Talk:Moonraker (film)

TRIVIA SECTION!

Whoever has taken it upon themselves to rid not only this article, but all the 007 movie articles of their trivia sections is little more than a vandal. Fair enough, if the info in said trivia sections was integrated into the main body of the article, but to totally remove the sections, with no regard whatsoever for the info within them is vandalism and almost unbelievably arrogant. Intregrate the trivia and I have no problems. Remove the trivia and that's another thing entirley. (Callum J. Stewart 17:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

I have to say, I fully agree. Seriously, what jackass felt the need to remove it all? It was mostly interesting, and added a certain kind of depth to the articles.

Merger of List of James Bond allies in Moonraker into Moonraker (Film)

• I think there is no need for this page to be seperate from the film page--Scottmcmaster 11:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, there is. All the other films have separate "allies" pages. Osaboramirez 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• I changed List of James Bond allies in Moonraker into a redirect, as it proved to merely duplicate part of ===The Women of Moonraker===. Anthony Appleyard 07:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well if it is true that so many Ally pages exist, it would seem that a great many redundant pages need to be removed from wikipedia then. If there are such pages please provide evidence of them in the form of internal links to them.--Scottmcmaster 10:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

My appologies I should not have used the word removed. What I meant to say was merged. The information in those articles is very useful, but may purhaps be better situated within the main article where it is easily discovered.--Scottmcmaster 12:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off Moonraker (film)#Soundtrack as a separate page

I see no need for this unless it makes Moonraker (film) too long. Anthony Appleyard 08:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The splitting of the sound track is unnecessary, one category for a single film is more than enough. The soundtrack information need only be a subsection.--Scottmcmaster 10:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If supporting evidence for the need for seperation of this section is not forthcomming, I recommend the removal of the seperation tag as a concensus seems to have been reached to keep it as part of the main article.--Scottmcmaster 12:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

All the other soundtracks seem to have their own section, so it would make sense, it makes redirecting from the John Barry page easier as well, they are albums in their own right, with John Barry as their author. I do have to note though that most of the links on the John Barry page do not redirect to the albums but to the movies themselves. --stasis101 02:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

clubs of Drax' men

Anybody any clue what the clubs of Drax' men used in the space station to hold Bond off contain at their one end? Some laser device?

Novelisation, not novelization

This is a British film and the adaptation was a British publication; therefore we use the British spelling novelisation with an S, per WP:STYLE. 23skidoo 05:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the British spelling is "novelization". Fanthrillers (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's both. However, been here, done that, moved on to plot revisions instead - which is a better use of all our time. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Goof

Isn't it a goof that bond looks in the direction of movement in the centrifuge? Shouldn't he look into the centre of it to be pressed into the seat? --Abe Lincoln 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't tink so. Just thing about what happens if you quickly accelerate your car. YOu get pressed into your seat.--87.179.246.164 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Movie poster

The poster shown clearly indicates the film will be out "next summer". Does anyone have a copy of the release version of the movie poster? John Carter 18:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, the poster shown on this page was done by Dan Goozee. It used to say Bob Peak (who, BTW did the poster for The Spy Who Loved Me). In fact, if you take a look at the SWLM poster, you'll see its style is vastly different from this one. I changed it to Dan Goozee not too long ago, but someone has apparently changed it back to Bob Peak. So, I changed it back again to Dan Goozee. On hi-res versions of the poster, Goozee's signature (D. Goozee), is CLEARLY written next to the left calf of the girl on the right. BTW, Goozee also did the poster for A View to a Kill. You'll notice the similarity in style of those two posters. - Wikilani —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilani (talk • contribs) 08:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

German title sentence

"The film received a German title with the phrase 'top secret' in it, which caused a minor problem during translations of the title of the next movie For Your Eyes Only." What does this mean???? Dollvalley 07:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The english title of the next Bond movie is as far as I know "top secret" which is "streng geheim" in German. 09:53, 29. April 2007 (CEST) It's "For your eyes only" rather, which is similiar to "top secret". The German version of that film thus is "In tödlicher Mission" which is in English: "in deadly mission".--79.212.49.158 (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Minor structural changes and summary

Per WikiProject James Bond, I'm going to add a plot summary to the header and move the second and third paragraphs ("It was based on ...among many other places") to the commentary section, as it seems more appropriate that it should be found there. 86.143.162.224 17:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Unseen scenes

Has anybody more information about these? 18:45, 05. May 2007 (CEST)

The question is, does anybody have a reference for what's out there already? ColdFusion650 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

One is here: [1] 09:40, 13. May 2007 (MESZ)

Another there: [2] 23:13, 20. November 2007 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.196.113 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:007Moonrakerspacesuits.jpg

Image:007Moonrakerspacesuits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moonraker (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Production

• It would probably be nice if this statement: "The end credits for the previous Bond film, The Spy Who Loved Me, said, "James Bond will return in For Your Eyes Only"; however, the producers chose Moonraker ......" was given a citation. Done

Novelisation

• The first opening sentences in that paragraph need citation. Done

Filming and effects

• There's quite a bit of Original research. Done

Music

• fix the original research tag. There is not a single citation in this section.  Done

Overall

I guess the original research info is what mainly holds this article back. Anyway, if the Original Research situation in fixed within seven days, I will pass it off. Otherwise, you have seven days. Good luck. Cheers. Wildroot (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted content

Deleted the following sentence as it doesn't need to be explained: "It is also unexplained how Drax or his henchmen could kill the large and powerful Jaws." Drax men could have shoot him with their laser guns for instance. unknown IP 17:28, 30 Dec 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.241.126 (talk)

Lois Maxwell's daughter

Rumors claim that one of Drax' beauties is the daughter of Lois Maxwell, the Miss Moneypenny actress. But which one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.233.254 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

advertising/product placement

maybe it was already there in previous films, but i have seen them all recently, and watching this film i'm noticing that there is quite a lot of it. marlboro, 7up, and of course, british airways (for one, the sign that the ambulance guy crashes into after being ejected from the ambulance on a stretcher and rolling down an incline).

not sure if this deserves a mention in the article, but thought it's worth pointing out. if anyone happens to know anything specific to the history of the film series, regarding choices to include more product placement in this film, or even about product placement history in films in general, such as if it started happening a lot more around the time moonraker was made, it might be interesting. obviously the marlboro placement (a pack in a drawer, a billboard, and probably more) stands out since cigarette brands are rarely advertised in films, or anywhere on screen these days. --Jdb00 (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

There has been product placement in all Bond films, from Dr. No onwards - the next instalment of Bond will see at least a third of the $135million budget coming from sponsors. See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/more-than-a-word-from-007s-sponsors/story-e6frg6so-1226047962752. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

One or two key lines of dialogue?

Would it potentially add richness and specificity to add one or two key lines of dialogue to our plot summary, lines such as:

James: "Jaws, we can't disengage - the release system is jammed. Can you help us?"

I myself kind of think it would potentially make a good section even better, as long as we don't overdo it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, no. The plot should be a concise summary, not a collection of quotes, or even anything that aims towards "richness". As per WP:FILMPLOT, "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue". - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(editconflict) No. That's what wikiquotes is for. Everybody has their own idea of what a key line of dialogue is, so the section would just fill up with personal favourites. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I vote for "richness" even though I think I am probably in the minority. And if we get five people interesting in putting in dialogue quotes they think most important----well, we should be so lucky. That would probably make for a really good article in a number of different ways. And if they can't agree on the quotes, well, maybe they could agree to rotate the quotes, or some other solution. Essentially, I think we should be willing to take some risks for the potential upside.

As one example, I can see someone saying that the seen in which Drax's Dobermans run down and kill the Corinne Dufour character depicts misogynist violence. Now, someone might say, well, men in the movie are also killed in graphic ways. Yes, but perhaps not in a "sensual" way with dreamy music and a collage of images much like a French impressionistic painting. And besides, she was James' lover, or at least his temporary lover, and James was not effective in protecting her. So, where were the ethics, where was James as a hero? Now, we ourselves probably can't say any of this. But, if we can find a quote from a critic saying this or similar, I think we should welcome such a quote as potentially very helpful in making a good article even better.

Or, as another example, the plot aspect in both Moonraker and The Spy Who Loved Me in which a megalomaniac is using technology to try and destroy the Earth. If we can find a good quote from a critic saying how these films play off fears about technology, that will also potentially make for a better article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't something you can vote on to change. See WP:FILMPLOT: "avoid minutiae like dialogue". There is no upside to having quotes in a plot summary and certainly not richness. As Chaheel Riens (talk · contribs) has pointed out, that is what wikiquotes is for. - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What about the Wiki Pillar: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules," with the advice to “Be bold”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between a quote from a critic, and a quote from a character in the film. The article already contains several critic quotes in the "Release and reception" section, which are valid to the article. There's nothing wrong with being bold, provided you're prepared for the consequences - which may be reversion. In this case you have taken the wise option of discussion before addition, which is what we're doing now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Reversion is all part of the wiki project and I guess something we all implicitly agree to. Sometimes we're able to have pretty good ping-ponging back and forth conversations about areas of disagreement, and sometimes, I suppose being human beings afterall, we're not. The only thing I might wish is that we did not think of ourselves only as editors, but perhaps as both editors and researchers, for I think finding and using good sources is awfully important to the success of wiki articles. For example, most of our reviews of Moonraker seem to give mixed or poor reviews, but I think the movie set a record for Bond films to its date for ticket sales. And I think sales for the following Bond movie, although not a record, were still very good. So, it sure does not appear as though people got disappointed with Moonraker and then did not see For Your Eyes Only. List of James Bond films which also list box office in both gross and adjusted figures. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Review, claiming Moonraker went too far on comedy side

http://permanentplastichelmet.com/tag/james-bond/ Blogalongabond—Moonraker: When Powers met Skywalker Posted by Michael Mand ⋅ November 18, 2011

“Mocking a Bond film for its absurdity is like taking Picasso to task for being abstract; that’s the essence of their art. Albert R Broccoli’s spy series has provided plenty of guffaw-provoking moments down the years, however, 1979’s Moonraker remains the epitome of Bond silliness, throwing in a dash of cynicism and plenty of comic cheese to boot. . . ”

“ . . . while a laboratory’s entry keypad actually plays the chimes from Close Encounters’ alien craft. . . ”

“ . . . Certainly there is fun to be had, particularly as Bond is stalked by yet more potential assassins while cruising the canals of Venice; one scene involves a knife-throwing killer rising from a floating coffin, before Bond quickly returns him from whence he came. However, this is followed by a scene in which 007 outruns a speedboat in a motorised gondola, before taking it onto dry land for a drive through the Piazza San Marco. It’s more Benny Hill than Bond, and even features a ridiculous double-taking pigeon. Similarly, the use of music from other films to soundtrack key set pieces, such as The Magnificent Seven during a bizarre scene when Bond dresses as a cowboy, simply adds to the feeling that this is self-parody of the silliest kind. . . ”

“ . . . In this post-Bourne world, and in the light of Daniel Craig’s emotionally damaged, action-thug Bond, Moonraker seems camp and unbelievable. Equally ludicrous moments pop up throughout the Bond series, but this film’s attempt to stitch so many together, while self-consciously playing the ‘comedy’ card, leave it feeling retrospectively Powers-lite and very much of its moment. . . ”

I think this review brings up some good points. Bond movies have always been a mix of comedy and action. And I'm not sure we acknowledge this front and center like maybe we should. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it's a blog site and shouldn't be used. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SchroCat. Not worth noting. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Plot section also include the comedy and romance aspects of the film?

Currently, our Plot section seems to be written for people already familiar with the Bond style of films. It's as if it's a plot summary to be given to a producer who already knows that of course the film will also have a lot of romance and comedy.

I think we should do both. Early on, maybe even in the lead, say something such as: 'Like most Bond films, Moonraker also includes substantial elements of . . . '

And probably also include some of the details such as. Well, on the romance side, that James and Corinne romantically and sexually spent the night together. That when James and Holly decided to join forces, they also spent the night together, but James snuck out early the next morning (after seeing an airline ticket for a trip Holly didn't tell him about) and which he later justifies as tripping on her luggage on the way out.

And on the comedy side, well, clearly the gondola which turns into a hoover craft and the pigeon with the double take, and probably the bad guy in the stretch who ends up stuck in the cigarette ad. And there is also musical comedy of sorts, the Close Encounters of the Third Kind music for the code to the lab door, the stereotypical falling in love music when Jaws and Dolly first meet, some stereotypical western music as James wears a poncho and rides a horse.

Our current Plot section is fine as a base and a skeleton. But, for the unfamiliar reader, he or she might get the wrong idea (for the film is not hard action throughout). I do think we should consider including some of the comedy and romance. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that's such a good idea, I'm afraid. The plot section as it currently stands covers the plot, which is what it should be about, as per WP:FILMPLOT. As per FILMPLOT, the section should not "make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims", which is partly what you are suggesting. For the rest, concepts such as comedy are subjective and what you find comedic others won't, especially as it it will lose a lot in the translation into encyclopaedic prose. Finally, this article is just about at 700 words, and plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words, so to add anything means that the core elements of the plot will have to be removed to make space, and it is more appropriate to have a full description of the plot than our WP:OR secondary descriptions of comedy or romance. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Schro. All Bond films have comedy and romance in them, and though I'll admit that Moonraker scores highly in both areas, that doesn't make it unique from any of the other films really. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SchroCat and Chaheel. - Fanthrillers (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved by clear (but not perfect) consensus. Andrewa (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

---

• Moonraker (film) → Moonraker
• Moonraker → Moonraker (disambiguation)

– The film is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in that it appears to be sought more than all other topics with a similar name combined. Specifically, it had 27,687 views last month compared to 7199 for the novel, soundtrack, comic character (a redirect), sail, The Moonraker, and Moonrakers combined. I was particularly interested to see that in the same time, the dab received 1648 views, which was more than any of these other topics alone except for the Fleming novel. That suggests to me that there are a fair number of readers typing in "Moonraker" alone, and I suspect they're not looking for a dab. BDD (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I suspect that readers are never looking for the dab when they type a name into the search bar. In this case, the distinction is highlighted. bd2412 T 20:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, Oppose, as per the above below. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry I just don't think that film-of-the-book should be ambiguated when the book has an article. The current title tells anyone familiar with en.wp that Moonraker (novel) probably exists, and it does. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Cannot support this in good faith since the novel came first and has an article, and I just don't feel it's fair to give primary topic to the film adaptation. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time. Fight Club and The Godfather are two examples of primarytopic films over the novels they're adapted from and other uses. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

In the case of The Godfather, I would say the film has certainly superseded the novel in terms of popularity and standing. It's an iconic, classic, much analyzed film that has become embedded in popular culture. You could convincingly argue that is also the case for Dr No and Goldfinger, but on the whole I think the Fleming novels have just as much long-term significance (as per the second PRIMARYTOPIC criterion) as the adaptations. In fact, as an encyclopedic topic I think the Bond novels and films are pretty much indistinguishable from each other: serious academic discourse tends to analyze the books and films in conjunction. I suppose we have to question whether the Moonraker traffic really reflects the respective encyclopedic value of the book and film, or whether it just reflects the popularity of the medium and the demographic of internet users. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so, to decide a primary topic, at the end of the day it usually comes down to a combination of two things: long-term significance, and page views. It does not come down to which one came first (see Boston) or if the one gave the name to the other (see Martin Luther King). In fact, the most instructive case to me comes from looking at Gone With the Wind. The film there was a masterpiece and rather influential, but the novel dwarfs it in cultural importance and notability and rightfully has the base title. Here, the book is actually significantly less notable than the film as measured by pageviews, at least, and if there even are any particularly significant James Bond books that exceed the notability of the movies, Moonraker probably would not be one of them. In other words, support due to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The novel could outrank the film by significance, but the film is more popular. The novel's Background describes the inspiration of the Cold War events at the time of the novel's publication, 1955. The film changed the plot by replacing nuclear weapons with nerve gas, and it also has "outer space" training. --George Ho (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. No true primary topic here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose the usurping of the primary namespace. Cases like this should always be disambiguated, IMHO. This way, the reader will know exactly what they are getting before they even click on the mouse. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 03:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per previous two entries - there is no definitive primary topic, so it makes sense to have the pure "moonraker" a disambig, and let the viewer choose their topic. Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - there is no definite primary topic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Error under the picture of the Gondola

Caption under the picture of Roger Moore in the gondola calls the craft an 'inflatable gondola'. It was not an inflatable gondola; it was a gondola that became a hovercraft. 71.79.167.161 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorry for the delay in picking up on it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Review section should be split between contemporary, and reflective.

Most of the James Bond articles have both sections for reviews, to show which came from the time, and which came after the theatrical run of the film. Most of the reviews of Bond's films haven't changed over time, but Moonraker's have, since most of the reviews from the time considered it either the second best, or even best Bond film, and most of the reflective reviews consider the film somewhat outlandish due to the ideas in the plot.--SexyKick 16:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase is Retrospective reviews not Reflective reviews. Retrospective, from the Latin "looking back" wikt:retrospective. -- 109.76.202.17 (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of Glaston boat(s)

Having just watched (again!) the movie, I noticed that the speedboat used by Bond in the river chase scene (aprox.95 min into the movie) has the "Glaston CARLSON" brand & model markings clearly visible under the windshield side. If I recall correctly this was the same boat brand used in "Live and Let Die". Maybe the river chase scenes were filmed back in USA? If so I couldn't find any comment in the article. Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It would need a good reliable source for inclusion, rather than just the name on the boat - that doesn't prove anything one way or the other. - SchroCat (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Cut your f****g wikitricks - the boat IS a Glast_R_on (sic!) CV-23HT speedboat! You can see it in the 007-Museum, in it´s original film-shape including the moonraker-gadgets. 2003:DC:F735:A700:A919:4FA3:8A45:D04F (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moonraker (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081106152811/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/746/746573p2.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/746/746573p2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

which River?

the text claims "Bond travels the Amazon River" but that he goes over the Iguazu Falls. The Iguazu Falls are not on the Amazon or any of its tributaries. These falls are on the Iguazu River in the far south of Brazil flowing into Argentina. Which makes more sense, since he starts his journey from Rio, which is also in the south of the country, nowhere near the Amazon. This also answers the question of how does he arrive at the top of a waterfall if he's travelling upstream from the coast? he's not. M's field HQ was somewhere in highlands above Rio, so he's been travelling downstream this other river, from its source, and it is not the Amazon. I don't expect these Bond movies to actually make complete sense when overanalysed, but this actually does make complete sense if you look where Rio and the Iguazu Falls are on a map. But no need to speculate on his exact route without a citable source. We just should not be saying it's the Amazon, that mistake should be corrected.

J Edward Malone (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I would correct it, but it is years since I have seen the film and I am not sure of the movie's internal geography. Are the Falls standing in for the Amazon or is the film actually set at the Iguazu Falls? Maybe SchroCat or Dr. Blofeld can settle this? Betty Logan (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

you're absolutely right, Betty, I shoulda thought to rewatch the film. The dialog between Bond and Q immediately before this scene definitely is about one of the sources of the Amazon. Theres a huge map of the Amazon behind Q's shoulder, and as he stops talking the camera zooms in on one tributary. I think Roger called it the "Tipparare" and can sort of make out that text on the map as the camera zooms in, but I cannot find a similar river in GoogleMaps.

this youtube clip of the boatchase begins just as Q stops talking and we can see the camera zoom in on the map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN8avpXNASA

So these real Iguazu Falls which are in the south of Brazil are a stand-in location for a possibly fictitious tributary of the Amazon. The sentence could be reworded to explain this, maybe just call them waterfalls (and if anybody can catch the name of the fictitious river, add that), then in brackets say "(location work done in the real life Iguazu Falls, which are actually in the south of the country within a completely different watershed)."

J Edward Malone (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen it for years, but if the Iguazu Falls are not mentioned in name, then we should probably remove the name and just call them waterfalls (or whatever fictional name the film gives them). - SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I see the Iguazu Falls location is discussed in detail further down in the Filming section, and distinguished from the fictitious waterfall in the film's plot. so yeh, that might do, less confusing.

J Edward Malone (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the Iguazu Falls in the plot summary, since we are now sure it was a stand-in location. If the changes I have made are acceptable then all the best, and thanks for bringing this mistake to our attention. Betty Logan (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moonraker (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201054151/http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/bondmoon.php to http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/bondmoon.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1315279856020

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌴Help out at CCI!} 19:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Piano piece is in D-flat

The article stayes that the piano piece Drax is playing when Bond meets him is played in D major, rather than D-flat as the title suggests. This is incorrect. The piece is being played in D-flat. 2600:1700:720F:8000:C58B:2030:B4B8:D314 (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Any and all such analysis by ear is original research, so it's been removed entirely. DonQuixote (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Braces

Some fans believe that Dolly possessed braces in the theatrical run of the film, which have been removed since, while opponents of the theory claimed that she never possessed braces

How truly freaky. I also remember watching this and remembering that Dolly was wearing braces, which was the point of the entire joke. I wonder if, like others, I am confusing my recollection with a popular spoof like an SNL sketch that came later. Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: I’ve been reading up on this and I’m truly disturbed by it. I don’t believe in the so-called "Mandela Effect", as it makes little sense to me, but I do remember seeing Dolly with braces on when the film was originally released. Looking into this, some people are arguing in online forums that there must have been multiple prints with alternate scenes, and for whatever reason, the braces scene was cut. One of the more convincing arguments says there was a continuity error in an original print, with Dolly wearing braces before she is later shown not wearing them so the scene was cut and replaced in later prints or versions. The problem with this theory is that people have allegedly got a hold of other prints that don’t contain it, as well as VHS and other mediums. This is incredibly strange to me, but I think there was an alternate print at one point, and this has happened before with other films. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

OUTER Space?

(Last sentence in the introduction) That´s not "outer" space - they´re still in earth´s orbit. 2003:DC:F735:A700:A919:4FA3:8A45:D04F (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)