I think alot of the ideas in Moonraker could still be used today,
...Just stick in a couple of big action/stunt sequences, a few funny one-liners and several drop-dead-gorgeous women.
Of course I'd have to direct,and have full control of the project as I'm very temperamental ) and will throw my toys out of the pram if I don't get my way.
I'll catch the rattle, toy car and soft toy ducky - someone else can pick up the blankets, milk bottle and the nappy!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I have always thought Lewis Gilberts movies were meant for the HUUUUUUGGE theater screen, they are SO over the top. Most of the best gags from the Austin Powers films came from the Gilbert bond films ( YOLT,TSWLM & MR ) I saw Moonraker when I was 12 AND LOVED IT. I admit I cringe now when I see things like the gondola scene, but it was the disco & Starwars age, so it's kinda like the clothes, it gets a pass lol . Whatever Moonrakers faults there are a few things that it has going for it. You can really see the big budget on the screen ( For all the Dalton/ LTK fans CAN YOU image LTK with Moonrakers budget, if only ). Drax is GREAT and it may be Berry's best score.
There are some good parts when you can get past Jaws and the rest of the comedy. The dog chase scene was well done. And you know Roger means business when he goes with the man in black getup. Thinking back he doesn't seem to be packing the PPK at all. Several times he gets caught unarmed by his own choice? I can see losin it, or getting it taken away, but don't leave home without it.
If there's one thing I don't really like about the whole Bond franchise is that one minute Bond is all serious, poker faced and intent on action, and in no time at all, just arseing around and treating the entire project as a joke or it's some Red Nose Day or Comic Relief special
I'm a member of other Bond forums/registered sites and I have made my feelings abundantly clear about the Moonraker movie, It IS a fun ride and entertaining, no doubt but by the same token the most stupid, dumb assed release of the Bond franchise, when I first saw it I kept asking myself when Bond lifted off in a spacesuit into outer space that I wasn't having some sort of hallucinogenic episode
complete nonsense from start to finish, and what the hell was a fully fuelled Moonraker shuttle doing on the back of a 737 during the cross over flight ?:)
Lois Chiles one of the top 3 worst Bond girls
poor Bassey music (again)
Michael Lonsdale, despite a few quips doesn't have enough to say and isin't anywhere approaching menace
They never should of brought the Jaws character back, the Circus tent fall, Rio cable car scene and falling in love bits are best left alone..
all said, Moonraker, while fun and keeps the viewer busy, but on a credible or plausible extent, an unmitigated mess.
I don't see any way to make a movie with James Bond going to space other than light-hearted, entertaining and full of visual crackers. And that they have gotten very well imho.
Besides this, Bassey's tune and the entire score are well accepted in the community (including myself) and Lonsdale's performance is also rated to be one of the best Bond villains.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
complete nonsense from start to finish, and what the hell was a fully fuelled Moonraker shuttle doing on the back of a 737 during the cross over flight ?:)
It's less nonsense when you recognize the jet as a 747 ... :v
The orbiter's main engines were only fed from the external tank, so fully fuelled or not, would not have fired anyway.
But you seem to forget that the film was shown two years before the first space shuttle start. Nobody except some NASA and Rockwell engineers did know these details.
I agree with you on the return of Jaws but your other points (Chiles top 3 worst Bond girls? Poor Bassey music again?) are obviously not to be taken seriously. It's like saying "Dalton is the best Bond" ... )
Agent James Bond 007 going into outer space is still a bad idea, Fleming would of been spinning like a top, even more so with some of the nonsense they came up with in the subsequent releases
and where the hell did Moore get the cyanide wrist dart from to kill Drax with when he was not in possession of it when he left earth, but Bond has always managed to get out of scrapes by any way possible
I don't see any way to make a movie with James Bond going to space other than light-hearted, entertaining and full of visual crackers. And that they have gotten very well imho.
Besides this, Bassey's tune and the entire score are well accepted in the community (including myself) and Lonsdale's performance is also rated to be one of the best Bond villains.
Spot on BT..... {[]
Until that nonsense about Lonsdale... Sucked out into outer space was appropriate for the performance I fear....
BT please come over and visit me soon and we'll watch some truly great bond villains like wiseman, frobe, Celli, shaw, pleasance, Lee, jurgens, Glover, bean, Christensen....
complete nonsense from start to finish, and what the hell was a fully fuelled Moonraker shuttle doing on the back of a 737 during the cross over flight ?:)
It's less nonsense when you recognize the jet as a 747 ... :v
The orbiter's main engines were only fed from the external tank, so fully fuelled or not, would not have fired anyway.
But you seem to forget that the film was shown two years before the first space shuttle start. Nobody except some NASA and Rockwell engineers did know these details.
I agree with you on the return of Jaws but your other points (Chiles top 3 worst Bond girls? Poor Bassey music again?) are obviously not to be taken seriously. It's like saying "Dalton is the best Bond" ... )
With you all the way RW... The fact that the shuttle was spot on for the launch and vehicle yrs before it became fact was another example of bond leading the way ... Yrs ahead of its time..
This potted history of the shuttle development (remembering MR release date of June 1979!) shows that someone was watching stuff up at palmdale/Edwards that they shouldn't have been!
The first orbiter spacecraft, Enterprise (OV-101), was rolled out on Sept. 17, 1976. On Jan. 31, 1977, it was transported 38 miles overland from Rockwell's assembly facility at Palmdale, Calif., to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards Air Force Base for the Approach and Landing Test (ALT) program.
The 9-month-long ALT program was conducted from February through November 1977 at Dryden and demonstrated the orbiter could fly in the atmosphere and land like an airplane except without power, a gliding flight.
The ALT program involved ground tests and flight tests.
The ground tests included taxi tests of the 747 shuttle carrier aircraft (SCA) with the Enterprise mated atop the SCA to determine structural loads and responses and assess the mated capability in ground handling and control characteristics up to flight takeoff speed. The taxi tests also validated 747 steering and braking with the orbiter attached. A ground test of orbiter systems followed the unmanned captive tests. All orbiter systems were activated as they would be in atmospheric flight. This was the final preparation for the manned captive-flight phase.
Five captive flights of the Enterprise mounted atop the SCA with the Enterprise unmanned and Enterprise systems inert were conducted to assess the structural integrity and performance-handling qualities of the mated craft.
Three manned captive flights that followed the five unmanned captive flights included an astronaut crew aboard the orbiter operating its flight control systems while the orbiter remained perched atop the SCA. These flights were designed to exercise and evaluate all systems in the flight environment in preparation for the orbiter release (free) flights. They included flutter tests of the mated craft at low and high speed, a separation trajectory test and a dress rehearsal for the first orbiter free flight.
In the five free flights the astronaut crew separated the spacecraft from the SCA and maneuvered to a landing at Edwards Air Force Base. In the first four such flights the landings were on a dry lake bed; in the fifth, the landing was on Edwards' main concrete runway under conditions simulating a return from space. The last two free flights were made without the tail cone, which is the spacecraft's configuration during an actual landing from Earth orbit. These flights verified the orbiter's pilot-guided approach and landing capability; demonstrated the orbiter's subsonic terminal area energy management autoland approach capability; and verified the orbiter's subsonic airworthiness, integrated system operations and selected subsystems in preparation for the first manned orbital flight. The flights demonstrated the orbiter's ability to approach and land safely with a minimum gross weight and using several center-of-gravity configurations.
For all of the captive flights and the first three free flights, the orbiter was outfitted with a tail cone covering its aft section to reduce aerodynamic drag and turbulence. The final two free flights were without the tail cone, and the three simulated Space Shuttle main engines and two orbital maneuvering system engines were exposed aerodynamically.
The final phase of the ALT program prepared the spacecraft for four ferry flights. Fluid systems were drained and purged, the tail cone was reinstalled and elevon locks were installed.
The forward attachment strut was replaced to lower the orbiter's cant from 6 to 3 degrees. This reduces drag to the mated vehicles during the ferry flights.
After the ferry flight tests, OV-101 was returned to the NASA hangar at Dryden and modified for vertical ground vibration tests at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
On March 13, 1978, the Enterprise was ferried atop the SCA to MSFC. At Marshall, Enterprise was mated with the external tank and SRB and subjected to a series of vertical ground vibration tests. These tested the mated configuration's critical structural dynamic response modes, which were assessed against analytical math models used to design the various element interfaces.
I don't see any way to make a movie with James Bond going to space other than light-hearted, entertaining and full of visual crackers. And that they have gotten very well imho.
Besides this, Bassey's tune and the entire score are well accepted in the community (including myself) and Lonsdale's performance is also rated to be one of the best Bond villains.
Spot on BT..... {[]
Until that nonsense about Lonsdale... Sucked out into outer space was appropriate for the performance I fear....
BT please come over and visit me soon and we'll watch some truly great bond villains like wiseman, frobe, Celli, shaw, pleasance, Lee, jurgens, Glover, bean, Christensen....
Hey even amalric!!! )
Semper fi
Tbh, we had plans to come over to Ca in december /january, but imagining, that you'll bombard me with Glover and Amalric may end in a change of plans.
As long as you don't have to see C. Gray, I am ok I guess
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Putting Bond in outer space just shows that the producers had lost their way. James Bond movies used to set trends. Moonraker was just a total capitulation to the Star Wars craze. The fact that Broccoli kept spouting that the move was not science-fiction but science fact illustrates how ridiculous the entire series had become. Pure garbage.
Moonraker did move too far away from the format, but I have no real problem with it. Moonraker is great entertainment with much in it's favour. It's just the few much maligned moments that take away from that.
The double taking pigeon, jaws steering wheel gag, his over reaction to going over the waterfall, plus the over the top love parody plus the whole Bondala scene. The rest is ok by me.
Putting Bond in outer space just shows that the producers had lost their way. James Bond movies used to set trends. Moonraker was just a total capitulation to the Star Wars craze. The fact that Broccoli kept spouting that the move was not science-fiction but science fact illustrates how ridiculous the entire series had become. Pure garbage.
Do you know how hard it is to keep setting trends for 15-odd years, RJ? No, really, do you?
Putting Bond in outer space just shows that the producers had lost their way. James Boond movies used to set trends. Moonraker was just a total capitulation to the Star Wars craze. The fact that Broccoli kept spouting that the move was not science-fiction but science fact illustrates how ridiculous the entire series had become. Pure garbage.
Do you know how hard it is to keep setting trends for 15-odd years, RJ? No, really, do you?
Quite right, it is very difficult and the producers failed miserably when they turned the series into cartoon antics. The downward spiral started with YOLT and enjoyed a final bit of greatness with OHMSS. With the unfortuante success of DAF, the die was cast to change James Bond movies into silly parodies of what initially made themselves great. The last gasp for air was FYEO, which was the first serious Bond movie in years that did not suffer from bloated attention to bombastic adventure. Moonraker may have been a top grossing movie, but it it still true that it is very far removed from everything that make a serious Bond movie great, especially the reliance on a science fiction craze.
I would assume, AS, that you are an intelligent human being. As such, you have principles and are capable of making decisions as to what is right and wrong. Would you sacrifice something that is important and that defines your character simply because some other person or societal trend is attracting attention? I doubt it. You would find the way to remain true to yourself. It may not be easy, but in the long run, you could be proud that you did sell out. You may not be the most noticeable person around, but you would be true and not compromise your own self-worth. The producers completely sold out when they made Moonraker. They may have advertised that outer space belonged to 007, the truth was 007 belong to the manure pile.
Putting Bond in outer space just shows that the producers had lost their way. James Boond movies used to set trends. Moonraker was just a total capitulation to the Star Wars craze. The fact that Broccoli kept spouting that the move was not science-fiction but science fact illustrates how ridiculous the entire series had become. Pure garbage.
Do you know how hard it is to keep setting trends for 15-odd years, RJ? No, really, do you?
Quite right, it is very difficult and the producers failed miserably when they turned the series into cartoon antics. The downward spiral started with YOLT and enjoyed a final bit of greatness with OHMSS. With the unfortuante success of DAF, the die was cast to change James Bond movies into silly parodies of what initially made themselves great. The last gasp for air was FYEO, which was the first serious Bond movie in years that did not suffer from bloated attention to bombastic adventure. Moonraker may have been a top grossing movie, but it it still true that it is very far removed from everything that make a serious Bond movie great, especially the reliance on a science fiction craze.
Firstly, Bond films were absorbing influences from other movies from an early stage - the Hitchcockian helicopter attack in FRWL, for instance.
I would venture that the "downward" (I don't regard it as downward, myself, but anyway...) spiral started the moment Q handed Bond the keys to his shiny new Aston Martin in Goldfinger, accelerated a bit when Bond ejected Goldfinger's henchman through the roof, and speeded up yet further when Auric brought out his Laser Beam of Doom (TM). That was the film when James Bond went from spy from superspy. Let's not forget that no lesser a man than Ian Fleming himself acknowledged that there was a parodic element to his work.
I might also add that the whole hyperbole about Moore's films being "silly parody" is over-the-top and annoying. But I want to keep the peace, so.....
I would assume, AS, that you are an intelligent human being. As such, you have principles and are capable of making decisions as to what is right and wrong. Would you sacrifice something that is important and that defines your character simply because some other person or societal trend is attracting attention? I doubt it. You would find the way to remain true to yourself. It may not be easy, but in the long run, you could be proud that you did sell out. You may not be the most noticeable person around, but you would be true and not compromise your own self-worth. The producers completely sold out when they made Moonraker. They may have advertised that outer space belonged to 007, the truth was 007 belong to the manure pile.
An analogy that isn't entirely without merit, but at the end of the day I am a human being and not a successful film series.
A while ago I posted a review of MR at The Other Place (no idea if you read it or not) in which I took issue with the criticism of Bond in space, arguing that humans had been going into orbit for over twenty years and that space travel had captured the public's imagination. I think my closing line on that particular argument was that if 007 is the coolest fictional character on land and sea, why not let him be the coolest man in space as well?
Besides, the Moonraker of Fleming's novel (which I have read and love) was a rocket missile capable of speeds of up to 15,000mph. In 1955, that was as close to a spacerocket as you could get. It shows that Mr. Fleming himself was not averse to using sci-fi elements in his books.
P.S. Oh, and I won't deny that the laser battle was blatantly aping Star Wars. I just can't bring myself to shed many tears about it, is all.
P.P.S. I'd advise against using phrases like 'the truth is...' when presenting your argument, it makes it sound like you're passing your opinions off as fact.
Thanks for the response. You had me up until your PPS. My opinions are just as factual as yours. That being said, we will just agree to disagree about Moonraker.
Moonraker is another one of my favorite James Bond films. I did like the space scenes, though I agree it was the weak point of the film. MR is terrific, and for me the countless action scenes and entertainment really pushed the film to the high end.
From a visual standpoint, the only thing I believe was lacking from Moonraker was film saturation. Much of the scenery seemed to be washed out, even the carnivale in the streets of Rio. I compare it to QOS where bleakness in that was fully intended, but there was still a lot of color where it was needed like on the streets of Siena. Some of the Bond films physically didn't hold up well to age I think. I still enjoy them though.
The shuttle hijack was a strong opener, though. It looks terrific and is an intriguing start, pity the rest of the film isn't like that. At least MR looked good compared to later entries. As I understand some later films were not as expensive to make, at least until GE.
I don't overlook Moonraker as the 'silly one' like it regularly got down the years by 'experts', it is not the worst film, just disappointing.
I watched Moonraker last night for the second time on Blu-ray and had mixed thoughts about it.
The opening sequence of Bond's descent from the plane was pretty epic and captivating... up until Jaws had to spoil all the fun with his campiness. The shot where he struggles to keep himself from falling is just awkward and embarassing, only further made worse by the jokey music.
I liked the Bond girl in this one, as she was one of the more pure and intelligent Bond girls yet seen in the movies. It's nice to have a change from the ditzy type for once.
The part where Bond fights the snake? Just bad. On the other side of the coin, the boat chase and flight over the waterfall? Very nice. I would have to say that the boat chase in LALD was a notch above this one, but it was cool for what it was. The fight scene with the kendo stick-wielding baddie was okay; I just felt like something was missing. And the Venice speed boat chase was just sick.
I don't want to get into the last thirty minutes of the movie, though. I get that the movie was meant to capitalize on the late 70's space craze, but it just didn't work. I'm not even sure it worked back then all too well?
As a side note, Jaws' main lady Dolly was too cute in her brief role. Anyone agree?
I remember seeing this when I was a kid, and thought how cool it was. I mean it was the late 70's, star wars was uber cool and 007 was riding the spin to keep 'up to date'
Having seen it this afternoon, (now as a much older adult... and a fan of the newer Bond films) I'm surprised at the love this film has.
I agree with your points, UP TO the Dalton comment, and of course QoS. You rate Moonraker ABOVE QoS... ?:) Wow!
There are some redeeming scenes, (and I did rate Goodhead she was - as you say - a smart and intelligent Bond girl) but on the whole it's laughable...... I mean, yes, okay it's a Moore's Bond (much more tongue in cheek...) but some of the action scenes are so outrageous, I can't seem to understand people's criticism of Craig's Bond (other than it's too realistic perhaps ) )
However, it was an okay way to spend an otherwise dull Sunday afternoon
She's worth whatever chaos she brings to the table and you know it. ~ Mark Anthony
What i didnt like about this movie is how Jaws went from a killing machine in TSWLM to a complete moron in Moonraker. Like the scene where Jaws cranks the trolley cart up to top speed but still gets scared crapless when it crashes, what the hell did he think would happen lol.
His reaction was comedy gold though.
*Jaws turns and sees he's about to crash through a wall*
BIG TAMWrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
MOONRAKER suffers from the 'give the audience more' approach. THE SPY WHO LOVED ME was such a mammoth production it's inevitable any follow-up would just crank things up to 11. The STAR WARS effect, as noted by everyone, was clearly influencing all fantasy-action genre films of the time. Mix these elements together with the younger age group the film's clearly aimed at & it's no surprise the film turned out as it did. But as Christopher Wood's novelisation proves, jettison the slapstick sight-gags & you actually get a cracking OTT Bond adventure.
For all its silliness though, it's still one of the most opulent Bond pictures with every cent of its budget clear to see on the screen.
It succeeded in what it's trying to do. It's lavish family entertainment. Odd isn't it? In those days it would be laughable to try to take Bond seriously - I mean, he's survived 10 or so movies by then! So you make it a fun day out. Now, of course, it's in vogue to take all this stuff seriously, grown men banging on about a freakin' comic book character, Batman! And, ahem, Bond. When guys in their mid 20s battled the Nazis and died for their country! But it's all perspective.
If you'd tried to do a more serious Bond then, it would be a case of 'Are you mad? You can't take this stuff seriously!'
But then, these films were made for audiences to enjoy, with the sound of affirming laughter ringing in your ears, not for solo viewing on DVD all those years later. I mean, videos didn't even exist back then.
I enjoy a curate's egg appreciation of MR, the stuff I like is so immense, score, villain, locations, cinematography, special effects, that I can go with that. But it's a different genre to the other films, a bit standalone in a way.
Agree 100%, welshboy78. Moore's Bonds are light Family entertainment Epics.
I still enjoy then, Love all the over the top stunts and sets. Great Stuff. -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Comments
I'll catch the rattle, toy car and soft toy ducky - someone else can pick up the blankets, milk bottle and the nappy!
I'm a member of other Bond forums/registered sites and I have made my feelings abundantly clear about the Moonraker movie, It IS a fun ride and entertaining, no doubt but by the same token the most stupid, dumb assed release of the Bond franchise, when I first saw it I kept asking myself when Bond lifted off in a spacesuit into outer space that I wasn't having some sort of hallucinogenic episode
complete nonsense from start to finish, and what the hell was a fully fuelled Moonraker shuttle doing on the back of a 737 during the cross over flight ?:)
Lois Chiles one of the top 3 worst Bond girls
poor Bassey music (again)
Michael Lonsdale, despite a few quips doesn't have enough to say and isin't anywhere approaching menace
They never should of brought the Jaws character back, the Circus tent fall, Rio cable car scene and falling in love bits are best left alone..
all said, Moonraker, while fun and keeps the viewer busy, but on a credible or plausible extent, an unmitigated mess.
Besides this, Bassey's tune and the entire score are well accepted in the community (including myself) and Lonsdale's performance is also rated to be one of the best Bond villains.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
The orbiter's main engines were only fed from the external tank, so fully fuelled or not, would not have fired anyway.
But you seem to forget that the film was shown two years before the first space shuttle start. Nobody except some NASA and Rockwell engineers did know these details.
I agree with you on the return of Jaws but your other points (Chiles top 3 worst Bond girls? Poor Bassey music again?) are obviously not to be taken seriously. It's like saying "Dalton is the best Bond" ...
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
-{ That I like. Do you have more of these metaphors?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
and where the hell did Moore get the cyanide wrist dart from to kill Drax with when he was not in possession of it when he left earth, but Bond has always managed to get out of scrapes by any way possible
Spot on BT..... {[]
Until that nonsense about Lonsdale... Sucked out into outer space was appropriate for the performance I fear....
BT please come over and visit me soon and we'll watch some truly great bond villains like wiseman, frobe, Celli, shaw, pleasance, Lee, jurgens, Glover, bean, Christensen....
Hey even amalric!!!
Semper fi
With you all the way RW... The fact that the shuttle was spot on for the launch and vehicle yrs before it became fact was another example of bond leading the way ... Yrs ahead of its time..
This potted history of the shuttle development (remembering MR release date of June 1979!) shows that someone was watching stuff up at palmdale/Edwards that they shouldn't have been!
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/background.html
The first orbiter spacecraft, Enterprise (OV-101), was rolled out on Sept. 17, 1976. On Jan. 31, 1977, it was transported 38 miles overland from Rockwell's assembly facility at Palmdale, Calif., to NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility at Edwards Air Force Base for the Approach and Landing Test (ALT) program.
The 9-month-long ALT program was conducted from February through November 1977 at Dryden and demonstrated the orbiter could fly in the atmosphere and land like an airplane except without power, a gliding flight.
The ALT program involved ground tests and flight tests.
The ground tests included taxi tests of the 747 shuttle carrier aircraft (SCA) with the Enterprise mated atop the SCA to determine structural loads and responses and assess the mated capability in ground handling and control characteristics up to flight takeoff speed. The taxi tests also validated 747 steering and braking with the orbiter attached. A ground test of orbiter systems followed the unmanned captive tests. All orbiter systems were activated as they would be in atmospheric flight. This was the final preparation for the manned captive-flight phase.
Five captive flights of the Enterprise mounted atop the SCA with the Enterprise unmanned and Enterprise systems inert were conducted to assess the structural integrity and performance-handling qualities of the mated craft.
Three manned captive flights that followed the five unmanned captive flights included an astronaut crew aboard the orbiter operating its flight control systems while the orbiter remained perched atop the SCA. These flights were designed to exercise and evaluate all systems in the flight environment in preparation for the orbiter release (free) flights. They included flutter tests of the mated craft at low and high speed, a separation trajectory test and a dress rehearsal for the first orbiter free flight.
In the five free flights the astronaut crew separated the spacecraft from the SCA and maneuvered to a landing at Edwards Air Force Base. In the first four such flights the landings were on a dry lake bed; in the fifth, the landing was on Edwards' main concrete runway under conditions simulating a return from space. The last two free flights were made without the tail cone, which is the spacecraft's configuration during an actual landing from Earth orbit. These flights verified the orbiter's pilot-guided approach and landing capability; demonstrated the orbiter's subsonic terminal area energy management autoland approach capability; and verified the orbiter's subsonic airworthiness, integrated system operations and selected subsystems in preparation for the first manned orbital flight. The flights demonstrated the orbiter's ability to approach and land safely with a minimum gross weight and using several center-of-gravity configurations.
For all of the captive flights and the first three free flights, the orbiter was outfitted with a tail cone covering its aft section to reduce aerodynamic drag and turbulence. The final two free flights were without the tail cone, and the three simulated Space Shuttle main engines and two orbital maneuvering system engines were exposed aerodynamically.
The final phase of the ALT program prepared the spacecraft for four ferry flights. Fluid systems were drained and purged, the tail cone was reinstalled and elevon locks were installed.
The forward attachment strut was replaced to lower the orbiter's cant from 6 to 3 degrees. This reduces drag to the mated vehicles during the ferry flights.
After the ferry flight tests, OV-101 was returned to the NASA hangar at Dryden and modified for vertical ground vibration tests at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
On March 13, 1978, the Enterprise was ferried atop the SCA to MSFC. At Marshall, Enterprise was mated with the external tank and SRB and subjected to a series of vertical ground vibration tests. These tested the mated configuration's critical structural dynamic response modes, which were assessed against analytical math models used to design the various element interfaces.
Tbh, we had plans to come over to Ca in december /january, but imagining, that you'll bombard me with Glover and Amalric may end in a change of plans.
As long as you don't have to see C. Gray, I am ok I guess
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
James Bond- Licence To Kill
The double taking pigeon, jaws steering wheel gag, his over reaction to going over the waterfall, plus the over the top love parody plus the whole Bondala scene. The rest is ok by me.
Duncan
Do you know how hard it is to keep setting trends for 15-odd years, RJ? No, really, do you?
Quite right, it is very difficult and the producers failed miserably when they turned the series into cartoon antics. The downward spiral started with YOLT and enjoyed a final bit of greatness with OHMSS. With the unfortuante success of DAF, the die was cast to change James Bond movies into silly parodies of what initially made themselves great. The last gasp for air was FYEO, which was the first serious Bond movie in years that did not suffer from bloated attention to bombastic adventure. Moonraker may have been a top grossing movie, but it it still true that it is very far removed from everything that make a serious Bond movie great, especially the reliance on a science fiction craze.
I would assume, AS, that you are an intelligent human being. As such, you have principles and are capable of making decisions as to what is right and wrong. Would you sacrifice something that is important and that defines your character simply because some other person or societal trend is attracting attention? I doubt it. You would find the way to remain true to yourself. It may not be easy, but in the long run, you could be proud that you did sell out. You may not be the most noticeable person around, but you would be true and not compromise your own self-worth. The producers completely sold out when they made Moonraker. They may have advertised that outer space belonged to 007, the truth was 007 belong to the manure pile.
Firstly, Bond films were absorbing influences from other movies from an early stage - the Hitchcockian helicopter attack in FRWL, for instance.
I would venture that the "downward" (I don't regard it as downward, myself, but anyway...) spiral started the moment Q handed Bond the keys to his shiny new Aston Martin in Goldfinger, accelerated a bit when Bond ejected Goldfinger's henchman through the roof, and speeded up yet further when Auric brought out his Laser Beam of Doom (TM). That was the film when James Bond went from spy from superspy. Let's not forget that no lesser a man than Ian Fleming himself acknowledged that there was a parodic element to his work.
I might also add that the whole hyperbole about Moore's films being "silly parody" is over-the-top and annoying. But I want to keep the peace, so.....
An analogy that isn't entirely without merit, but at the end of the day I am a human being and not a successful film series.
A while ago I posted a review of MR at The Other Place (no idea if you read it or not) in which I took issue with the criticism of Bond in space, arguing that humans had been going into orbit for over twenty years and that space travel had captured the public's imagination. I think my closing line on that particular argument was that if 007 is the coolest fictional character on land and sea, why not let him be the coolest man in space as well?
Besides, the Moonraker of Fleming's novel (which I have read and love) was a rocket missile capable of speeds of up to 15,000mph. In 1955, that was as close to a spacerocket as you could get. It shows that Mr. Fleming himself was not averse to using sci-fi elements in his books.
P.S. Oh, and I won't deny that the laser battle was blatantly aping Star Wars. I just can't bring myself to shed many tears about it, is all.
P.P.S. I'd advise against using phrases like 'the truth is...' when presenting your argument, it makes it sound like you're passing your opinions off as fact.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
I don't overlook Moonraker as the 'silly one' like it regularly got down the years by 'experts', it is not the worst film, just disappointing.
I remember seeing this when I was a kid, and thought how cool it was. I mean it was the late 70's, star wars was uber cool and 007 was riding the spin to keep 'up to date'
Having seen it this afternoon, (now as a much older adult... and a fan of the newer Bond films) I'm surprised at the love this film has.
I agree with your points, UP TO the Dalton comment, and of course QoS. You rate Moonraker ABOVE QoS... ?:) Wow!
There are some redeeming scenes, (and I did rate Goodhead she was - as you say - a smart and intelligent Bond girl) but on the whole it's laughable...... I mean, yes, okay it's a Moore's Bond (much more tongue in cheek...) but some of the action scenes are so outrageous, I can't seem to understand people's criticism of Craig's Bond (other than it's too realistic perhaps
However, it was an okay way to spend an otherwise dull Sunday afternoon
His reaction was comedy gold though.
*Jaws turns and sees he's about to crash through a wall*
For all its silliness though, it's still one of the most opulent Bond pictures with every cent of its budget clear to see on the screen.
If you'd tried to do a more serious Bond then, it would be a case of 'Are you mad? You can't take this stuff seriously!'
But then, these films were made for audiences to enjoy, with the sound of affirming laughter ringing in your ears, not for solo viewing on DVD all those years later. I mean, videos didn't even exist back then.
I enjoy a curate's egg appreciation of MR, the stuff I like is so immense, score, villain, locations, cinematography, special effects, that I can go with that. But it's a different genre to the other films, a bit standalone in a way.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I don't take the Moore films very serious hence why I prob enjoy these two!
I still enjoy then, Love all the over the top stunts and sets. Great Stuff. -{