Moore's Comic Relief

ZorinIndustries

Roger Moore had his moments as Bond where his 007 would provide comic relief. For example, the clown suit in OP, his interactions with Sheriff JW Pepper, etc. To be quite honest, I feel that the comic relief has the potential to ruin scenes. It takes away Bond's dark intimidation from the film. At times it is very enjoyable, but at times it's just plain silly. What are your thoughts?

Hardyboy

I read people's complaints about the clown suit all the time, and, frankly, I've never found it to be "comic relief"--he wears it as a disguise so he can get close to the bomb. There's actually a lot of tension in the scene, and, in my not-so-humble opinion, it works. Anyway, I think the comedy Moore provided in his films was in the form of witty replies to dialogue, dirty double-entendres, and his expressions when the action is exploding around him. Basically, all these things were pioneered while Connery played Bond, but the producers and directors decided to play them up to the expense of action and suspense. So, in essence, they are good elements that were just taken too far.

ZorinIndustries

Hardyboy wrote:

Basically, all these things were pioneered while Connery played Bond, but the producers and directors decided to play them up to the expense of action and suspense. So, in essence, they are good elements that were just taken too far.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but something that bugged me a little this time around was the fight scene with Nick Nack. It seems as if it was made to be a big joke to the audience haha. I understand it is rather odd to see Bond fighting a midget like that, but i felt there should have been a bit more suspense. I used to love Roger Moore as 007 and his films because they had the most humor, but it's just standing out to me now that there's humor in one too many places.

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, but action films are more high-octane if that's the word, it takes it all more seriously so that was just a fashion thing. TMWTGG really isn't a good example the whole movie is just too silly. But yeah, different days back then although I suppose there's a lot of goofy, silly or crowdpleasing humour in Transformers.

pyrat

I actually think going the comic route hurt the franchise overall and attendance seems to support this.



Unfortunately Casino Royal is only an estimate on this chart. It was one of the highest grossing films, but movies are much more expensive to attend now so this may or may not reflect increased attendance.

zaphod

pyrat wrote:

I actually think going the comic route hurt the franchise overall and attendance seems to support this.



Unfortunately Casino Royal is only an estimate on this chart. It was one of the highest grossing films, but movies are much more expensive to attend now so this may or may not reflect increased attendance.

Some very interesting stuff in the numbers.The major surprise was the drop from Thunderball at the apex of Bond mania, and that both OHMSS & TLD were more successful than often seems the case. Also if the estimate holds up the much derided DAD is pretty much in the same ball-park as the much feted CR.

Higgins

Lesson 1 : How to lie with statistics:

1. I doubt, that the numbers are really accurate (they disregard inflation to name one of them)
2. If the figures are really accurate, it's brave to find a single reason for the bad figures. One example: TLD and LTK, if your claim was correct, the numbers for these are even worse than OP because they have been more clownish 8-)

There may be several other reasons for visitor numbers, e.g. the upcoming success of cable TV and VCRs.

Thunderbird 2

Bondtoys wrote:

Lesson 1 : How to lie with statistics:

1. I doubt, that the numbers are really accurate (they disregard inflation to name one of them)
2. If the figures are really accurate, it's brave to find a single reason for the bad figures. One example: TLD and LTK, if your claim was correct, the numbers for these are even worse than OP because they have been more clownish 8-)

There may be several other reasons for visitor numbers, e.g. the upcoming success of cable TV and VCRs.

God points. - Also post Thunderball, the competition was starting. Today we have all sorts of action hero films and other spy films to try to tempt the general audience - the Transporter movies, The Bourne Films, etc etc. Plus general economy and the mood of the audience has a part to play too. Its no surprise (to me at least) that AVTAK and LTK are the weakest entries. - I assume these figs also are after production values and publicity expenditure have been deleted.


Back on topic, - The Clown suit didn't bother me in Octopussy either cause I also saw Bond using it as camouflage for the environment he was going into. The "Si-it" business and Tarzan howl were awful though, (I don't mind a crass joke if its actually funny. These weren't.) The use of California Girls in AVTAK's teaser destroyed the scene, as did the whistle effect for the car roll in TMWTGG. Fantastic stunt scenes ruined by stupid soundtrack choices. - By contrast, Sheriff Pepper almost works in LALD, - the film has some pretty heavy matter going on with Dr Kananga and his Voodoo goons. Pepper goes against that somewhat. However, bringing him back in TMWTGG was a mistake.

Lets all be grateful in TSWLM, we were spared "Ballseye, Fishfinger!"

Its ironic, because one of the sad things about QoS (besides the bad editting) was it had NO humour.

ZorinIndustries

Thunderbird 2 wrote:

Bondtoys wrote:

Lesson 1 : How to lie with statistics:

1. I doubt, that the numbers are really accurate (they disregard inflation to name one of them)
2. If the figures are really accurate, it's brave to find a single reason for the bad figures. One example: TLD and LTK, if your claim was correct, the numbers for these are even worse than OP because they have been more clownish 8-)

There may be several other reasons for visitor numbers, e.g. the upcoming success of cable TV and VCRs.

The "Si-it" business and Tarzan howl were awful though, (I don't mind a crass joke if its actually funny. These weren't.)

I agree here. A bit over the top and it was used in a suspenseful chase through the wilderness. I love Roger Moore and what he brought to the films, his comedy and easiness was entertaining, it's just moments like these where they came in at the wrong time and that may be the fault of the screenwriters instead.

pyrat

Bondtoys wrote:

Lesson 1 : How to lie with statistics:

1. I doubt, that the numbers are really accurate (they disregard inflation to name one of them)
2. If the figures are really accurate, it's brave to find a single reason for the bad figures. One example: TLD and LTK, if your claim was correct, the numbers for these are even worse than OP because they have been more clownish 8-)

There may be several other reasons for visitor numbers, e.g. the upcoming success of cable TV and VCRs.

1. The cart if of attendance not revenue generated so inflation is not a factor.

2. You are correct data variation can not be attributable to a single factor, but attendance does parallel the move to a more comic presentation fairly accurately. The general consensus as to the attendance at the Dalton films is that he was just not that popular as Bond. Regarding Casino Royale, note that the attendance is an estimate. I could not find attendance data beyond 2006 when this data was published.

Regarding the impact of cable TV movies. HBO, the first such channel, did not start broadcasting until September 1981. For Your Eyes Only was released in June of that year. Although there is a more pronounced drop in attendance after this the trend is already established. And the resurgence of the Brosnan films seems to indicate the impact of cable TV is less pronounced than many propose. One theory is that Moore was getting so old he was less believable as Bond although I, personally, don't think this is really a huge factor until View to a Kill.

As to the clown thing, it made me whence,as did Q in a hot air balloon. My favorite part of Octopussy was the performance by Vijay Amritraj.

I'd agree regarding TB2's evaluation of QoS regarding the use of humor. There is a fine line between humor and being comic. Craig is just a bit to brutish at times. This is pushed home for me in his response to M when she asks "...but I don't think that's your problem, is it, Bond?"

Higgins

pyrat wrote:

1. The cart if of attendance not revenue generated so inflation is not a factor.

Well, if you are using a chart, you should make sure, that you are reading it right.
The figures seem to be taken from here:
http://forum.moviegod.de/insidekino-com/9391-james-bond-daten-von-mgm-sony.html
and they are measured in US$ (unabridged for inflation).

pyrat wrote:

2. Regarding the impact of cable TV movies. HBO, the first such channel, did not start broadcasting until September 1981.

Cable tv does not equal HBO! Cable TV was availble in the US much earlier and had a huge impact on cinema visitors and so did the VCRs! The Brosnan Bonds came parrallel to a revival of cinemas in the 90s.

I agree on some too comedic elements in OP and AVTAK (most of them have been mentioned previously) and am not a big fan of the "Clown Disguise" but we should be correctly working with statistics

pyrat

Bondtoys wrote:

pyrat wrote:

1. The cart if of attendance not revenue generated so inflation is not a factor.

Well, if you are using a chart, you should make sure, that you are reading it right.
The figures seem to be taken from here:
http://forum.moviegod.de/insidekino-com/9391-james-bond-daten-von-mgm-sony.html
and they are measured in US$ (unabridged for inflation).

It is probable that the data quoted in the chart and the textual form you referenced are based on the same original source. As to reading the data correctly, please reference the exert from your source below...

1. Dr. No 1962

total cost = $1.75 million
total gross = $59.6 million (1963)
rentals = $22 million
admissions = 72.1 million

Note that all quoted figures are all dollar amounts ($) with the exception of the admissions data. I like to try and steer why form using monetary amounts as an indicator of the audience impact of a film since, as you have pointed out, the number of variables affecting monetary comparisons over time make direct comparison difficult.

Bondtoys wrote:

Cable tv does not equal HBO! Cable TV was available in the US much earlier and had a huge impact on cinema visitors and so did the VCRs! The Brosnan Bonds came parallel to a revival of cinemas in the 90s.

Apologies, I should have been more specific. A little background; cable TV first became available in the US in 1948, but on a very limited basis and it was initially used to bring network (CBS/ABC/NBC/etc) broadcasts into remote areas where signal strength was an issue. The first cable network was Home Box Office (HBO). This service was established in 1972 by Time, Inc. as a movie/special service for Time's local cable system in New York City. It was 1981 when HBO began broadcasting 24/7. They were, at the time, the premier, not the only, cable movie channel.

Cable became available to relatively all in the early 80s and we first subscribed when it was available to us in 1983 (HBO). Movies on Network TV channels like CBS were very regulated and even things like the early Bond films were considered to racy for broadcast. However on cable systems like HBO this was not the case. Around this time we also see the beginnings of the video renatl market (VHS/Beta). I agree with you regarding the impact of VHS/Beta players especially since these platforms were not dependent on cable penetration into a given area and did not require a monthly fee although they did require investment in some fairly dodgy video tape players. If you relate this to the data you could conclude, rightly I think, that the fall off of attendance following Moonraker could be attributed to some extent to these technologies. They would have much less of an impact on the more dramatic decrease in attendance following Thunderball.

As to correctly working with statistics, Statistical analysis is to a large degree dependent on what an observer wants to see as significant. It's the old loaf of bread being responsible for ships getting built. 90% or those who build ships eat bread, therefore... In the case of the Bond films, there was a change of direction in the way Bond was presented following Thunderball. There were changes of actor, Connery had aged, etc. and these factors could explain declines on an individual film basis, but fails to explain the overall trend. As Moore became more accepted as bond attendance rises, but not to the highs of the later, darker, Connery films. Things get better under Brosnan, IMHO because he played it a bit darker and benefited for a resurgence in the film industry. Further supporting the darker is better theory is the response to Casino Royale. What is kind of an anomaly are the Dalton films. He kind of holds his own with the attendance levels of the time but never really seemed to catch on as Bond. From an experimental standpoint, I'd like to see Brosnan do the Craig roll in Casino Royale. I'd be very interested in seeing the attendance results for that match up.

Napoleon Plural

I enjoyed reading those stats. It seems that since Babs and Mikey took over, the franchise has performed well and consistently.

pyrat

True Napoleon Plural, they are doing an excellent job. I was a bit worried when the financial issues seemed to threaten the franchise, but now that things are back on track I'm really looking forward to Bond23.

Some things come and go, but James Bond is forever.

Thunderpussy

seeing the graph, I looked up the top ten Movies for each year of a Bond release, just out of curiosity.
The top Bonds seem to of been.

Thunderball & DAF, Both at #3rd place, for their year of release.
Dr No, FRWL & Goldfinger at #5th
OHMSS,Octopussy & Goldeneye at #6th
LALD, at #7th

Once again I find it interesting that OHMSS did much better than, the Public believe. I still have mates telling me it was the Only one to be a flop. )

pyrat

TP, of the guys I know who are the really serious Bond collectors, most rate OHMSS very highly. It's in my top ten list, very nearly my top five list. George Lazenby is my third favorite Bond which considering he only made the one film is outstanding.

Of course, it had Mrs. Peel, so what more could you want???



it's funny DAF surpasses Dr. No, FRWL and Goldfinger since they are usually at the top of most peoples lists. But then it's a movie attendance thing, not really a favorites thing so probably not directly comparable.

Thunderpussy

Hi pyrat, I'm not trying to make any point about the Movies,Just on seeing your graph showing the attendance over the years I thought it would be a bit of fun to see how far up the top ten movies of the year some Bond films got.

OHMSS has been my favourite for many years now, I suppose all the hype about Connery returning as Bond helped DAF.

pyrat

Understood TP. I just found it interesting that OMHSS was so highly rated. I think it's a very underrated film and it's one of my favorites too.

I'd agree with your assessment of DAF. Connery got a great deal from the studio to make the comeback but his heart wasn't really in it.

down2000

Hardyboy & others I think make a great point about the clown suit in Octopussy. I remember back in 1982, when some stills were released for the film and people had a problem back then (esp, those who thought Bond was going to stay serious after FYEO). However, looking at the clown suit in context it was not only necessary but a pretty smart, on the fly idea (although, how he got all the makeuo on perfectly in that little amount of time...well.....)

Overall, I don't think the Moore years hurt the franchise (I am not sure if that was the point of the graph), sure some had silly moments but right movies at the right time.