    -Feels like a weaker TSWLM, which did pretty much everything better.
    -The silliness goes too far. Double take pigeon, space laser battle, Jaws with a girlfriend, etc. IMO, this is when it went too over-the-top.

    Those are my biggest gripes. The things I like most about MR are the PTS and title song. They’re both pretty good. Drax isn’t too bad either. I just think it’s one of the series’ weakest, but a weak Bond film is far from the worst kind of movie out there.

    This sums up my viewing experience with Moonraker pretty well. Could add the gondola chase, as well, but that's at least more entertaining than annoying.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,403
    MR was my 3rd Bond film that I'd ever seen. I was in the midst of my GE64 playing days and was oh look Jaws, oh look Aztec level. It stayed with me since, 18 years later
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I read one of the earlier posts on here that said that they didn't understand why Hugo Drax hijacked the space shuttle in the PTS rather than building a new one - as if the logistics of building a replacement shuttle was a simple one. Just a quick Google informs me that the assemblage of such a craft could take anything from a year upwards. Clearly, waiting a year for a replacement to be built, followed by months of endless rocket testing didn't suit Drax's time-sensitive plans, hence the theft of the original space shuttle at the beginning. If I was going to find fault in Drax's plans, then it would be that maybe he should have had a possible replacement in dry-dock in case a fault was found in one of his existing fleets. Maybe the answer is a simple one: Drax just couldn't afford the billions of dollars it would cost to make this possible.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    bondsum wrote: »
    I read one of the earlier posts on here that said that they didn't understand why Hugo Drax hijacked the space shuttle in the PTS rather than building a new one - as if the logistics of building a replacement shuttle was a simple one. Just a quick Google informs me that the assemblage of such a craft could take anything from a year upwards. Clearly, waiting a year for a replacement to be built, followed by months of endless rocket testing didn't suit Drax's time-sensitive plans, hence the theft of the original space shuttle at the beginning. If I was going to find fault in Drax's plans, then it would be that maybe he should have had a possible replacement in dry-dock in case a fault was found in one of his existing fleets. Maybe the answer is a simple one: Drax just couldn't afford the billions of dollars it would cost to make this possible.

    that's how I see it...it was the time factor,for sure.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    barryt007 wrote: »
    bondsum wrote: »
    I read one of the earlier posts on here that said that they didn't understand why Hugo Drax hijacked the space shuttle in the PTS rather than building a new one - as if the logistics of building a replacement shuttle was a simple one. Just a quick Google informs me that the assemblage of such a craft could take anything from a year upwards. Clearly, waiting a year for a replacement to be built, followed by months of endless rocket testing didn't suit Drax's time-sensitive plans, hence the theft of the original space shuttle at the beginning. If I was going to find fault in Drax's plans, then it would be that maybe he should have had a possible replacement in dry-dock in case a fault was found in one of his existing fleets. Maybe the answer is a simple one: Drax just couldn't afford the billions of dollars it would cost to make this possible.
    that's how I see it...it was the time factor,for sure.
    Me, too.
  • BAIN123BAIN123
    edited January 2018 Posts: 11,189
    As silly and dopey as Moonraker can be, I simply can't call it an all-round bad film. It's too well-made for that.

    If you go in with the mindset that it's Saturday matinee fun for the whole family then you may enjoy it more.

    Also, I don't understand how anyone can not think that music and imagery like this is sublime.



    I'd much rather watch this in fact than either MWTGG or AVTAK.
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,599
    @DarthDimi your points re Flint are spot on. In a strange way, MR would have been better if it had been a different spy movie rather than Bond. As a standalone, fantasy, sci-fi adventure, it really is alot of fun. But, as part of the Bond series, that's when it comes unstuck as our expectations are relative to the Bond legacy.

    You have to have a clear mind as a Bond fan and enjoy the ride. If you can do that, it's great fun.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well said!

    If I'm honest, MR actually does enter my top ten list as it's the sort of Bond film I always crave for, even if it's more akin to a Derek Flint film rather than a James Bond thriller... And Moore's 70s films surely did have a lot of influence in build from the Flint films.
  • bondsumbondsum
    Posts: 3,333
    I agree @BAIN123. The cinematography for MR is excellent, as are the overall production values for the movie. I can't fault them and I won't. Though I think you have to try and view it from a longtime Bond fan's perspective at the time of its release. Just imagine that MR was Bond 25, if you will, and that you'd been waiting for the next Bond instalment with bated breath only to be served up with a rerun of the previous movie (with the exception of the climax being set in outer-space) and the action reduced to little more than cartoon Wile E. Coyote & The Road Runner Show tomfoolery... would you still be so generous about the cinematography? I think @Birdleson and @SirHenryLeeChaChing (God rest his soul) best served as to why MR is at the bottom of the pile for most Bond fan "Originals" so there's no need for me to go any further, except to concur with their astute observations. That doesn't mean to say that there aren't some good scenes in MR; it's just that the bad outweighs the good, sadly, rendering MR a huge misstep and one that haunted the series pretty much up until Craig's CR, despite attempts at trying to ground the series in a bit more reality. I can still recall Cubby Broccoli trumpeting that MR "wasn't science fiction... it was science fact" every time a microphone was placed in front of him in an interview. At the time, I didn't know what was funnier: Broccoli's proclamations or the actual movie itself.

    I still like the PTS, right up until the point when Jaws starts flapping his arms like wings as he pile-drives straight into a circus tent. In fact, it's pretty damn great up until then. Little did I know at the time but the introduction of the circus tent was a subliminal message that signalled that from now on Bond was about to become a three-ring circus act of spectacles and slapstick entertainment. Though the cinematography. music and sets were nice.
Sign In or Register to comment.