Moonraker
Mister White
The NetherlandsPosts: 814MI6 Agent
Moonraker has to be one of my favorite Bond novels. I found myself re-reading it recently, and I'm loving every bit.
So I thought to myself, why don't I pop Moonraker (the movie) in the DVD player. After all, it couldn't be as bad as I remembered it.
Well...
it was.
And though I understand that the novel plays very much into the political situation and ramifications after the Second World War, that is still no excuse for this movie to be so bad. It's been said before, but even DAD is a better Moonraker than Moonraker.
But that's just my humble opinion. I was wondering if there were people here who do like the Moonraker movie and have also read the book. I would like to hear your take on this matter.
And no, I am not challenging people to come up here so I can ridicule them. I am genuinly interested.
Because John Nathan Turner, the deceased former Doctor Who producer apparently loved Moonraker (the movie). He loved it so much the influence of it is apparent all through 1980's Doctor Who.
Is there something that I am missing perhaps?
So I thought to myself, why don't I pop Moonraker (the movie) in the DVD player. After all, it couldn't be as bad as I remembered it.
Well...
it was.
And though I understand that the novel plays very much into the political situation and ramifications after the Second World War, that is still no excuse for this movie to be so bad. It's been said before, but even DAD is a better Moonraker than Moonraker.
But that's just my humble opinion. I was wondering if there were people here who do like the Moonraker movie and have also read the book. I would like to hear your take on this matter.
And no, I am not challenging people to come up here so I can ridicule them. I am genuinly interested.
Because John Nathan Turner, the deceased former Doctor Who producer apparently loved Moonraker (the movie). He loved it so much the influence of it is apparent all through 1980's Doctor Who.
Is there something that I am missing perhaps?
"Christ, I miss the Cold War."
Comments
http://apbateman.com
I actually enjoy the film and the book. I feel its important to remember that the films very much run their own show. Even though Casino Royale is a film that is closer to its book counterpart, the film still does its own thing. Goldfinger by contrast, is a true novel / film storyline. From what I remember its a true balanced comparison.
Moonraker the book is indeed a shadow of the post world war two era. Drax in the story is vile, a thug who manages to cloak his intentions for a while, but the nature of who he is and team around him is ominous and suspect from the start. (We are Bond fans, we know the score!)
Moonraker the film was about marketing, merchandise and competing with the feature film competition. - That competition was Star Wars, Star Trek I, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. If Bond didn't compete, it would have been ignored, and no feature film franchise could afford to do that.
Its one of my favorite Bond films, but I would be the first to say it has its flaws. Bonkers plot, Jaws is used for comedy more than menace, and dialogue that makes you wince. The effects are doe well but it feels like an effects overload for a Bond film, which of course it is.
Ian Fleming had some core ideas in the literature version of Bond that will always work. The lifestyle, the character of Bond himself, his resolve to doing his job. Others don't. - Evolving tech, the changing world's politics, and a few other things. The films will always diverge on that score.
The key is not trying NOT to compare the two. That way you can see each one book or film, for its own unique merits.
(Anything is better that AVTAK!)
Well, an attempt at one anyway...
Indeed. I would personally argue that the movies that follow the storyline closest to the novel they were based on are usually the better ones. But that is only my personal opinion and I realise that.
I still find the bridge game at Blades one of the most exiting scenes in any book, ever. There is so much thrill and suspense going on. And what are we reading about? A couple of people playing a cardgame? To be able to convey this much over something as small as that is truly Fleming at his best if you ask me.
Now I'm not sure I agree with you here. The Bond franchise by itself was certainly strong enough at the time to be able to survive if you ask me. I agree there was a huge science fiction outburst and people were hungry for more.
But that was no reason to give up a perfectly good plot and run a bad one. Let's face it, nuclear missiles were a very hot topic at the time. Glasnost was still several years away.
The Bond movies have always bordered on science fiction anyway, so it seems to me that it would have been better suited to continue on that road instead of destroying it's own credability by turning a villain like Jaws into comedy relief.
I do realise that several of the plot points later in the book hinge on Bond not being able to communicate, wich in the late seventies was a harder point to sell and would be nearly impossible today.
More power to you for admitting you like the film!
I have some peculiar likes as well that most people don't understand (like Blake's 7 and 1980's Doctor Who), but I do find that most of the times it's those faults that make me enjoy things even more.
Having said that, I must admit that I am someone who is a firm believer in substance over looks. I will enjoy a good story even if the special effects are awfull. In a way to me that is a bit like watching a stage play. You allow for the suspension of disbelief because the story captivates you.
But using special effects to compensate for a lack in storytelling is inexcusable to me.
I think everybody here will agree with that point. The essential things that make Bond Bond. What we all love and brings us together here.
Dang, I sound like a priest...
Fair enough, but would you not agree that the sheer fact that they used the one for the other begs comparison?
Well, almost anything....
Michael Lonsdale as Drax was very good, Corrine Clery was very sexy, but killed too soon, Lois Chiles as Holly Goodhead is one of my least favorite Bond girls as she seemed very stiff. Roger tries to hold everything together and almost succeeds, but when Jaws and his girlfriend unite all is lost.
That's about the size of it for me as well, Barry...some great moments in the film---the centrifuge, the death of the girl in the forest, the fight at Vennini Glass---but it's one bridge too far in the TSWLM vein, IMO. I'm not a Moore Bond fan, but I liked LALD, enjoyed TMWTGG, and really had a lot of fun with TSWLM...but MR ultimately goes awry.
I still look at it every once in a while, though!
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Some great oneliners in amongst the slapstick. More of the former than the latter.
Lovely cinematography by the guy who lensed Day of the Jackel. Great locations too.
Superb Bond villain, very icy and understated, and Lauren Bacall-style Bond girl.
It's all best seen as a 9-year-old, mind. Oh great poster too.
It is a bit of a one-off however. You can't compare it with the novel, but it's a natural progression from the likes of YOLT with stunts and special effects a notch above.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Very Flemingesque depiction of Dalton.
I hated MR for a long time, but found myself quite enjoying it the last time I saw it. It is quite bizarre and I don't think we'll ever get another one like it. I mean Bond goes into space for goodness sake! And fights a giant rubber anaconda, lands on a circus tent after jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and has a square-go with a samurai in Venice. The soundtrack is wonderful as well. I find myself feeling quite nostalgic about the 70's Bonds, having watched them so much on TV as a child.
Yeah that's a cool Dalton poster, though it looks a bit like the comic strips, with a hint of The Sun's George and Lynn.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
http://www.moviegoods.com/movie_poster/the_world_is_not_enough_1999.htm
;% Right enough. I haven't seen it in a while. I do hate the circus though. Especially clowns. Bastards, all of them.
OUTED!!!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think that sums it up very well! Thanks NP.
By the way, if you don't know the song that cartoon wouldn't make any sense...
However, once the Fleming element is lost, Bond is lost.
If it's legitimate to put Bond in outer space and give him a laser gun and have him fight indestructible cartoon villains then it would be legitimate to put him in a black cape and mask and give him a sword and call him double-Zorro-Seven. M could send him back through time ala Austin Powers and have him fight villains in old California.
A standard must be maintained. That standard is Fleming.
Updating is one thing. Having Daniel Craig fight modern terrorists instead of Smersh is acceptable. Casino Royale, although it went its own way, still captured the essence of Ian Fleming's work.
Moonraker the film was not just bad movie making it was disrespectful to Fleming. The producers said quite simply,
"We're going to take your character and do whatever we want with it."
That film was a slap in the face to Fleming and to the millions of his fans who expected and deserved much better.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
You're quite right. YOLT is only slightly better. Much of Fleming's rich and involving story is lost in the outlandish outer space terrorist plot. At least though, when Hans is tossed into the Pirannah pool he doesn't come back out with a fish biting his butt, squeegee himself off and attack Bond again. YOLT is elevated by Sean Connery's performance and the fact that, though outlandish it stops short of the kitschy, low-brow, Three Stooges slapstick of Moonraker.
In medical terms YOLT is a bad cold. Moonraker is the Black Death.
Perhaps I'm prejudiced because I grew up with Connery's Bond and his performances in Dr. No, FRWL, Goldfinger and Thunderball have colored my opinions. I loved On Her Majesty's Secret Service despite George Lazenby's amateurish performance. He would have gotten better had he stuck with it. Daniel Craig did a fine job in CR and the return to the spirit of Fleming's work was very impressive. I hope that spirit will continue to thrive. I was a little disappointed in Quantum of Solace due to its brevity and lack of any real character/story development. Still, a far, far better film than Moonraker.
Moonraker is a cartoon. If I want a cartoon I'll watch The Incredibles or Ice Age. Both of which, by the way are better films than Moonraker.
Ouch.
But having said that, I do agree with you.
I'm also with you on that one. I'm so very happy that they're back to the way Bond should be, as far as I see it anyway. Dalton was also a step in the right direction, but the audiences weren't ready at the time.
A bit of an unfair comparison perhaps, as these two movies were made much later and benefitted from technological developments made since then.
But these are certainly movies aimed at the same kind of audience though....
I was not actually comparing Moonraker to these two films, technically or dramatically. I was simply using a little sarcasm to make a broad point about the cartoonish aspects of Moonraker. I can only believe that the writers drew heavily upon the Road Runner/Wile E. Coyote formula for inspiration. When Jaws fell into that circus tent I fully expected Roger Moore to flutter his tongue and go "BEEP BEEP!"
The point to all this is simply that I, as an individual have come to expect certain things when I go to a movie. If a movie fulfills or exceeds my expectations, I am delighted. If it falls short, I am disappointed. When I watch a Bond film I expect Bond to BE BOND. I want him to get angry at some point. I want him to coldly and efficiently kill a villain. I expect him to feel pain and fear. I expect him to be scarred, physically and emotionally at least in some small way that says THIS WAS WHAT IAN FLEMING MEANT. If I don't see that, I am let down. Moonraker was a huge let down.
Even if it were the only Bond film ever made, even if Ian Fleming hadn't written the Bond novels and the character existed only in the movies, Moonraker would have been a enormous disappointment because I would have all the previous films to compare it to.
Moonraker is bad film making. It's the sort of Bond film Ed Wood might have made if he'd had the funds. "Plan 007 From Outer Space."
Those who have read and responded to my posts in the past know well that the Moore films and particularly Moonraker, constitute a very loud bee in my bonnet.
I apologize for my continual sermonizing on these points.
The fact is Moonraker the movie is an insult to Ian Fleming, as was AVTAK, LALD, Octopussy and Die Another Day.
I don't want Bond comedies. I want Bond.
Moonraker is not the Black Death. It's a good film brought down by overindulgence. Most Bond fans concentrate so much on the negatives that they forget many of the redeeming qualities, and in the case of Moonraker, there are quite a few. The pre-credits freefall is one of the most outstanding stunt sequences ever filmed -- until Jaws shows up. Bond in the G-Force simulator rivals Goldfinger's tabletop laser in terms of sheer intensity. And in terms of fight scenes? There are few that stand up to the Venician glass house fight (relative to all the other cornball moments in Moonraker, having Chang fall headfirst through a grand piano is pretty tame [and actually somewhat funny]). When you really think about it, Moonraker has everything that a Bond blockbuster should offer. It's just the ever-present comedic angle that degrades it.
But more importantly, Moonraker succeeds at being fun in spite of its overwhelming camp value. Even if outer space is a ridiculous setting for a Bond film, it is much more exciting than the dreadful underwater climax of Thunderball. I'll admit it's pretty lousy compared to a lot of the other ones... but Black Death? Try Diamonds Are Forever.
***
As a book, Ian Fleming's Moonraker is one of the best I've read so far. The plot is very simple, but the characters, like Drax and Gala Brand, are terrific -- as are many of the sequences (the Blades club, the car chase, etc). Even if the producers of the film found the nefarious scheme "too simple", I think the Moonraker novel would have made a terrific film adapation.
1) The Spy Who Loved Me 2) On Her Majesty's Secret Service 3) GoldenEye 4) Casino Royale 5) Goldfinger
Not dismissing anyone's personal perspective or point of view, but a film maker will use the original material as a starting point.
From that point onwards, how much of that original story remains depends on how much money it will guarantee to make. I agree CR is a breakthrough movie. It carries aspects of Flemming, and to me, Craig has done the best job possible of conveying the slightly ruthless nature of Bond. He is an unacceptably ruthless killer, but in an acceptable world. - Even there though, the film differs from Flemming's world. It has to because they world has changed.
Films have to appeal to a much wider spectrum. Spy thriller books will only appeal to a specific literature audience. A film thats trying to make money can't. If the Bond films did not ebb and flow with the tastes of the general audience, they would not make money. If they stop making money...
Jade 66, I understand completely how you feel, but unfortunately when a writer hands over the rights to their creation to a film company, - any film company, the film makers DO have the right to do what they want often as not. That's often the dealbreaker, or no film is made.
Star Trek I (the original), Lost In Space, The Avengers Movie, Thunderbirds. (All tv to film rather than literature to film) the film makers at some point disregarded the original writers / producers intent to, in order do their own thing. They thought the audience would like the result more. In the case of Star Trek, with Trek II, it worked. The other two died horrible deaths at the box office. - Gerry Anderson and Brian Clements both pointed that out in the latter cases.
The Thunderbirds movie is the bee in my bonnet in the same way. A complete waste of talent and money - it proved it by going so badly in the red.
As for a bad character movie? To me they are - DAF, AVTAK, LTK, DAD, and QOS! The others suffer excess and weak scenes / dialogue. To me QOS has Bond on auto pilot, and considering how emotive Bond is in CR, its a let down.
Moonraker has its flaws, it isn't the best Bond picture, but others are worse to me. There are two Casino Royale films. Maybe EON will consider the idea of a reboot version of Moonraker - the original novel concept foir a film in the future? CR is proof that it works.
Jade66 - If you haven't already, don't watch the Original Casino Royale movie! Considering how you feel towards Moonraker, the 1966 CR may push you over the edge!
I'm not sure that Fleming's novel really would work as a movie. It's all homegrown, there's nothing exotic there. In atmosphere it smacks of a Sunday afternoon serial. But MR the film is a matter of taste, clearly.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Interesting points and quite valid. The films you mention, DAF ATVTAK etc, all have their weaknesses and are all examples of film maker excess. That doesn't change my opinion of Moonraker.
As I stated in another thread, I won't attempt to argue with box office receipts and I won't quibble about the rights of film makers once they own a work. They can do what they want. That doesn't mean they should.
As a writer myself, I know how important it is to feel that your work has been respected.
Casino Royale (2006) is updated to fit the times but there is still respect for Fleming's work. Ian Fleming was the genius behind James Bond, not Cubby Broccoli, not Richard Maibaum, not anyone but Fleming.
Ian Fleming's work could be flawed as well. Goldfinger, Diamonds Are Forever and the sadly unfinished Golden Gun were
weak spots in the series, yet each of them contained elements, stylistic and plot oriented which could have been used to great effect by the film makers. These elements ere discarded and the film goers who have never read a Bond novel have never gotten to know the real Bond. When I talk to non-Bond fans about Bond they all know Bond only as a movie character.
They reject the character out of hand because of what they see in the films: Gadgets, slapstick and sight gags.
Then I tell them they should read the novels and they will see Bond in a whole new light.
Ultimately, Moonraker is a disrespectful film. Ultimately, that's what makes it intolerable. At least to me.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
When I first read the novel it seemed way too simple for a Fleming book. However, it really grows on you and every scene is full of interesting elements and extreme detail. The film is just an attempt to make a bigger and better TSWLM. Same actor director, team, and screenwriter. I'm surprised they didn't keep Marvin Hamlisch. The changes made originate from the decision to make the movie in France. This leads to the whole film getting this overdone gloss that makes everything seem way too rich. This is why the film has dated more than its predecessor.
Much of the humor goes way over the top, but the majority of the film isn't too unrealistic. Drax in the film is still one of the better villains in the series. RM versus Lonsdale is quite good and their banter is priceless. The scene with the hunting party is worth every bit of over-the-top crap. Moore plays Bond well and possibly with a bit more of the devil may care menace from LALD and TMWTGG. The opening is positively balls to the wall even today. Who else would have had the audacity to throw a man out of an actual plane and have him steal a parachute?
Bond may go into space, have a gondola hovercraft, meet a double-taking pigeon, fight a giant rubber anaconda, and Jaws may get a girlfriend-but this is not DAF, FYEO, OP, AVTAK, LTK, GE, TND, DAD, CR, QoS, NSNA, or Feldman's CR. this is a film that is completely of its time and a sign of how the films have lost originality and wit over time. The other films are not bad but nowhere near as enjoyable or fresh seeming. FYEO for example is a good film but almost tepid in its execution. I'm just nitpicking these films to death. I love them all (except for CR/QoS)