Is the problem with Moonraker the fantastical plot or the slapstick?

Revolver66

I love Moonraker in my own way, there are some fantastic things about it. Not least the brilliant production design and Barry score, as well as a Roger who's characterization of Bond is in full swing, a brilliant villain, solid Bond girl, excellent effects, epic locales etc

However the story and space elements are incredibly outlandish even for Bond and the humour in this one is a little on the nose.You may love it as is but what do you think is the films fatal weakness? And how do you think it could be improved upon? I say this because it is generally considered one of the lesser Bond films, which is a sentiment I agree with. However I don't think it's down to the sci-fi element.

Personally I think the space plot and the space station, laser battle climax are indeed very dated but are actually kind of zany and quite appealing. That part of the film certainly isn't boring and I can kind of accept the outer space, sci-fi climax because the design and the music and effects work so well together it's kind of thrilling. Also Drax's plan is so evil and downright creepy that it kind of feels a little nightmarish. Which is very memorable. For me the film is only really let down by the humour and silliness throughout. The first 38 minutes of this film, bar the JAWS silliness at the end of the pre-titles is pitch perfect. It's then let down by the Bondola chase, and from there on out there are various segments that kind of kill it. JAWS, and his love story, good guy conversion, parts of the amazon boat chase and the little product placement jokes spread throughout bring it down.After watching it again I think there is a brilliant Bond film in there, it just gets lost in segments that compromise the film terribly. I'd love to see a fan edit done where the silly parts are edited out and it would be a damn fine, incredibly engaging Bond film that would be pushing for the top half of the ranking.

Number24

The problem is both

The Red Kind

..and the editing and direction.

Still love it though. It's still Bond

superado

I think it all depends how one and everyone else defines "problem" as in the thread title, or whether or not there are any "fatal weaknesses" at all. MR is the kind of film, along with the other Lewis Gilbert movies that can only be accepted/rejected as part or parcel since the fantastical nature is practically the entire biology of the movie. IMO, a movie like DAD can be scrutinized with such a fault for its shoddy amalgamation of serious and fantastical elements, but not MR which practically begins and ends on a fantastical note, an irony since DAD is a bit of a retelling of MR and therefore a lost opportunity to do it serious. As much as EON admited to excesses with MR, especially when they previewed their approach to FYEO, I don't think they considered any "fatal weakness" existed, considering how well the movie performed worldwide.

caractacus potts

a civilian recently told me his first impression upon seeing Moonraker in 1979 is that it was exactly the same film as The Spy Who Loved Me, except it was set in outer space instead of underwater
so there's that issue, too

we then went on to discuss wouldn't it have been cool if James Bond failed to stop either villain, then the two villains could have a war over control of the earth, one from his underwater HQ and the other from his orbitting satellite HQ

superado

caractacus potts wrote:

a civilian recently told me his first impression upon seeing Moonraker in 1979 is that it was exactly the same film as The Spy Who Loved Me, except it was set in outer space instead of underwater
so there's that issue, too

we then went on to discuss wouldn't it have been cool if James Bond failed to stop either villain, then the two villains could have a war over control of the earth, one from his underwater HQ and the other from his orbitting satellite HQ

Yes, with some situational tweaking to allow for these two supervillains to co-exist, that would be an interesting premise. I too have wondered, had Stromberg succeeded, any future villain's plot, including Drax's, would have been automatically thwarted! I even wondered if Stromberg and Drax could have come to an understanding to mutually benefit their causes, though such an agreement didn't work out for Hitler and Stalin, lol.

Joshua

Of all the James Bond films I have seen this film is the worst.

heartbroken_mr_drax

superado wrote:

I think it all depends how one and everyone else defines "problem" as in the thread title, or whether or not there are any "fatal weaknesses" at all. MR is the kind of film, along with the other Lewis Gilbert movies that can only be accepted/rejected as part or parcel since the fantastical nature is practically the entire biology of the movie. IMO, a movie like DAD can be scrutinized with such a fault for its shoddy amalgamation of serious and fantastical elements, but not MR which practically begins and ends on a fantastical note, an irony since DAD is a bit of a retelling of MR and therefore a lost opportunity to do it serious. As much as EON admited to excesses with MR, especially when they previewed their approach to FYEO, I don't think they considered any "fatal weakness" existed, considering how well the movie performed worldwide.

^ Excellent summation.

Other than the double taking pigeon there is no glaring issue with MR. It just comes down to personal preference if you like Gilbert's fantastical films or not (as Superado says).

I really love MR because of its scope, pure entertainment, production value, special effects and locations. I also love it for what it is - a massively successful Bond film. However, TSWLM is the better film because it has greater chemistry between actors and there's a bit more care involved in its storytelling - it's not letting the scale get ahead of itself. As I've repeated my viewings of MR - I've become more aware of the carbon copy element of TSWLM - and it has affected my enjoyment of the film.

YOLT follows similar lines to MR, but is more bloated (and boring at times). I get pretty pissed off when people have a go at MR for being "stupid" yet claim YOLT is the better film.

Revolver66

superado wrote:

I think it all depends how one and everyone else defines "problem" as in the thread title, or whether or not there are any "fatal weaknesses" at all. MR is the kind of film, along with the other Lewis Gilbert movies that can only be accepted/rejected as part or parcel since the fantastical nature is practically the entire biology of the movie. IMO, a movie like DAD can be scrutinized with such a fault for its shoddy amalgamation of serious and fantastical elements, but not MR which practically begins and ends on a fantastical note, an irony since DAD is a bit of a retelling of MR and therefore a lost opportunity to do it serious. As much as EON admited to excesses with MR, especially when they previewed their approach to FYEO, I don't think they considered any "fatal weakness" existed, considering how well the movie performed worldwide.

To be fair, I would say that FYEO was absolutely an admission MR had fatal weaknesses as a film and had overall gone too far and they needed to reign it back in. Also, and as I'm sure you know seeing as you mention DAD, a Bond films financial success isn't always a testament to its quality as a film. I do see your argument though -{

Dirty Punker

The Red Kind wrote:

..and the editing and direction.

Still love it though. It's still Bond

I don't know what you mean.
Both are top notch.
I do understand peoples complaints about Moonraker but they should be left where the sun doesn't shine.
MR is a brilliant film in my eyes and while it may be lacking in original story, I didn't really care about that much at all.
When I want to see it, I want to see Bond living the good life in the 70s with beautiful women and ingenious gadgets and that's what the Moore era is all about. It is the pinnacle of escapist Bond.

The Red Kind

Dirty Punker wrote:

The Red Kind wrote:

..and the editing and direction.

Still love it though. It's still Bond

I don't know what you mean.
Both are top notch.
I do understand peoples complaints about Moonraker but they should be left where the sun doesn't shine.
MR is a brilliant film in my eyes and while it may be lacking in original story, I didn't really care about that much at all.
When I want to see it, I want to see Bond living the good life in the 70s with beautiful women and ingenious gadgets and that's what the Moore era is all about. It is the pinnacle of escapist Bond.

Apart from the previously discussed gripes (Bondola and double taking pigeon) ..Bond falling out of the back of the ambulance and next scene he's Clint Eastwood..

Don't get me wrong I love MR. Roger is great, Drax is great, It has Jaws, there are some classic Bond moments and two of my favourite Bond girls :x

Chriscoop

I don't see any problems with Moonraker, I also don't find any slapstick in it, I purely think it's a result of the times, space was very much in vogue, Russia and the USA were engaged in star wars and the shuttles were an astounding thing, and interest in space and NASA etc was at a high MR was probably perceived as more realistic when it was released than now when our interest in all things space is low.

Thunderpussy

Comedy can sometimes be a generational thing, I always remember my father
( who I guess would have been from Cubby's era ) laughing at all the "silly"
Bits of business like the Tarzan yell and California girls.

Dirty Punker

Chriscoop wrote:

I don't see any problems with Moonraker, I also don't find any slapstick in it, I purely think it's a result of the times, space was very much in vogue, Russia and the USA were engaged in star wars and the shuttles were an astounding thing, and interest in space and NASA etc was at a high MR was probably perceived as more realistic when it was released than now when our interest in all things space is low.

Also, the 70s despite their flashy coloured clothing, I'd imagine it wasn't a very nice time to live in with all of the terrorist attacks in England and the hostage crisis.
Roger as Bond living the good life must've been a nice escape from real life. It still is.

superado

Revolver66 wrote:

superado wrote:

I think it all depends how one and everyone else defines "problem" as in the thread title, or whether or not there are any "fatal weaknesses" at all. MR is the kind of film, along with the other Lewis Gilbert movies that can only be accepted/rejected as part or parcel since the fantastical nature is practically the entire biology of the movie. IMO, a movie like DAD can be scrutinized with such a fault for its shoddy amalgamation of serious and fantastical elements, but not MR which practically begins and ends on a fantastical note, an irony since DAD is a bit of a retelling of MR and therefore a lost opportunity to do it serious. As much as EON admited to excesses with MR, especially when they previewed their approach to FYEO, I don't think they considered any "fatal weakness" existed, considering how well the movie performed worldwide.

To be fair, I would say that FYEO was absolutely an admission MR had fatal weaknesses as a film and had overall gone too far and they needed to reign it back in. Also, and as I'm sure you know seeing as you mention DAD, a Bond films financial success isn't always a testament to its quality as a film. I do see your argument though -{

With DAD, it was the same "admission" by the producers via the previewing of their new direction (CR and the entire reboot) it was mea culpa with the excesses. Neither MR or DAD was a fatal weakness to go along with my argument about box office, because that signifies wide public acceptance, in that if there were any such "weaknesses," people liked those movies nonetheless perhaps even because of those weaknesses. My assertion about DAD was that it was confused in its approach, more akin to the weaknesses mistakenly associated with MR which in turn was consistent in its approach.

I have a problem with the term "fatal weakness" and the change in direction is evidence of that. With that logic, SP proves that DC's first 3 movies together was a fatal weakness because of the significant change of direction with SP, which I don't think is the case. It's about variety and the entire Bond series is an examination of ebbs and flows in style and direction, with careful rationale for each film that the producers should always stand behind if they're confident of their efforts. Bottom line: I think it's a mistake for the producers to be vocally hard on an earlier effort to validate a change in direction, it's not very reassuring from a fan's perspective when anticipating the future of the series.

Higgins

Revolver66 wrote:

To be fair, I would say that FYEO was absolutely an admission MR had fatal weaknesses as a film and had overall gone too far and they needed to reign it back in. Also, and as I'm sure you know seeing as you mention DAD, a Bond films financial success isn't always a testament to its quality as a film. I do see your argument though -{

I think, that you are totally wrong with your interpretation.

MR was a highly successful movie that brought loads of cash to EON and Cubby.
The franchise reached a similar height like it has been after TB! 007 was highly popular and successful!


I think, that it was Cubby who mentioned the need for a totally different movie as in TSWLM, 007 fought Atlantis, in MR, he went to space - there was no way to top this (also financially - MR budget was HUGE!!!). And that - along with Gilbert and Cubby getting older and Mickey getting more influence - was the only reason why EON went reboot and did a totally different movie with FYEO.

Additionally, there was a trend to less spectacle and fiction to more realistic action and suspense at that time which epitomed in First Blood being a massive success and gamechanger for the cinema, so EON was a frontrunner for that new trend.

It's very easy to criticise MR without knowing how cinema was in the mid 70s and without keeping in mind, that those movies where made for cinema audiences and not nerds that dissect those masterpieces 40 years later on their DVD players.

caractacus potts

Chriscoop wrote:

...interest in space and NASA etc was at a high MR was probably perceived as more realistic when it was released than now when our interest in all things space is low.

Chriscoop I'm guessing from your phrasing you were too young to see Moonraker when it was first released? because it was definitely not perceived as realistic when it came out. It was perceived as Bond in Space, following the science fiction craze newly reinvigorated by Star Wars.
That context may be lost 38 years later, but early 70s sci-fi was very different before Star Wars (post-apocalyptic dystopia vs space opera), and rather a niche genre. But everything that followed for the next couple of years seemed to look and feel like Star Wars, including the simplicity of storytelling and characterization.
Also, interest in the space program was much higher at the time of the moon landing ten years earlier. By 1979 manned exploration of outer space had already been abandoned for more pragmatic engineering projects within earth's orbit. What was trendy at the movies was not realistic space program activities, but light sabres and death stars.

Speaking of the space program in 1969, I think the second half of Diamonds are Forever was also an unofficial Moonraker adaptation. So they've tried three times to adapt it, and in each case gone way over the top. Though the film actually called Moonraker was the best of the three. Shame, because Fleming's book was such good story.

Chriscoop

caractacus potts wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

...interest in space and NASA etc was at a high MR was probably perceived as more realistic when it was released than now when our interest in all things space is low.

Chriscoop I'm guessing from your phrasing you were too young to see Moonraker when it was first released? because it was definitely not perceived as realistic when it came out. It was perceived as Bond in Space, following the science fiction craze newly reinvigorated by Star Wars.
That context may be lost 38 years later, but early 70s sci-fi was very different before Star Wars (post-apocalyptic dystopia vs space opera), and rather a niche genre. But everything that followed for the next couple of years seemed to look and feel like Star Wars, including the simplicity of storytelling and characterization.
Also, interest in the space program was much higher at the time of the moon landing ten years earlier. By 1979 manned exploration of outer space had already been abandoned for more pragmatic engineering projects within earth's orbit. What was trendy at the movies was not realistic space program activities, but light sabres and death stars.

Speaking of the space program in 1969, I think the second half of Diamonds are Forever was also an unofficial Moonraker adaptation. So they've tried three times to adapt it, and in each case gone way over the top. Though the film actually called Moonraker was the best of the three. Shame, because Fleming's book was such good story.

I was 4 when Moonraker first came out, and seeing as the real shuttles didn't have their inaugural flight until 1981 I've based a lot on the fact that space travel etc was a hot topic back then, the shuttles were only approved and announced in 1972 so bond in space came out while the world waited for the new chapter in manned space missions. That eon were able to use the shuttles in the film to me is somewhat of a coup.
As a child at that time anything to do with space seemed possible and plausible and not that fantastical, the kids of today are not as fascinated with all things space, in fact it's quite out of vogue really.
I do agree that the Moonraker novel should have been adhered to, but I also understand eon taking the route they did to capitalise on and feed the appetite for all things extraterrestrial at that time.

caractacus potts

the space shuttle tech was ripped-from-the-headlines stuff, despite the spacelaser battles, and Bond films always made ripped-from-the-headlines stuff look far more glamorous and exciting than it actually was ... a fine balance between genuine real world concerns and romantic adventure

repeating myself from another thread: at the same time Moonraker came out, there was the first Star Trek film, which dealt with a deep space probe ("V'ger") ... the deep space probes were the other contemporary innovation in the space program at the time, and I think that a spaceshuttle based plot is pretty down to earth compared to a deep space probe based plot

Revolver66

superado wrote:

Revolver66 wrote:

superado wrote:

I think it all depends how one and everyone else defines "problem" as in the thread title, or whether or not there are any "fatal weaknesses" at all. MR is the kind of film, along with the other Lewis Gilbert movies that can only be accepted/rejected as part or parcel since the fantastical nature is practically the entire biology of the movie. IMO, a movie like DAD can be scrutinized with such a fault for its shoddy amalgamation of serious and fantastical elements, but not MR which practically begins and ends on a fantastical note, an irony since DAD is a bit of a retelling of MR and therefore a lost opportunity to do it serious. As much as EON admited to excesses with MR, especially when they previewed their approach to FYEO, I don't think they considered any "fatal weakness" existed, considering how well the movie performed worldwide.

To be fair, I would say that FYEO was absolutely an admission MR had fatal weaknesses as a film and had overall gone too far and they needed to reign it back in. Also, and as I'm sure you know seeing as you mention DAD, a Bond films financial success isn't always a testament to its quality as a film. I do see your argument though -{

With DAD, it was the same "admission" by the producers via the previewing of their new direction (CR and the entire reboot) it was mea culpa with the excesses. Neither MR or DAD was a fatal weakness to go along with my argument about box office, because that signifies wide public acceptance, in that if there were any such "weaknesses," people liked those movies nonetheless perhaps even because of those weaknesses. My assertion about DAD was that it was confused in its approach, more akin to the weaknesses mistakenly associated with MR which in turn was consistent in its approach.

I have a problem with the term "fatal weakness" and the change in direction is evidence of that. With that logic, SP proves that DC's first 3 movies together was a fatal weakness because of the significant change of direction with SP, which I don't think is the case. It's about variety and the entire Bond series is an examination of ebbs and flows in style and direction, with careful rationale for each film that the producers should always stand behind if they're confident of their efforts. Bottom line: I think it's a mistake for the producers to be vocally hard on an earlier effort to validate a change in direction, it's not very reassuring from a fan's perspective when anticipating the future of the series.

I use the term fatal weakness to describe the elements that in my opinion, keep MR from being a great film. The things that undermine it's overall quality. I understand it's completely subjective but I don't use to term to describe anything outside of that. I would dispute the fact that box office success always means wide public acceptance. Box office success can just mean good marketing and promotion which means a high number of people see it. Not that they actually liked what they saw.

Interesting point on SP. However SP was the fourth film in Craig's cycle, and traditionally speaking, the fourth film is where things become excessive and over the top. MR and DAD case in point. SP is no different. It seems that there is a pattern of the producers going too far with the fourth film and then resetting with the next film. (YOLT excluded) SP was not well received with the critics and the word of mouth from general audiences was on the whole lukewarm. And in my opinion, that film also has fatal weaknesses that prevent it from being a truly great Bond film. Don't be surprised if the next Bond film is very different. And if it is, I would also take that as an admission that their previous effort was below par.

Remington

I used to dislike MR and put it at the bottom of my ranking for two main reasons:
.the sci-fi plot
.the slapstick
However, I now consider it a great Bond movie for those two reasons. It's pure entertainment not meant to be taken too seriously. It belongs in the tier with YOLT, DAF, TSWLM, and DAD.
And without it, FYEO would've been made in 1979 and probably wouldn't have been as good.
-{

Revolver66

Revolver66 wrote:

To be fair, I would say that FYEO was absolutely an admission MR had fatal weaknesses as a film and had overall gone too far and they needed to reign it back in. Also, and as I'm sure you know seeing as you mention DAD, a Bond films financial success isn't always a testament to its quality as a film. I do see your argument though -{

I think, that you are totally wrong with your interpretation.

MR was a highly successful movie that brought loads of cash to EON and Cubby.
The franchise reached a similar height like it has been after TB! 007 was highly popular and successful!

Undisputed Higgo, it was very successful financially.

I think, that it was Cubby who mentioned the need for a totally different movie as in TSWLM, 007 fought Atlantis, in MR, he went to space - there was no way to top this (also financially - MR budget was HUGE!!!). And that - along with Gilbert and Cubby getting older and Mickey getting more influence - was the only reason why EON went reboot and did a totally different movie with FYEO.

Again, you're right. There was no way to exceed the excesses of MR so they needed to strip it back.

Additionally, there was a trend to less spectacle and fiction to more realistic action and suspense at that time which epitomed in First Blood being a massive success and gamechanger for the cinema, so EON was a frontrunner for that new trend.

First Blood did come out a year after FYEO but I agree with your point, more realistic and gritty actions films were being made as a response to the over the top, excessive action cinema MR represented.

It's very easy to criticise MR without knowing how cinema was in the mid 70s and without keeping in mind, that those movies where made for cinema audiences and not nerds that dissect those masterpieces 40 years later on their DVD players.

Blu ray players

I'd say without meaning too you pretty much agreed with everything I stated Higgs. Cheers -{

Matt S

The 1970s had a bunch of gritty action films, like Dirty Harry, Get Carter, Three Days of the Condor and Day of the Jackal. It's not like Bond had to be a big spectacle, but it didn't hurt either.

Sterling Archer

I'm going to go with fantastical plot. It was a decision to cash in on the Star Wars craze and in doing so created a sci-fi parody of itself.

It's goofy Bond in space. Looking at it today, you laugh and just accept it as part of Bond history. You can even enjoy it for what it is. I'm not of the age that I would've grown up with Moore, so the Moore films in general are a unique type of "experience."

Had I have been a Bond fan since the originals and then saw Moonraker, I'd have probably thought to myself this is where the franchise has officially died.

I can't help but smile and laugh at the Moore era as a whole but I'm happy the franchise has decided to move back towards its Fleming roots.

Firemass

Revolver66 wrote:

Not least the brilliant production design and Barry score, as well as a Roger who's characterization of Bond is in full swing, a brilliant villain, solid Bond girl, excellent effects, epic locales etc

I agree, which makes it all the more puzzling why this film is so hated.

caractacus potts wrote:

a civilian recently told me his first impression upon seeing Moonraker in 1979 is that it was exactly the same film as The Spy Who Loved Me, except it was set in outer space instead of underwater
so there's that issue, too

Another reason why I don't understand the hate for Moonraker, considering it's a carbon copy of the much more highly regarded TSWLM. They are my two favorite Bond films hands down. The other five Roger Moore films pale in comparison to these two juggernauts.

Personally, I have no problem with MR following the same formula, nor have I heard MR detractors site this as an issue.

Joshua wrote:

Of all the James Bond films I have seen this film is the worst.

Yet, to many Bond fans MR is flat out garbage. Total mystery to me.

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

Other than the double taking pigeon there is no glaring issue with MR.

This is something I mentioned the other day. I also included Jaws flapping his arms, but the point is that it's really a near-flawless film.
I'm completely blind to any "glaring issues" that would make this the worst Bond film.

Chriscoop wrote:

I don't see any problems with Moonraker,  I also don't find any slapstick in it, 

Hopefully others will re-evaluate it and come to the same conclusion. -{

Moonraker is pure Bond.

Higgins

Revolver66 wrote:

Undisputed Higgo, it was very successful financially.

Maybe you have overread that I also mentioned that the movie and 007 where highly popular among cinema audiences.
It was not only the financial success.

Revolver66 wrote:

Again, you're right. There was no way to exceed the excesses of MR so they needed to strip it back.

It was more a limitation about what Bond should do next after going to space.
I can hardly imagine that they would continue sending him to mars to top MR.....

Revolver66 wrote:

I'd say without meaning too you pretty much agreed with everything I stated Higgs. Cheers -{

I'd say that you are on a run in false conclusions :v

Mr Snow

Joshua wrote:

Of all the James Bond films I have seen this film is the worst.

Now you've done it - no Christmas card for you from your friend Higgins or heartbroken_mr_drax.

[Edited by Barbel, after complaints.]

heartbroken_mr_drax

^ what did I do to deserve that?

Chriscoop

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

^ what did I do to deserve that?

Your not alone, I guess that applies to me to as I don't agree with the op either.

Revolver66

Chriscoop wrote:

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

^ what did I do to deserve that?

Your not alone, I guess that applies to me to as I don't agree with the op either.

Not at all If everyone agreed it would be boring and part of the interest in these type of threads is to see and take part in the debate and discussion. As many say, the beauty of Bond is that you could take any 2 fans and talk Bond and there will definitely be some things they disagree on. I like MR but think about it negatively in a certain way, but it's obviously subjective and doesn't discount anybody else's opinion -{

Mr Snow

Chriscoop wrote:

heartbroken_mr_drax wrote:

^ what did I do to deserve that?

Your not alone, I guess that applies to me to as I don't agree with the op either.

You didn't do anything heartbroken_mr_drax and neither did anyone else. My comment was a stupid, derogatory and unnecessary one. It's one I regret posting and was completely out of line.

I sincerely apologise to anyone I may have offended and I will be more considerate in the future.

Regards,
OGG007