Quite possibly so. Until now, I've never met two people discussing with zeal the merits and demerits of Rodge's first Bond film. Its just sort of 'okay', 'average', 'middle of the pack'. What is it about LALD that invariably makes it land in the middle of everybody's rankings? And like I've mentioned in the title of this this thread, I've noticed that it is the least talked about/discussed Bond film on the CBn fora (probably). But it seems it was a superhit when it released and one of the highest grossing Bond films of all time.
Personally, it ranks 7th in my Bond film rankings and I feel it is Rodge's best movie as Bond. He looks much younger than 45 and still has some prime in him. He looks lean, fit and believable as a secret agent. The opening shot of LALD of New York is my favourite opening shot of all. And I don't mind that Bond doesn't feature in the PTS, and Rodge gets the most unique and low-key introduction as James Bond. This is my favourite Guy Hamilton film; I liked his direction here more than Goldfinger. Tom Mank wrote his best screenplay for this one. LALD has an edgy and mysterious feel to it, which no other Rodge movie has. Rodge gave his second-best performance as Bond in this, after TMWTGG. And I like Rodge's first gunbarrel with the business suit (also repeated for TMWTGG with blue circles) more than his second (with the tuxedo). The villains and henchmen are fantastic. Jane Seymour is one of the most beautiful Bond girls.
On the downside of course is Kananga's cartoonish death and the prolonged chase scenes.
Live And Let Die - the least talked about Bond film?
Started by
Golden Claw
, Jul 03 2012 02:00 PM
27 replies to this topic
#2
thecasinoroyale
-
- Veterans
-
- 14358 posts
Commander
- Location:Basingstoke, UK
Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:31 PM
Well I had to really take in he was 45 as he looks far younger indeed! I love this Bond - it's my 2rd fave Moore film, and as you say it does seem very average, and I read somewhere that Bond started to turn into action/adventure films during the Moore era, and 'Live And Let Die' easily slips into the spy/thriller genre that Connery captured.
It takes it's time, has lots of espionage moments which I love (very James Bond, if you ask me - him actually looking and acting like a spy!). The action is brilliant, and the speedboat jump is still one of the best iconic stunt moments for 007. Sure, the villain is a little... meh, but still a great performance by Yaphet Kotto.
When you think what Roger's debut gave the Bond world - 'Live And Let Die' rock theme song, a really good Bond soundtrack, the speedboat jump, an iconic villain (Baron Samedi) and Tee-Hee's villanous iconic metal arm, it does pass by as a general thriller of the Bond films, as I say, early Connery era, and not loud, proud and in your face as the later ones became.
Very unique Bond film, and very current for it's time. I love it and think it's one of the best Bond films, and just nestles in quietly where everyone knows it's there, but it get's over-looked by bigger, brasher films.
It takes it's time, has lots of espionage moments which I love (very James Bond, if you ask me - him actually looking and acting like a spy!). The action is brilliant, and the speedboat jump is still one of the best iconic stunt moments for 007. Sure, the villain is a little... meh, but still a great performance by Yaphet Kotto.
When you think what Roger's debut gave the Bond world - 'Live And Let Die' rock theme song, a really good Bond soundtrack, the speedboat jump, an iconic villain (Baron Samedi) and Tee-Hee's villanous iconic metal arm, it does pass by as a general thriller of the Bond films, as I say, early Connery era, and not loud, proud and in your face as the later ones became.
Very unique Bond film, and very current for it's time. I love it and think it's one of the best Bond films, and just nestles in quietly where everyone knows it's there, but it get's over-looked by bigger, brasher films.
#3
Miles Miservy
-
- Crew
-
- 683 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:CT
Posted 03 July 2012 - 03:33 PM
LALD had a lot riding on it. It was the 1st time the OO7 machine was "re-tooled", so to speak. In hindsight, the producers experienced similar angst with the releases of TLD, GE & CR but Roger Moore's was the 1st. The speculation at the time was that the 60's were over and American audiences thought that the era of James Bond had passed.
I feel that the charm of LALD lies in the fact that, in the most simplistic of terms, James Bond is out of his depth. Consider the films shot in and around NYC; (Serpico, The 7-Ups, Soylent Green & Mean Streets just to name a few). These were all intense, gritty dramas that OO7 had to compete with.
The further setting of Louisiana for part of the fillm is a welcome contrast to that. Kananga is a very cool villain & Solitaire is an inspired sexy, yet virgial Bond Girl, although it might've been interesting if the writer was allowed to keep his original script in which Solitaire was black & Rosie Carver was white.
Regardless, LALD paved the way for James Bond to enter the 70's and allow Roger Moore to make the role his own for a decade & a half.
I feel that the charm of LALD lies in the fact that, in the most simplistic of terms, James Bond is out of his depth. Consider the films shot in and around NYC; (Serpico, The 7-Ups, Soylent Green & Mean Streets just to name a few). These were all intense, gritty dramas that OO7 had to compete with.
The further setting of Louisiana for part of the fillm is a welcome contrast to that. Kananga is a very cool villain & Solitaire is an inspired sexy, yet virgial Bond Girl, although it might've been interesting if the writer was allowed to keep his original script in which Solitaire was black & Rosie Carver was white.
Regardless, LALD paved the way for James Bond to enter the 70's and allow Roger Moore to make the role his own for a decade & a half.
#4
DR76
-
- Veterans
-
- 1673 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 03 July 2012 - 03:42 PM
I don't consider LALD to be one of Moore's best Bond films. I never could understand why MI-6 and the CIA were investigating drug trafficking in the Caribbean and the U.S. Although the movie's plot seemed to lack some kind of substance, I must admit that LALD had style. I love George Martin's score and the movie's theme song by McCartney and Wings is outstanding. I also never understood the prevailing idea that Moore didn't come into his own as Bond until TSWLM. I thought he managed to ease into his own style of Bond rather easily in this film. He really did a great job in portraying Bond as a seductive and manipulative bastard. I wasn't that impressed with Jane Seymour as Solitaire. I think the problem was that her role simply wasn't that interesting. On the other hand, I really enjoyed Yaphet Kotto as Kananga. And Julius Harris, who portrayed Tee Hee, is one of my favorite henchmen of all time.
I think that LALD would have ranked higher on my list of Bond movies, if it wasn't for the idea that MI-6 and the CIA was simply investigating a case of drug trafficking. I found that story theme rather lame for a spy movie.
I think that LALD would have ranked higher on my list of Bond movies, if it wasn't for the idea that MI-6 and the CIA was simply investigating a case of drug trafficking. I found that story theme rather lame for a spy movie.
#5
Double-0-Seven
-
- Veterans
-
- 2710 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:Ontario, Canada
Posted 03 July 2012 - 05:14 PM
It's probably my second or third favorite Moore outing. I've always liked it. It also has the distinction of being the first Moore film I ever got on VHS, even though The Man With The Golden Gun was my favorite as a kid. There's a lot of good about it. Moore's performance is solid, Solitaire is gorgeous, and the villains are cool. Unfortunately there's that ridiculous death for Kananga but otherwise the film works well. The chase sequences do drag a bit at times but that's a minor complaint since the movie just hits the two hour mark. I definitely agree about Roger's age. He looks younger here than Sean did in Diamonds, even though he's older. He aged very gracefully until Moonraker or so.
#6
Trevelyan 006
-
- Crew
-
- 820 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Antenna Cradle
Posted 03 July 2012 - 05:52 PM
Wow, I had no idea Roger was in his mid-40's in LALD! I might have guessed mid 30's...
As far as the film being overlooked by the masses, I'd have to agree.
I wish more of the film would have taken place in San Monique and Louisiana rather than New York City... However, the mystique of the film adds a very cool feeling to the whole film, and the soundtrack definitely helps. I also love the early scene of Bond's flat and Bond trying to hide the woman from M and Moneypenny.
As far as the film being overlooked by the masses, I'd have to agree.
I wish more of the film would have taken place in San Monique and Louisiana rather than New York City... However, the mystique of the film adds a very cool feeling to the whole film, and the soundtrack definitely helps. I also love the early scene of Bond's flat and Bond trying to hide the woman from M and Moneypenny.
#7
hoagy
-
- Crew
-
- 230 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
Posted 03 July 2012 - 06:05 PM
This was not the "first re-tooling" -- please recall OHMSS had the first "new Bond" and was a return to seriousness. Additionally it was known by the time of release that this new Bond would not be around for more. Talk about a movie that went under the radar. Plenty of people just waited it out and, sure enough, saw the return of "the real Bond" a couple years later.
It also was not the "first re-tooling" since the tongue-in-cheek, lighthearted style already had been developed fully in DAF. DAF, though, was a more fun movie, largely because it had the return of Sean Connery and more glamor.
Roger Moore was well-received, though, and with good reason. Moore was a good, natural fit. His funny run was disguised by avoiding it. The full-blown ridiculousness of MR was not foreseen. What hurt the film, as noted above, was the lack of glamor and the lame, TV cop show plot -- pursuing a drug traffic crime boss. That was in the book, yes, but the books have been improved upon when needed -- such as irradiating the gold in Fort Knox rather than taking it out, in GF. Everyone knew Connery would not be coming back again (ahem...well, as they say, one should never say "never again"), and that Moore would not walk from the role. So, it was highly anticipated and special in its own way. It was a shame it did not have the panache and glamor of TSWLM. The real letdown was TMWTGG -- when everyone was ready for the big step up from the pretty-good introduction of Moore to something big like TSWLM. Instead, we were treated to
a waste of the wonderful Christopher Lee
a henchman who was funny, but not a threat and without a second henchman who would really project menace
a one-on-one finale that was so very foretold by the PTS as to be a genuine groaner when it happened (not only for the non-originality but the implausibility of Bond changing into the wax figure's clothing so quickly, and the lack of reason -- just position yourself, then shoot him without risking being recognized and shot !)
an even lamer plot (Bond is to kill an assassin ? that's it ? not even an assassin who's on their way to do something momentous and awful ?)
an awful heroine, more a hindrance than anything else
the AMC promotion show -- a step down since they no longer had the Javelin AMX and we already were sick from the all-Chevy show in LALD
the very-bad-idea of having the Louisiana sheriff coincidentally show up in the Far East -- ok, intentionally for laughs not plausibility, but the forced attempt at humor was not funny -- Bond should throw out witty quips, rather than have the humor come from some character's buffoonery.
Looking back, there were elements of LALD -- not as pronounced in that film -- that were amplified later, to the detriment of the films and the series. I am not saying all the films in the series need be FRWL or CR in tone. Having a lighter film or stretch is fine, but without the awful moments, please (including, but not limited to, the buffoon sheriff in two films, the return of Jaws and his romance with a cartoon character [and turning into a nice guy who safely "it's OK everyone !" floated to earth] in MR, the too-young girl even Bond had to turn down in the otherwise return-to-earth [literally and figuratively] FYEO, the Beach Boys audio during an otherwise cool stunt, the Tarzan yell in an otherwise good-fun-got-it-right OP, the tendency to have Moore's Bond slap women). The films, unfortunately, became "yes, but..." for years. Unfortunately, the producers downplayed the better stuff and amplified the dumb stuff, and the films -- especially outside the UK and US -- were making a fortune, so it may have seemed they were right. Perhaps commercially, they were, but not artistically. I happen to think that with the mix in the right place, they still would have made a ton outside the UK and US.
It also was not the "first re-tooling" since the tongue-in-cheek, lighthearted style already had been developed fully in DAF. DAF, though, was a more fun movie, largely because it had the return of Sean Connery and more glamor.
Roger Moore was well-received, though, and with good reason. Moore was a good, natural fit. His funny run was disguised by avoiding it. The full-blown ridiculousness of MR was not foreseen. What hurt the film, as noted above, was the lack of glamor and the lame, TV cop show plot -- pursuing a drug traffic crime boss. That was in the book, yes, but the books have been improved upon when needed -- such as irradiating the gold in Fort Knox rather than taking it out, in GF. Everyone knew Connery would not be coming back again (ahem...well, as they say, one should never say "never again"), and that Moore would not walk from the role. So, it was highly anticipated and special in its own way. It was a shame it did not have the panache and glamor of TSWLM. The real letdown was TMWTGG -- when everyone was ready for the big step up from the pretty-good introduction of Moore to something big like TSWLM. Instead, we were treated to
a waste of the wonderful Christopher Lee
a henchman who was funny, but not a threat and without a second henchman who would really project menace
a one-on-one finale that was so very foretold by the PTS as to be a genuine groaner when it happened (not only for the non-originality but the implausibility of Bond changing into the wax figure's clothing so quickly, and the lack of reason -- just position yourself, then shoot him without risking being recognized and shot !)
an even lamer plot (Bond is to kill an assassin ? that's it ? not even an assassin who's on their way to do something momentous and awful ?)
an awful heroine, more a hindrance than anything else
the AMC promotion show -- a step down since they no longer had the Javelin AMX and we already were sick from the all-Chevy show in LALD
the very-bad-idea of having the Louisiana sheriff coincidentally show up in the Far East -- ok, intentionally for laughs not plausibility, but the forced attempt at humor was not funny -- Bond should throw out witty quips, rather than have the humor come from some character's buffoonery.
Looking back, there were elements of LALD -- not as pronounced in that film -- that were amplified later, to the detriment of the films and the series. I am not saying all the films in the series need be FRWL or CR in tone. Having a lighter film or stretch is fine, but without the awful moments, please (including, but not limited to, the buffoon sheriff in two films, the return of Jaws and his romance with a cartoon character [and turning into a nice guy who safely "it's OK everyone !" floated to earth] in MR, the too-young girl even Bond had to turn down in the otherwise return-to-earth [literally and figuratively] FYEO, the Beach Boys audio during an otherwise cool stunt, the Tarzan yell in an otherwise good-fun-got-it-right OP, the tendency to have Moore's Bond slap women). The films, unfortunately, became "yes, but..." for years. Unfortunately, the producers downplayed the better stuff and amplified the dumb stuff, and the films -- especially outside the UK and US -- were making a fortune, so it may have seemed they were right. Perhaps commercially, they were, but not artistically. I happen to think that with the mix in the right place, they still would have made a ton outside the UK and US.
#8
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 03 July 2012 - 07:07 PM
Come to think of it - it's true. LALD seems to be often overlooked and also doesn't seem to inspire the same amount of discussion most other Bond films do.
When I saw it first at the cinema I immensely enjoyed it. It featured the Bond I was introduced to a couple of years before with TSWLM, and it had a strange mixture that made it all the more alluring in my eyes. Bond is at his usual self-confident best, but the ludicrous circumstances of other films here are cleverly helped across the street by the supernatural element. Everything in LALD is determined by destiny and fate, by the powers of occult tarot and magic. Even Bond's trick to seduce Solitaire is 'in the cards'. That was something incredibly cool in my eyes then. And it still manages to let me enjoy the film perhaps more than I would otherwise, without the use of this - unusual for Bonds - element.
Well, smuggling was in the book, but not of drugs. That aside I largely agree.
When I saw it first at the cinema I immensely enjoyed it. It featured the Bond I was introduced to a couple of years before with TSWLM, and it had a strange mixture that made it all the more alluring in my eyes. Bond is at his usual self-confident best, but the ludicrous circumstances of other films here are cleverly helped across the street by the supernatural element. Everything in LALD is determined by destiny and fate, by the powers of occult tarot and magic. Even Bond's trick to seduce Solitaire is 'in the cards'. That was something incredibly cool in my eyes then. And it still manages to let me enjoy the film perhaps more than I would otherwise, without the use of this - unusual for Bonds - element.
What hurt the film, as noted above, was the lack of glamor and the lame, TV cop show plot -- pursuing a drug traffic crime boss. That was in the book, yes, but the books have been improved upon when needed
Well, smuggling was in the book, but not of drugs. That aside I largely agree.
#9
Double-0-Seven
-
- Veterans
-
- 2710 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:Ontario, Canada
Posted 03 July 2012 - 08:03 PM
It really is quite impressive how well he aged. He turned 45 the year Live and Let Die came out. Even though he would have been 49 going on 50 in The Spy Who Loved Me, he still looked quite youthful. I think he really only started looking his age between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. I might be in the minority but even in Octopussy I think he still looked good. I think the main problem with his age come A View to a Kill was not his age itself but the fact that they had a 57/58 year old Roger pretending to be a 40-something year old Bond rather than use his age as part of the plot a la Never Say Never Again with Sean.Wow, I had no idea Roger was in his mid-40's in LALD! I might have guessed mid 30's...
As a little side note of Bond ages, Pierce wasn't far behind Roger in terms of age when he started. He would have been 42 in 1995 when GoldenEye was released, and he too aged gracefully.
#10
Jim
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 14266 posts
Commander RNVR
- Location:Oxfordshire
Posted 04 July 2012 - 04:12 AM
I don't consider LALD to be one of Moore's best Bond films. I never could understand why MI-6 and the CIA were investigating drug trafficking in the Caribbean and the U.S.
The British have had three of their agents killed; they're not actually investigating the drug thing, that's just incidental and something Bond happens across in that way he does. Not that hard to understand, really.
Although the movie's plot seemed to lack some kind of substance
Thought it ended up being about substances.
#11
Simon
-
- Veterans
-
- 5884 posts
Commander
- Location:England
Posted 04 July 2012 - 07:02 AM
In much the same was as Connry's first film, Dr No. A simple murder/missing investigation.
I don't consider LALD to be one of Moore's best Bond films. I never could understand why MI-6 and the CIA were investigating drug trafficking in the Caribbean and the U.S.
The British have had three of their agents killed; they're not actually investigating the drug thing, that's just incidental and something Bond happens across in that way he does. Not that hard to understand, really.
#12
AgenttiNollaNollaSeitsemän
-
- Crew
-
- 493 posts
Sub-Lieutenant
- Location:Oulu, Finland
Posted 05 July 2012 - 05:44 AM
I've always enjoyed LALD. In tone it resembles DAF but in my opinion works better - Connerys performance in DAF has always bothered me (and I am not talking about his gut or that pink tie) because of the shadow of FRWL but Moore taking over the lead role we have a fresh face, a fresh start.
And yes, I am one of those who actually like Kanangas way of demise!
And yes, I am one of those who actually like Kanangas way of demise!
#13
DominicGreene
-
- Crew
-
- 791 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:Ontario, Canada
Posted 06 July 2012 - 02:08 PM
Live and Let Die is Roger Moore's second best Bond film (first being TSWLM, even though I don't really like it). I guess it's just always in the middle, therefore no one can complain that it's ![[censored]](https://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/61659-live-and-let-die-the-least-talked-about-bond-film/style_emoticons/default/censored.gif)
nor praise that it's really good.
nor praise that it's really good.
#14
elizabeth
-
- Veterans
-
- 2285 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!
Posted 06 July 2012 - 07:48 PM
I love LALD and it's often the film I go the longest without seeing, and that I regret.
#15
Miles Miservy
-
- Crew
-
- 683 posts
Lieutenant
- Location:CT
Posted 06 July 2012 - 08:28 PM
"This was not the "first re-tooling" -- please recall OHMSS had the first "new Bond" and was a return to seriousness. Additionally it was known by the time of release that this new Bond would not be around for more. Talk about a movie that went under the radar. Plenty of people just waited it out and, sure enough, saw the return of "the real Bond" a couple years later."
I didn't consider OHMSS a re-tool. It was a Sean Connery movie that George Lazenby happened to star in. Nothing was changed, script-wise, as it had been done for Roger. In hindsight, I'd always felt that had Connery stuck it out with OHMSS, making DAF Lazenby's 1st, DIAMONDS might've been a better film. (DAF is my least favorite of the Connery movies). The possibilities are endless. Can you imagine if TSWLM would've been Roger Moore's 1st OO7 role?
I didn't consider OHMSS a re-tool. It was a Sean Connery movie that George Lazenby happened to star in. Nothing was changed, script-wise, as it had been done for Roger. In hindsight, I'd always felt that had Connery stuck it out with OHMSS, making DAF Lazenby's 1st, DIAMONDS might've been a better film. (DAF is my least favorite of the Connery movies). The possibilities are endless. Can you imagine if TSWLM would've been Roger Moore's 1st OO7 role?
#16
Napoleon Solo
-
- Veterans
-
- 1376 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:14 AM
Live And Let Die was the first Bond movie that had higher worldwide ticket sales (on an unadjusted basis) than Thunderball. First-generation Bond fans cry foul because if you adjust for inflation, TB still exceeded LALD. On the other hand, if you stuff a bunch of money in a mattress it doesn't magically keep up with inflation (nor does revenue from previous releases magically keep up with inflation for studios). (In the U.S., LALD still trailed TB's ticket sales). In any event, LALD is one of the most important films of the Eon/007 series even if it's not the most popular, circa 2012.
#17
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 07 July 2012 - 03:56 PM
In any event, LALD is one of the most important films of the Eon/007 series even if it's not the most popular, circa 2012.
Indeed, it seems LALD was another crucial point that only loses some of its scare-potential in hindsight and with the knowledge of the following success. At the time Broccoli and Saltzman still took a risk with LALD. OHMSS had shown the audience wasn't willing to take everything when it came to Bond. A new lead and an unconventional tragic ending was too much for them, especially with Lazenby's suicidal move to dump the role. But EON covered their bases with LALD to some extent. The tone wasn't too different from DAF's, the new actor was a favourite with audiences, a familiar face that - most important after painful experience - didn't have an amateur's attitude and a lunatic as agent. The film kept close to the pulse of the times, used many interesting faces and places and generally shows its budget whenever possible. As the series entries up until then go LALD isn't at all the worst IMO.
#18
Napoleon Solo
-
- Veterans
-
- 1376 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 07 July 2012 - 04:16 PM
A list came out this week, adjusting Eon-007 movie ticket sales for inflation. According to that list, Live And Let Die is the highest non-Sean Connery movie adjusted for inflation:
http://news.yahoo.co...ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3
Thunderball: $1.04 billion
Goldfinger: $936 million
Live And Let Die: $847 million
You Only Live Twice: $778 million
The Spy Who Loved Me: $711 million
Casino Royale $687.5 million
Moonraker: $673 million
On Her Majesty's Secret Service $665.8 million
http://news.yahoo.co...ZXN0Aw--;_ylv=3
Thunderball: $1.04 billion
Goldfinger: $936 million
Live And Let Die: $847 million
You Only Live Twice: $778 million
The Spy Who Loved Me: $711 million
Casino Royale $687.5 million
Moonraker: $673 million
On Her Majesty's Secret Service $665.8 million
#19
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 07 July 2012 - 06:31 PM
Interesting findings there. But when looking at the films past ca. 2001 we must also regard the vastly different market. Internet piracy and home entertainment have become a huge factor taking away from ticket sales and profits. You can watch most big budget productions in decent to top quality at home today. That's something that just wasn't possible back in the day.
#20
Napoleon Solo
-
- Veterans
-
- 1376 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:43 PM
Interesting findings there. But when looking at the films past ca. 2001 we must also regard the vastly different market. Internet piracy and home entertainment have become a huge factor taking away from ticket sales and profits. You can watch most big budget productions in decent to top quality at home today. That's something that just wasn't possible back in the day.
And on the other hand, ticket sales for Thunderball, Goldfinger et. al. were fattened up by repeated theatrical re-leases as double features because home video didn't exist. So, yes, comparing financial performances over different eras is a bit dicey. Finally, adjusting for inflation is an interesting intellectual exercise but life doesn't work that way. To repeat my earlier line, you can't stuff money into a mattress and expect it to adjust for inflation. Still, it's not surprising that Thunderball and Goldfinger would be at the top of the inflation-adjusted list. That was the peak of Bond interest. Bond's achievement is its longevity.
#21
Dustin
-
- Commanding Officers
-
- 5786 posts
Commander
Posted 08 July 2012 - 03:48 PM
Interesting findings there. But when looking at the films past ca. 2001 we must also regard the vastly different market. Internet piracy and home entertainment have become a huge factor taking away from ticket sales and profits. You can watch most big budget productions in decent to top quality at home today. That's something that just wasn't possible back in the day.
And on the other hand, ticket sales for Thunderball, Goldfinger et. al. were fattened up by repeated theatrical re-leases as double features because home video didn't exist. So, yes, comparing financial performances over different eras is a bit dicey. Finally, adjusting for inflation is an interesting intellectual exercise but life doesn't work that way. To repeat my earlier line, you can't stuff money into a mattress and expect it to adjust for inflation. Still, it's not surprising that Thunderball and Goldfinger would be at the top of the inflation-adjusted list. That was the peak of Bond interest. Bond's achievement is its longevity.
Exactly. I remember reading Wilson's comments in the early 1980s. According to him the total number of cinema audiences in the United States had established itself roughly at one billion people per year in 1980. Coming from roughly two billion in the 1950s. Ticket prices only increased by 62.8 per cent while cost of living increased by 410 per cent during the same time frame. Wilson lamented that VCR tapes didn't make up for the absolute loss in turnovers and many of the tapes used to be pirated, not earning producers and studio anything.
Given that situation in 1982 it's astounding how well EON managed to get their foot into home entertainment and new media, despite numerous tricky situations, two major interruptions due to circumstances out of their control and a revolutionary change of technology during the last few years. One might indeed argue longevity seems to be Bond's main asset, the ability to ride out every trend and disaster fate throws at the figure and still remain alive and kicking.
#22
Colossus
-
- Veterans
-
- 1490 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:SPECTRE Island
Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:24 PM
I think he really only started looking his age between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only.
Wow, I had no idea Roger was in his mid-40's in LALD! I might have guessed mid 30's...
I'd scratch off Moonraker from that, he still was in the lithe believable agent phase then, it was with Eyes Only that he really started to assume the aged playboy persona.
And I don't mind that Bond doesn't feature in the PTS, and Rodge gets the most unique and low-key introduction as James Bond.
The fact he came after the first tumultuous period of Bond's era could play some part in that... because imagine, going through each movie and there's a different Bond actor in each one for 4 films straight! Connery, Lazenby, Connery, Moore. By this time they are figuring there's no point in introducing him with horns blaring and bada badaa with some mugging one liner to the audience since it would be ridiculous, they were smart not to incite that "Oh great some OTHER actor as Bond oh just go away."
#23
00Twelve
-
- Veterans
-
- 7706 posts
Commander
- Location:Kingsport, TN
Posted 12 July 2012 - 03:15 AM
LALD is probably my favorite Moore Bond, but vies heartily with MR for that particular distinction. I love most action movies from LALD's era, and it is no exception. Moore really brought the polite Englishman image to the table in a way that was perfect in contrast with the deadly game in which he was caught up. I highly doubt it's the least talked about Bond film, though with as large a community as we have here, it's difficult to make that call. None of the Bonds ever really get ignored.
LALD brings some fantastic stuff to the table: Uncle Rog, Jane Seymour, George Martin's score, Jane Seymour, the boat chase, Jane Seymour, the alligator farm, Jane Seymour, I could go on and on. Jane Seymour.
I'll admit that a fair portion of my love for the film owes to the novel being my favorite within the canon. I would still love to see every last bit of that book pillaged for adaptation. The pirate treasure laundering plot, the package in the hotel room, the train ride, the swim in Montego Bay, the villain's death by shark (Seriously, how has that never been done??)...all of it I'd love to see done properly.
LALD has a charm that is somehow different from a lot of other Bonds, and whether it's the most or least discussed, it always finds heavy rotation in my household.
LALD brings some fantastic stuff to the table: Uncle Rog, Jane Seymour, George Martin's score, Jane Seymour, the boat chase, Jane Seymour, the alligator farm, Jane Seymour, I could go on and on. Jane Seymour.
I'll admit that a fair portion of my love for the film owes to the novel being my favorite within the canon. I would still love to see every last bit of that book pillaged for adaptation. The pirate treasure laundering plot, the package in the hotel room, the train ride, the swim in Montego Bay, the villain's death by shark (Seriously, how has that never been done??)...all of it I'd love to see done properly.
LALD has a charm that is somehow different from a lot of other Bonds, and whether it's the most or least discussed, it always finds heavy rotation in my household.
#24
DR76
-
- Veterans
-
- 1673 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 13 July 2012 - 02:05 AM
I have a question. At the end of LALD, Bond and Solitaire boarded the train for a 16 hours journey to New York. Exactly where did they board this train?
#25
David_M
-
- Veterans
-
- 1064 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:Richmond VA
Posted 13 July 2012 - 12:00 PM
I have a question. At the end of LALD, Bond and Solitaire boarded the train for a 16 hours journey to New York. Exactly where did they board this train?
Pinewood. :-)
#26
scaramunga
-
- Veterans
-
- 1083 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:United States
Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:26 AM
I love Live and Let Die. Can't go wrong with the Roger Moore Bond films, IMO.
Very biased. : )
Very biased. : )
#27
Colossus
-
- Veterans
-
- 1490 posts
Lt. Commander
- Location:SPECTRE Island
Posted 15 July 2012 - 02:43 AM
Moore is my favorite but i don't have as much love for this as others. However his other 70s were solid.
#28
O'Cookmate
-
- Crew
- 17 posts
Cadet
Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:05 PM
Live and Let Die feels pretty average because it has a very unremarkable plot, I feel. I agree with others who question why MI6 would be investigating drug trafficking... hardly as exciting as some of the plots that came before (or indeed afterwards). It just feels too police procedural in some regards. However, I feel it goes from fairly unremarkable to really quite terrible from the boat chase onwards - the chase is too long, JW Pepper is irritating (to put it mildly) and the finale is the lair is pretty ridiculous. Having said that, though, Roger Moore gets off to a flawless start and the film has great moments and attempts some interesting stuff - I like the idea of Bond being out of his depth and I like his relationship with Solitaire.
People often deride The Man with the Golden Gun for being the worst of the franchise (and in some ways I agree with this assessment) but it does have a more ambitious screenplay and is slightly more memorable than Live and Let Die which probably is my least favourite of the Moore films.
I agree with you about Octopussy - I think he looked pretty good in that film. Although I actually think, in some ways, he seemed older in For Your Eyes Only... probably because of the Bond girls. The problem with FYEO, perhaps, was in giving him younger actresses to work with - the stuff with Bibi is funny but not really what Bond is about. The great thing about Octopussy was that he was paired with age appropriate (and great) Bond girls. A View to a Kill is definitely where he starts to look too old, but I do think they could have gotten away with it as in Octopussy if they accounted for his age... it feels like they were desperately trying to make him seem young in View and it just didn't work.
People often deride The Man with the Golden Gun for being the worst of the franchise (and in some ways I agree with this assessment) but it does have a more ambitious screenplay and is slightly more memorable than Live and Let Die which probably is my least favourite of the Moore films.
It really is quite impressive how well he aged. He turned 45 the year Live and Let Die came out. Even though he would have been 49 going on 50 in The Spy Who Loved Me, he still looked quite youthful. I think he really only started looking his age between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. I might be in the minority but even in Octopussy I think he still looked good. I think the main problem with his age come A View to a Kill was not his age itself but the fact that they had a 57/58 year old Roger pretending to be a 40-something year old Bond rather than use his age as part of the plot a la Never Say Never Again with Sean.
Wow, I had no idea Roger was in his mid-40's in LALD! I might have guessed mid 30's...
As a little side note of Bond ages, Pierce wasn't far behind Roger in terms of age when he started. He would have been 42 in 1995 when GoldenEye was released, and he too aged gracefully.
It really is quite impressive how well he aged. He turned 45 the year Live and Let Die came out. Even though he would have been 49 going on 50 in The Spy Who Loved Me, he still looked quite youthful. I think he really only started looking his age between Moonraker and For Your Eyes Only. I might be in the minority but even in Octopussy I think he still looked good. I think the main problem with his age come A View to a Kill was not his age itself but the fact that they had a 57/58 year old Roger pretending to be a 40-something year old Bond rather than use his age as part of the plot a la Never Say Never Again with Sean.
Wow, I had no idea Roger was in his mid-40's in LALD! I might have guessed mid 30's...
As a little side note of Bond ages, Pierce wasn't far behind Roger in terms of age when he started. He would have been 42 in 1995 when GoldenEye was released, and he too aged gracefully.
I agree with you about Octopussy - I think he looked pretty good in that film. Although I actually think, in some ways, he seemed older in For Your Eyes Only... probably because of the Bond girls. The problem with FYEO, perhaps, was in giving him younger actresses to work with - the stuff with Bibi is funny but not really what Bond is about. The great thing about Octopussy was that he was paired with age appropriate (and great) Bond girls. A View to a Kill is definitely where he starts to look too old, but I do think they could have gotten away with it as in Octopussy if they accounted for his age... it feels like they were desperately trying to make him seem young in View and it just didn't work.