45 replies to this topic

[Loomis]

I'm under the impression that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was the LICENCE TO KILL of its day: a Bond actor's second film performing disappointingly at the box office.

Was TMWTGG really a flop? If so, why do you think it did poorly?

Was Moore the problem? Were audiences still hankering after Connery? Were people tired of Bond at that point? Did the film come out too soon after LIVE AND LET DIE? Did it not deliver enough thrills and spills (it seems to me lighter on action than just about any other 007 flick save perhaps DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE)? Did it go up against stiff competition at cinemas? Or was TMWTGG just considered a load of rubbish?

[Jim]

Were people tired of Bond at that point?

...gets my vote

[Turn]

It's a good question. It's one of two Bond films I have never seen in a cinema or drive-in theater. I was only 8, but I remember my uncle traveling to a bigger city to go see it when it came out. It was eventually released in my town the following January, I believe, so it apparently missed out on the big Xmas bucks in that sense. Don't know if that was a trend at the time.

As far as box office competition, I know the big heavyweight films at the time were Godfather II, but that was like 4 hours long; The Towering Inferno; Young Frankenstein; a Disney film called Island at the Top of the World (which I saw at the time); Dustin Hoffman in Lenny, which was the Lenny Bruce story; Murder on the Orient Express (which I also remember going to see). Also back in those day, a lot of other films lingered around longer, like Earthquake, Chinatown and Blazing Saddles and such.

So it seems that except for The Towering Inferno, there was nothing really to compete in the action genre. Then again, it wasn't what it was to become in later years, either. Maybe people at the time were more into the other types of films. Who cares about James Bond when you have Michael Corleone, I guess may have been the attitude.

But it seems strange that people saw the previous 3 films when the new attitude stemming from the Woodstock generation should have had a bigger influence. So I don't know if there is a clear answer on this one.

[Scottlee]

I would imagine that any box office disappointment was a combination of ALL the questions Loomis posed, not just one of them.

[Loomis]

I would imagine that any box office disappointment was a combination of ALL the questions Loomis posed, not just one of them.

I guess, but then I thought it'd be fun for us to try and identify a "main" reason or two.

My own two cents: it came too hard (fnarr) on the heels of LIVE AND LET DIE - as Turn points out, films lingered around longer in those days. Also (and, okay, this probably sounds a bit daft), the LALD and TMWTGG posters were quite similar, so perhaps a lot of people saw the TMWTGG one and thought it was LALD, which they'd already seen. No? Okay. Carry on.

[Turn]

My own two cents: it came too hard (fnarr) on the heels of LIVE AND LET DIE - as Turn points out, films lingered around longer in those days. Also (and, okay, this probably sounds a bit daft), the LALD and TMWTGG posters were quite similar, so perhaps a lot of people saw the TMWTGG one and thought it was LALD, which they'd already seen. No? Okay. Carry on.

Today's modern audience I could imagine being lazy enough to be taken in by that theory.

Another thing may be that some audiences at the time may have just thought they had outgrown Bond. Much like the one 15 years later rejected LTK. A couldn't happen 15 years after LTK to keep the pattern intact because there was no movie. Maybe that's a good sign.

[Loomis]

Does anyone here know whether Moore was---- how to put it? Whether he was accepted in the Bond role at the time of TMWTGG's release? Or was he still seen as the new guy, with people a bit suspicious of him (or just undecided as to whether he was a decent Bond)? I believe LIVE AND LET DIE was a hit, but not really a blockbuster - am I right?

[Janus Assassin]

I think it was the fact that people were expecting more out of Roger Moore in his second outing. People thought that Live and Let Die was good and maybe expected TMWTGG to be better. Such as FRWL is better than DN. People were turned off by it probably. People read reviews and said "Oh it isn't as good or it's the worst Bond so far etc." and people didn't go bother seeing it.

Maybe since it totally abandoned Fleming's book. And went with the 70's era comedy and poorly written characters (Not Scaramanga of course) but you get what I am saying. I hope

Edited by Janus Assassin, 13 January 2005 - 07:53 PM.

[Qwerty]

Does anyone here know whether Moore was---- how to put it? Whether he was accepted in the Bond role at the time of TMWTGG's release? Or was he still seen as the new guy, with people a bit suspicious of him (or just undecided as to whether he was a decent Bond)? I believe LIVE AND LET DIE was a hit, but not really a blockbuster - am I right?

I'd say Live And Let Die was, as you say, a hit and an improvement (not to mention a sigh of relief for the producers), but not a total blockbuster compared to past films. It may have been that Moore wasn't really accepted that, that came with The Spy Who Loved Me in my opinion.

I don't think there really is one main reason though; sorry Loomis. It did come rather fast on the heels of Live And Let Die, a little more time for planning, executing, or whatever they chose wouldn't have hurt the film. It probably would have helped.

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I'm under the impression that THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was the LICENCE TO KILL of its day: a Bond actor's second film performing disappointingly at the box office.

Was TMWTGG really a flop? If so, why do you think it did poorly?

I question whether The Man With The Golden Gun really was a flop. While its box office certainly was lower than most of its predecessors, it actually(after adjusting for inflation of course) had a bigger worldwide box office gross than any Bond film released between 1983 and 1989, including the non-official NSNA, according to these figures:

http://www.klast.net/bond/boxoff.html

I think if The Man With The Golden Gun was really a box office loser, I don't think UA(at that time, anyway) would have been willing to go through with their most expensive Bond film up to that time, i.e. The Spy Who Loved Me.

[freemo]

1) Did the film come out too soon after LIVE AND LET DIE?
2) Were people tired of Bond at that point?

I'm guessing they got a bit keen, trying to get a second film under Rogers belt after he was reasonably well accepted in Live and Let Die. Although the gap, 1 1/2 years, is about the same as the one between Diamonds Are Forever and Live and Let Die, so maybe it's that group of three that got people a bit tired of Bond.

Or maybe it's just that it was the 9th film in a little over 12 years.

Or maybe it's just that the film was rubbish.

[Loomis]

Or maybe it's just that the film was rubbish.

Can't have been that. Trust me, I've seen THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN.

I reckon it was just that "people were a bit tired of Bond by that point". They were churning 'em out too quickly - flooding the market, if you will. I very much doubt that bad reviews killed TMWTGG at the box office. Since when have people flocked (or not) to Bond films based on reviews?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Two words: Roger Moore. He would have been exactly like Timothy Dalton if not for TSWLM-a good James Bond with his share of fans but more detractors but since he got his third outing, which was a smash, I think audiences warmed to Roger...and like a lot of Brosnan fans that are 25 and under, Roger was able to get a new generation of fan support sans Sean hang ups.Me thinks anyway.

[Loomis]

I wonder if there was any talk of dropping Moore after THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN? Of course, there's not a hint of that in any of the Eon-approved, "official" Bond history books, but, c'mon, it must have at least crossed the minds of some powerful people at Eon and the studio at the time (United Artists, wasn't it?). Wonder if they considered trying to get Connery back again? Of course, we'll never know....

Still, they did the right thing by keeping him: Moore ultimately saved the franchise, proving that you didn't have to be Connery (or even similar to Connery) to be a successful Bond. If only Dalton had been given a third chance, too.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I read Tim was approach three times: 1969,1980(damn that would have been a great intro film for him)and 1986...so I think Roger was still in test drive mode in '74. Either way, it worked for Roger...I still think TMWTGG is Roger's best acting effort as 007. He's young enough and portrays some ruthlessness that I love to see in Bond. Too bad he become the jolly ol' uncle James Bond later on.

[Qwerty]

I read Tim was approach three times: 1969,1980(damn that would have been a great intro film for him)and 1986...so I think Roger was still in test drive mode in '74. Either way, it worked for Roger...I still think TMWTGG is Roger's best acting effort as 007. He's young enough and portrays some ruthlessness that I love to see in Bond. Too bad he become the jolly ol' uncle James Bond later on.

I'm just curious, but based on the support words you said of The Spy Who Loved Me earlier Tarl, what do you think of Moore's performance in that film compared with that in The Man With The Golden Gun?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I read Tim was approach three times: 1969,1980(damn that would have been a great intro film for him)and 1986...so I think Roger was still in test drive mode in '74. Either way, it worked for Roger...I still think TMWTGG is Roger's best acting effort as 007. He's young enough and portrays some ruthlessness that I love to see in Bond. Too bad he become the jolly ol' uncle James Bond later on.

I'm just curious, but based on the support words you said of The Spy Who Loved Me earlier Tarl, what do you think of Moore's performance in that film compared with that in The Man With The Golden Gun?

I like Roger just fine in TSWLM, especially the way he dispatched the henchman in Cairo (Can't think of his name at the moment) but I thought he was a little more hard core in TMWTGG (maybe it's his politically incorrect treatment of women that bring back fond memories of Sean Connery ) and he did look younger, ie more convincing as a assassin/lady killer.

[Turn]

Wonder if they considered trying to get Connery back again? Of course, we'll never know....

If a 1981 Starlog Magazine article is to be believed, EON continued to try luring Connery back to the role clear through Moonraker.

[Loomis]

I think Roger was still in test drive mode in '74.

Quite literally, in fact (with Sheriff Pepper at the Bangkok car showroom).

Sorry, very, very poor, I know, but I just couldn't resist.

I still think TMWTGG is Roger's best acting effort as 007. He's young enough and portrays some ruthlessness that I love to see in Bond.

Agreed. It's his best performance as 007. I also think TMWTGG is his best Bond film (and one of the very best films of the series - definitely my personal favourite, by a long way).

[Bon-san]

I think Roger was still in test drive mode in '74.

Quite literally, in fact (with Sheriff Pepper at the Bangkok car showroom).

Sorry, very, very poor, I know, but I just couldn't resist.

I still think TMWTGG is Roger's best acting effort as 007. He's young enough and portrays some ruthlessness that I love to see in Bond.

Agreed. It's his best performance as 007.

Count me in agreement with that as well. I really like him in TWWTGG. And I have a fondness for the film as well. To me, the only things that really detract are the needless (and lame) inclusion of Pepper, and the fact that the duel is far too short (what a waste of an excellent opportunity!).

[hrabb04]

The film was rushed; the production was troubled; there was little sentiment among the cast; the director and co-writer were not speaking; the producers were at loggerheads; and we had a piss poor excuse for a James Bond.

In short, yes, it was a flop by Bondian standards, and yes, it was a lousy movie.
It took them remaking You Only Live Twice before Bond could attract a following again.

[Loomis]

Wonder if they considered trying to get Connery back again? Of course, we'll never know....

If a 1981 Starlog Magazine article is to be believed, EON continued to try luring Connery back to the role clear through Moonraker.

Sounds believable enough to me. I'm glad Connery didn't do MOONRAKER, though - probably wouldn't have worked at all. He might have improved THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, though (a film I have no particular fondness for).

[hrabb04]

Ah, Connery in Moonraker...well, he did eventually do Outland.

[Loomis]

It took them remaking You Only Live Twice before Bond could attract a following again.

A remake that doesn't even come close to being as good as the original, IMO.

I know you dislike Moore, hrabb04, and I know why you dislike him - but don't you find him more bearable in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN than in his other Bond films (because he does at least try to give us something resembling Fleming's Bond)? Then again, if you think it's a lousy movie, I guess you don't.

[hrabb04]

Hi, Loomis!
Moore is basically doing a Sean Connery imitation in his 1st and 2nd Bond outings, something Lewis Gilbert put a stop to with TSWLM. Sadly, Loomis, I think Moore was a total putz in all of his "Bond" movies. My God, I am starting to sound like Jim when he talks about Pierce Brosnan...nah, not THAT bad...

Things I liked about TMWTGG:
I like Christopher Lee as Scaramanga. I like the John Barry score. I like the book they forgot to adapt.

[Donovan]

Was Moore the problem? Were audiences still hankering after Connery? YES. "Live And Let Die" enjoyed huge box office in part because of the curiousity factor of seeing Roger Moore as Bond and the marketing blitz promoting the film. Moore, compared with his predecessors, was criticized as being to light (physically and dramatically) in the role. You can see how his performance in "Golden Gun" is almost a direct reaction to the criticism.

Were people tired of Bond at that point? YES. In another thread someone spoke of films such as "Dirty Harry" (and "Magnum Force", which also came out in '74) as being a more 'hip' version of the action hero. Someone who represented the 'silent majority'--a backlash against the counter-culture. "Golden Gun" came across as more of an attempt to exploit the Bond name for profit instead of an honest attempt to earn money by providing audiences with a creative production. This is what sets "Licence To Kill" apart from "Golden Gun".

Did the film come out too soon after LIVE AND LET DIE? YES. It's amazing to think a film like "Thunderball" could be released a year after a film like "Goldfinger" and at the same time "The Man With The Golden Gun" was from the start on shaky foundation. If anyone single-handedly saves it (or makes it palpable) it's Christopher Lee (and Maud Adams).

Did it not deliver enough thrills and spills (it seems to me lighter on action than just about any other 007 flick save perhaps DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE)? YES, except that the two Connery films you mention at least provide thrilling two-fisted action. "Golden Gun" at every turn chooses to undermine a clever or semi-clever action sequence with a dose of buffoonery. Sherrif Pepper? A slide whistle played during the greatest car stunt of all time? The film looks and feels like it was shot on a shoe-string budget with a skeleton crew.

Did it go up against stiff competition at cinemas? YES--"The Godfather, Part II" is the calibre of film "Golden Gun" was up against.

Or was TMWTGG just considered a load of rubbish? Well, the high concept of the film as envisioned by Tom Mankiewicz was to lead up to the greatest gun battle of all time between the two greatest gunmen. That concept was more or less kept in the story, but muddled with McGuffins like the Solex Agitator. For my money, the book is far more interesting with far greater characters, scenes and action sequences: M's office with bullet-proof shield coming down from the ceiling, Bond and Scaramanga's meeting at 3 1/2 Love Lane, Bond shooting the pineapple off of the dancer's head with the golden gun, and the explosive train climax.

Final thought: I'm happy enough to see midget actors get work, but not at the expense of a film's credibility.

[Loomis]

Nice post, Donovan. Some good points there.

[Triton]

The "failure" of The Man with the Golden Gun has always been a puzzle to me. It borrowed elements from the Asian martial arts film like Live and Let Die borrowed elements from the popular "blacksploitation films".

Asian martial arts pictures wer going to be the next big thing in 1974 with the posthumously released Bruce Lee film Enter the Dragon(1973) a big hit as well as the re-release of his Hong Kong martial arts films. I also seem to remember hearing in the commentary track that The Man with the Golden Gun was the first western film to show Thai kickboxing.

I wonder if the Watergate scandal and opposition to the Vietnam War had more to do with the failure of The Man with the Golden Gun than the film itself, or anything the United Artists marketing department did, or acceptance of Roger Moore.

Remember that this was the era of the "conspiracy" thriller. With the Parallax View,The Marathon Man,Three Days of the Condor, and All the President's Men.

Was a James Bond film just too naive and innocent for the times after people had their illusions shattered?

[Loomis]

I wonder if the Watergate scandal and opposition to the Vietnam War had more to do with the failure of The Man with the Golden Gun than the film itself, or anything the United Artists marketing department did, or acceptance of Roger Moore.

Remember that this was the era of the "conspiracy" thriller. With the Parallax View,The Marathon Man,Three Days of the Condor, and All the President's Men.

Was a James Bond film just too naive and innocent for the times after people had their illusions shattered?

Maybe ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE would have gone through the roof at the box office had it been released then. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but when you bring up those dark, downbeat '70s thrillers, I start to think that maybe an OHMSS-type film would have been just what the doctor ordered at that point.

And if Bond had died at the end along with Tracy, perhaps it would have been the most successful 007 flick ever in 1974.

[Triton]

I wonder if the Watergate scandal and opposition to the Vietnam War had more to do with the failure of The Man with the Golden Gun than the film itself, or anything the United Artists marketing department did, or acceptance of Roger Moore.

Remember that this was the era of the "conspiracy" thriller. With the Parallax View,The Marathon Man,Three Days of the Condor, and All the President's Men.

Was a James Bond film just too naive and innocent for the times after people had their illusions shattered?

Maybe ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE would have gone through the roof at the box office had it been released then. I know, I know, it sounds crazy, but when you bring up those dark, downbeat '70s thrillers, I start to think that maybe an OHMSS-type film would have been just what the doctor ordered at that point.

And if Bond had died at the end along with Tracy, perhaps it would have been the most successful 007 flick ever in 1974.

Very possible. It certainly was very fashionable then to have cynical, anti-Happily Ever After, endings to films. At the time was this considered realism?

I watched Get Carter(1971), starring Michael Caine, over the week end with its cynical ending. Now compare it to the almost "peaches and creme" remake, "re-imagining"?, with Sylvester Stallone in 2000.


, certainly it was very fashionable at the time to not have a happy ending