Did Moonraker succeed at the 'taking a franchise into space'?

MilleniumForce

Ok, so many people think MR is a bad Bond film, but at the end of the day, it didn't kill the series. In fact, I thought it was a good move for the series; it resulted in my two favourite Moore films, Octopussy and For Your Eyes Only, to be made the way they were going back to simple, Connery style movies.

However, MR is one of many series that have been taken up into space for an instalment, two I can think of off the top of my head being Friday the 13th and Leprechaun. But did Moonraker succeed where others failed? In that it could go to the extreme of taking a franchise like Bond up into space, and still recover from something over franchises have ended at? For example, Jason X was the last F13 film (excluding FvJ) before a reboot because it went too far of taking him into space. Leprechaun only had one more film after that; but look at Moonraker. It did exactly the same thing, and there were still nine more films before DAD cause full reboot!

Higgins

After TSWLM which brought the franchise back into the league of the Connery-Mania, MR brought a sh*tload of cash to the franchise.
You can see every penny which has been blown to make this phantastic movie and cememnted Moore's position to make extremely successful movies.

As EON could not go more Scifi than MR. , they had to bring Bond back to the ground which went absolutely terrific with FYEO!

Thunderpussy

I do agree that most film series after going into space, quickly died. -{
Luckily Bond is no ordinary film series.

Spoff

I think so.

It is a departure from the norm in a big way, but an excellent film and one of my favourites.

When you really look at Moonraker, yes, Bond did go into space. But when he got there he didn't really do anything he couldn't do back on earth. People complain about it too much I think.

I think it also became the highest earning Bond film ever? and remained in that spot until GoldenEye was released?

In another way, I would also have liked to see how a film that closely followed the novel would have worked out.

But I am perfectly happy with what we got, it's a great entry and Roger is brilliant in it -{

Absolutely_Cart

Moonraker was a financial success and was seen as a technological benchmark for it's time.

Artistically speaking, however, it didn't age well. All of its merits were purely replicable things.

Spoff

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Moonraker was a financial success and was seen as a technological benchmark for it's time.

Artistically speaking, however, it didn't age well. All of its merits were purely replicable things.

I agree.

When you watch it back nowadays it does look dated in a way only a late 70's film can.

The locations however are fantastic in Moonraker.

MilleniumForce

Spoff wrote:

I think so.

It is a departure from the norm in a big way, but an excellent film and one of my favourites.

When you really look at Moonraker, yes, Bond did go into space. But when he got there he didn't really do anything he couldn't do back on earth. People complain about it too much I think.

I think it also became the highest earning Bond film ever? and remained in that spot until GoldenEye was released?

In another way, I would also have liked to see how a film that closely followed the novel would have worked out.

But I am perfectly happy with what we got, it's a great entry and Roger is brilliant in it -{

I think the space station is a space version of the Liparus, when you look at what they do. I think the novel would be more of a Connery film actually.

AlphaOmegaSin

MR was the highest grossing Bond Film up until Dad -{

In Regards to the Novel, I could see Dalton starring in a faithful Adaptation of it :007)

Absolutely_Cart

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

MR was the highest grossing Bond Film up until Dad -{

People like big budget absurdity.

Higgins

Spoff wrote:

When you watch it back nowadays it does look dated in a way only a late 70's film can.

I absolutely disagree!
The space scenes set some kind of benchmark, and true quality never "dates"

AlphaOmegaSin

1+

The Space Scenes still look amazing.

Thunderpussy

If you look at some other big budget special effects films of the time, which
Didn't use the more " traditional" techniques that the talented Bond crew
Did. They can look terrible in some scenes, where as Moonraker still looks
Brilliant.
One shot I particularly love is the shuttle leaving the atmosphere, and you can see
the "trails" behind them. Done by filling the model with salt and letting it pour out. -{

AlphaOmegaSin

And the Citadel Model was destroyed with Shotguns -{

Thunderpussy

Yes, but they still look great, where as Superman, has some really bad looking
Green screen stuff in it, where his suit has some odd colours etc.

Spoff

Higgins wrote:

Spoff wrote:

When you watch it back nowadays it does look dated in a way only a late 70's film can.

I absolutely disagree!
The space scenes set some kind of benchmark, and true quality never "dates"

Not necessarily the space scenes (which are pretty good to be honest) but I meant the whole look of it in general, but that is indicative of the time in which it was filmed more than anything.

Higgins

And again I disagree.

With the exception of the dated suits from the main actor, I can't find much fault in "the general look" of Moonraker B-)

Thunderpussy

Moonraker also has the best motorboat explosions in any film. {[]

Matt S

Spoff wrote:

When you really look at Moonraker, yes, Bond did go into space. But when he got there he didn't really do anything he couldn't do back on earth. People complain about it too much I think.

This is a good point that Bond didn't change in outer space. He even had someone else (and a woman at that) fly the space shuttle for him because she knew more about it than he did.

Thunderpussy

He only let her drive it because there'd be no reversing or parallel parking
to be done ! )

Higgins

) ) )

broadshoulder

Spoff wrote:

Higgins wrote:

Spoff wrote:

When you watch it back nowadays it does look dated in a way only a late 70's film can.

I absolutely disagree!
The space scenes set some kind of benchmark, and true quality never "dates"

Not necessarily the space scenes (which are pretty good to be honest) but I meant the whole look of it in general, but that is indicative of the time in which it was filmed more than anything.

ummm I think Moonraker holds up pretty well..

AlphaOmegaSin

1+

Some of the best Locations in the Franchise -{

Gassy Man

Well, I always thought that You Only Live Twice took the franchise to space first, though obviously Bond himself didn't go into orbit. Interestingly, Derek Flint, Bond's parody rival, made it before Bond in a film that has some similarities to Moonraker, but not as many as Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die.

Firemass

Higgins wrote:

And again I disagree.

With the exception of the dated suits from the main actor, I can't find much fault in "the general look" of Moonraker B-)

+1 Moonraker has a timeless quality and still looks absolutely stunning.

Spoff

Higgins wrote:

And again I disagree.

With the exception of the dated suits from the main actor, I can't find much fault in "the general look" of Moonraker B-)

Maybe "dated" was the wrong word to use here, I will change my statement to say it looks like a product of the late 70's, because it is

But the film itself must have been mind-blowing at the time (I was too young to see it in a Cinema) because it still looks great even today.

I was not intending to try and "fault" it, MR is truly one of my favourite Bond films -{

AlphaOmegaSin

I would love to see MR on a Cinema Screen -{ :007)

Barbel

One of the benefits of age- I saw it several times in the cinema and it was spectacular. YOLT beats it in that department, though.

Blackleiter

Barbel wrote:

One of the benefits of age- I saw it several times in the cinema and it was spectacular. YOLT beats it in that department, though.

Yep! And for my money MR is a great looking, but weak Bond film.