You could make the argument that most Bond films have been at least a little sci-fi, but the series has only fully embraced the genre once. Moonraker is mostly a punchline these days because, well, it’s got James Bond in a spacesuit shooting lasers guns in it, but it’s really not that bad. For my money it may be the best of the Roger Moore Bonds (damning with faint praise, I know).
Yeah, the current serious, gritty direction for Bond has been good (Skyfall looks great) but here’s five reasons why a return to sci-fi might also work…
James Bond Visiting Outer Space Is More Plausible And Relevant Than Ever
Back when Moonraker came out (1979) the world was only a decade removed from the moon landings. Going into space was solely the domain of astronauts specially selected and trained by massive American and Russian government agencies. Space was still far out of reach for any normal person. Even James Bond, not exactly a normal man, looked out of place up there.
Things are different now. Private enterprise is getting more and more involved in space flight. Space tourism is starting to become a thing. Guys sponsored by Red Bull are jumping out of balloons from space. If Lance Bass can almost make it into outer space, James Bond should be able to.
Also, as Bond fans will recall the “far fetched” plot of Moonraker involved a private company taking over the manufacturing of space shuttles then secretly using those craft for nefarious purposes. Well with the retiring of NASA’s space shuttle, that’s exactly what’s happening today (minus, hopefully, the nefarious purposes).
This jetpack runs of pure manliness.
We Need Some Cool Gadgets Again
The gadgets in recent Bond movies have been pretty lame. Most of them have basically been the equivalent of fancy smartphone apps. I’m hankering for the return of jetpacks and laser-shooting fashion accessories. These might feel out of place in a more serious Bond movie, but they’d fit right in, in a Bond movie that fully embraces sci-fi.
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/3998/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/starship-troopers1-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadstartrek31-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/byzantium-finally-a-vampire-movie-that-looks-good-uproxx-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/theres-a-new-man-of-steel-trailer-that-essentially-guarantees-the-movie-will-be-fantastic-uproxx-150x150.jpg)
I agree with your list, but Moonraker is like an Irish step dancing troupe using your testicles as a practice stage.
I think you’re forgetting the hovercraft gondola chase scene.
Every moment of it is burned into my goddamn memory.
Moonraker was the first Bond film I ever saw.
I didn’t watch another for five years. Not even “I think he’s attempting re-entry, sir” could rescue that film.
Seriously, it had Roger Moore wrestling a dead snake.
Been saying it for months, but MICHAEL SHANNON FOR JAWS.
Cmon now. I mean it’s a slam dunk.
I fully endorse this casting and so does my inner 11yr old who misses the sci fi bond. We need less terrorists and more Vader-esque villains.
+1 to Michael Shannon anything.
And after seeing Skyfall, all I can say is Bardem is no boring terrorist. Not quite Chigurh-level terrifying, but close.
Wet blanket implies stoic and kinda sad, and that is definitely NOT Timothy Dalton’s Bond. The latter much better describes late Roger Moore-era Bond, but Dalton!Bond was never stoic either. He was easily the most recklessly impulsive Bond, not very in control of his emotions or that good at thinking things through. Dude was chaotic Neutral AT BEST.
Eh, the reason I never got into the Brosnan films was all the goofy gadgets. You can’t blame them for looking awkward and dated NOW, but I was taken out back then. One of the reasons Casino Royale was great was because Bond didn’t need a laser watch or an invisible car to kick ass. In fact, who wouldn’t be able to take out a room full of thugs with a handful of Q gadgets? It’s the same reason I was turned off by The Dark Knight (blasphemy, I know): Batman didn’t need to rely too much on using situational awareness, intuition, or some bullshit heightened karate master state of mind. It was pretty much “there’s an app for that” for any occasion (like the claw-thing in the Scarecrow scene).
I mean, I get that both fictional dudes have the finest minds and unlimited resources making shit for them, but I’d be more interested to see Bruce Wayne thrown into some remote village in the Philippines with nothing but his inherent kick-assery at his disposal.
… And now you’ve made me sad that TDKR didn’t show how Bruce Wayne got from just outside Bane’s prison back to Gotham, with nothing but his inherent kick-assery at his disposal.
The first two Brosnan films were great, the second two were awwwwwwful.
Invisible car in a hotel made out of ice. Sure, fuck it.
Slow standing clap (non STD variety) at you, Hans…
You have to be careful with the gadgets. They have to make sense.
A wrist watch with a laser torch and a belt buckle that shoots rappelling line (Goldeneye)? Somewhat goofy and far fetched, but also things that might be standard issue for a guy whose job involves a lot of breaking and entering.
The medical kit from Casino Royale? Yes, I can see that being standard issue for a 00.
But there were too many instances, especially during the Roger Moore Era, when Q just happen to invent a device that has exactly one use in an insanely specific situation and it just happens to save Bond’s ass by him falling headlong into exactly that situation.
and Daulton’s run on Bond, as short as it was, was awesome. Angry Bond was a great take on the character.
What Craig needs is more Bond girls. He’s only had 2 onscreen hook ups so far. Connery did that much during one cold open.
Even thought I mentioned Moonraker a lot here, I’m definitely not advocating a return to the Moore era in terms of gadgets (or anything else).
I think the Connery Era was the best in terms of gadgets. His stuff was usually cool and in many cases ahead of it’s time, and usually stuff that would have been helpful for a spy in general — not the Moore era “Batman 66″ approach where he always had just the right gadget for a specific goofy situation.
I never put it together but the “Batman 66″ comparison is perfect.
The Moore-era Bond was never as obvious as “Aha, my Bat Shark Repellent!” but it was damn close.
Speaking of which, if only Adam West were British he would have been a great goofy 70s Bond.
Moonraker was made because of Star Wars. Simple as that.
That was a common theme of the Moore Era. “Let’s put Bond into a popular genre”
Moonraker was Bond in Star Wars
The Man With the Golden Gun put Bond in a Kung fu flick
Live and Let die was Blacksplotation.
For Your eyes Only put Bond in the winter Olympics.
The Spy Who Loved Me could be seen as Bond joining the Women’s Rights movement.
View to a Kill didn’t happen
Fuck off, no one wants a campy Bond. Go back to ironically enjoying Batman and Robin.
If you don’t like people ironically enjoying things, Uproxx is the wrong place for you my friend.
I keep waiting for the inevitable mashup of Jason Bourne and James Bond. They will call it the BB gang, and Craig will casually explain that it means their last names to the super villians before they get throat punched by Liam Nissan because they accidently kidnapped his fifth cousin twice removed on his divorced wife’s side.