Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Books Movies

Ian Fleming Published the James Bond Novel 'Moonraker' 70 Years Ago Today (cbr.com) 59

Posted by EditorDavid from the from-1955-with-love dept.
"The third James Bond novel was published on this day in 1955," writes long-time Slashdot reader sandbagger. Film buff Christian Petrozza shares some history: In 1979, the market was hot amid the studios to make the next big space opera. Star Wars blew up the box office in 1977 with Alien soon following and while audiences eagerly awaited the next installment of George Lucas' The Empire Strikes Back, Hollywood was buzzing with spacesuits, lasers, and ships that cruised the stars. Politically, the Cold War between the United States and Russia was still a hot topic, with the James Bond franchise fanning the flames in the media entertainment sector. Moon missions had just finished their run in the early 70s and the space race was still generationally fresh. With all this in mind, as well as the successful run of Roger Moore's fun and campy Bond, the time seemed ripe to boldly take the globe-trotting Bond where no spy has gone before.

Thus, 1979's Moonraker blasted off to theatres, full of chrome space-suits, laser guns, and jetpacks, the franchise went full-boar science fiction to keep up with the Joneses of current Hollywood's hottest genre. The film was a commercial smash hit, grossing 210 million worldwide. Despite some mixed reviews from critics, audiences seemed jazzed about seeing James Bond in space.

When it comes to adaptations of the novella that Ian Fleming wrote of the same name, Moonraker couldn't be farther from its source material, and may as well be renamed completely to avoid any association... Ian Fleming's original Moonraker was more of a post-war commentary on the domestic fears of modern weapons being turned on Europe by enemies who were hired for science by newer foes. With Nazi scientists being hired by both the U.S. and Russia to build weapons of mass destruction after World War II, this was less of a Sci-Fi and much more of a cautionary tale.
They argue that filming a new version of Moonraker could "find a happy medium between the glamor and the grit of the James Bond franchise..."

Ian Fleming Published the James Bond Novel 'Moonraker' 70 Years Ago Today More | Reply

Ian Fleming Published the James Bond Novel 'Moonraker' 70 Years Ago Today

Comments Filter:

  • Worst Bond Film (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This was the worst Bond Film, ever.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bjoast ( 1310293 )
      With the best music score.
    • The entire Roger Moore era sucked.
      • It sucked through gritted Jaws,

      • Hit and Miss (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JBMcB ( 73720 ) on Saturday April 05, 2025 @05:15PM (#65283861)
        It did not. For Your Eyes Only is one of the best Bond films if, for no other reason, it offered the most realistic plot. A Royal Navy encryption device is stolen and Bond has to track it down. You know, do some actual detective/anti-espionage work, instead of having to kill some lunatic threatening nuclear blackmail for the nth time.

        • it offered the most realistic plot

          This is not what people (used to) expect from a Bond film.

        • Re:Hit and Miss (Score:4, Interesting)

          by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Saturday April 05, 2025 @05:57PM (#65283937)
          The Spy Who Loved Me is a good Bond film and my favorite from the Moore era. The opening to the film was not only amazing for its time, but holds up well today. Amazing stunt work and even if you're not British you can't help but feel a tinge of national pride when the Union Jack parachute opens as the music swells.

          I don't think the scripts Moore had to work with were as strong as what Connery had. From Russia With Love and Goldfinger are just better material. Excluding Never Say Never Again, Connery's weakest film was Diamonds Are Forever, which is still better than half of the Moore era films. Connery is by no means a bad Bond and although I tend to prefer Moore, there's no arguing that most of the Connery films are better.

          I don't know how anyone could claim that the Moore era was the worst though. I think that has to go to the Brosnan era of films. Outside of a solid entry in Goldeneye, all of his other films were somewhere between mediocre and awful. I have nothing against Brosnan's portrayal either, but no one could have carried some of the horrible films that were put out.

          • Gotta disagree. Anything after Moore was just trying to recover from the shambles he left the series in. You want to disagree? Then justify the fucking slide whistle over the bridge jump in The Man With The Golden Gun. An actual fantastic stunt, just with a fucking Roger Moore overlay.

            He was the worst. Period. Full stop.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by GFS666 ( 6452674 )

          It did not. For Your Eyes Only is one of the best Bond films if, for no other reason, it offered the most realistic plot. A Royal Navy encryption device is stolen and Bond has to track it down. You know, do some actual detective/anti-espionage work, instead of having to kill some lunatic threatening nuclear blackmail for the nth time.

          Agreed totally. It had one of the best "James Bond" kills when Bond takes care of Locque. Rodger Moore hated it, but it was absolutely the best scene he ever did as Bond. Link to scene here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • "The Man with the Golden Gun" was pretty good. "Live and Let Die" was pretty good, too.

      • The entire Roger Moore era sucked.

        I have to admit that Live and Let Die is a guilty pleasure of mine. And I can watch A View to a Kill simply because a) it was so over-the-top as to basically be a self-parody; b) Christopher Walken is always great; and c) Duran Duran, 'nuff said.

        But... all in all I agree with you.

    • ...but the best leisure suits.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      But it had the best airport scene. [youtube.com]

      • But it had the best airport scene. [youtube.com]

        What a time to be alive. Walk through a metal detector and on your way. No harassment about who you are or where you're going. No targeted pat downs because of the color of your skin or the way you look. You could even buy your tickets with cash only a short time before the flight. No having to give a pint of blood and get a proctology exam to fly.

        Those were the days.

    • It also had very little relation to the book.

      • ... relation to the book.

        I would say "Octopussy", which wasn't a book and the movie was mostly about saving an abused woman during the era of peak man-bashing politics. It always irks me that the woman in the short-story being violently punished because she couldn't be better than the men in her life, was replaced with a simple victim of misogyny.

        • No. The Spy Who Loved Me had the least relation to the book because the studio could only buy the rights by agreeing to come up with a completely different story that had nothing to do with the book. And if you've ever read that book, you'll know why. It's a dark, gritty story about Bond running across a woman who'd been picked to die in a fire so that the building's owners can make their insurance scam more believable. Bond, being Bond, rescues her, foils the plot and kills the thugs trying to carry i

    • This was the worst Bond Film, ever.

      Until Disney buys the franchise. :-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Corrine Clery

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      Ian Fleming's novel "Moonraker" and the movie "Moonraker" are very different. They have basically only the title and some minor details in common, such as the name of the main villain and him having Nazi leanings.

      The movie even got a separate novelisation.

      • Ian Fleming's novel "Moonraker" and the movie "Moonraker" are very different.

        This is true of almost all the Ian Fleming novels when compared to their movie adaptations. The only one I recall even loosely following the book's plot was From Russia With Love.

        As an aside - The Man with the Golden Gun was probably the best of the books, even though the movie was easily one of the two worst.

        • The reason for the movies being so different from the books was because of the books. Whatever mysoginist acts were shown in the movie were child's play compared to the books. The movies pretty much had to become PG.

          • While there is truth in that, I don't think it's the entire explanation. It seems obvious the movies' producers had a significantly different concept of the character (and the universe he inhabited) than did Mr. Fleming.

            The book plot of The Man with the Golden Gun, for instance, could've easily been adapted into a film that was faithful to the book while tamping down the misogyny - that particular story had Bond treating women much better than he did in many the earlier novels (almost like human beings).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by taustin ( 171655 )

          Daniel Craig's Casino Royale was done by people who had at least read the novel. The biggest changes were to fit it into the modern world, like poker instead of baccarat.

          • I had just re-read the novel before seeing the film, and was surprised at how much of the novel was on screen.

    • You've never seen On Her Majesty's Secret Service then. I don't know what was worse: Kojak as Blofeld or sound editing that was so bad that you actually noticed.

      • It was still better than any Roger Moore film. Nothing sucked worse than the Roger Moore era.

        George Lasenby? Better
        Timothy Dalton? Better
        Pierce Brosnan? Better
        Fucking anything? Also better

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Potor ( 658520 )

          It was still better than any Roger Moore film. Nothing sucked worse than the Roger Moore era.

          George Lasenby? Better

          Timothy Dalton? Better

          Pierce Brosnan? Better

          Fucking anything? Also better

          Your arguments are so clear and compelling.

    • I was quite disappointed with Skyfall. They promoted it as based on Stuxnet, but was clearly a dig on WikiLeaks with a thinly veiled Julian Assange.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jddj ( 1085169 )

      Competition is stiff.

      "Aaaand 'Live and Let Die is leaning at the tape..."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by taustin ( 171655 )

      Though the invisible car is a very close second.

    • Nah, skyfall and Spectre are with no time to die third
  • FYI - The books are very dated, and I do NOT mean that in any "woke" sense, they are very much a flashback to a different political and technological era. Sort of like reading Jules Verne describing deep sea diving, but with a narrower historical and technological gap. However they were still pretty damn good. And there are some fun stories never turned into movies.

    • Sometimes with books - and movies too - you simply need to go in with the realization that it was a product of its time. I don't see anything wrong with that.

      I can mostly enjoy watching the old movie Holiday Inn, for instance, despite a couple elements that make me cringe.

       

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by drnb ( 2434720 )

        Sometimes with books - and movies too - you simply need to go in with the realization that it was a product of its time. I don't see anything wrong with that.

        Agree. In addition to Flemmings' James Bond, the Doyle's Sherlock Homes books were pretty damn good too. And Verne. And Shelley.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        Sometimes with books - and movies too - you simply need to go in with the realization that it was a product of its time. I don't see anything wrong with that.

        Indeed. Because those stories are often social commentaries of the time.

        Some genres, like science fiction, are especially good at social commentary (or "woke" as seems to be term of the day). Yes, a lot of sci-fi is woke. The whole point of stories by Heinlein, Asimov, Verne, etc, was to write about shortcomings in the human condition. Just that instea

    • It was the transition of the British Empire from military power into an entertainment juggernaut.

  • Your Tax Dollars at Work (Score:5, Interesting)

    by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Saturday April 05, 2025 @05:43PM (#65283907) Journal

    Rockwell International [wikipedia.org] acted as a consultant for the film. Since the work was done in England, they sent various people over to England (on the Concorde) to consult.

    Since the Space Shuttle was a "Cost Plus" contract, all that was billed to NASA.

  • full boar?
  • The plot of the novel has never been more believable than now: a Nazi rocket builder that wants to destroy the country he lives in.

  • Is probably the craziest conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

  • Moonraker as a period piece (Score:3)

    by roc97007 ( 608802 ) on Sunday April 06, 2025 @01:27PM (#65284989) Journal

    I'd be all for Moonraker as a period piece. I think it could work very well.

    In fact, with the Bond franchise in current disarray, maybe it's time to go back and do all the Fleming novels, in chronological order, in the time period they were originally set.

  • Amazon has to use their bought property very fast, as it's only 10 more years before all the Bond books are entering public domain so anybody can do anything with it from that point forward. In Canada and Japan they already are, but doing a movie which can not be shown anywhere else is just too expensive.

Slashdot Top Deals

A conference is a gathering of important people who singly can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done. -- Fred Allen

Close