LALD: what were they thinking?

cdsdss

Rewatching this for the first time in a long time and I'm struck by the number of unusual (some might say bad) choices made in the film. To wit:

1) you're introducing a new Bond for the second time (the first didn't go so hot), and you not only leave him out of the PTS, but he doesn't get an active action scene for about an hour into the film.

2) your plot has Bond as a fish-out-of-water...except we haven't yet seen this fish in water (you know what I mean).

3) again, introducing your new Bond and he's outsmarted every step of the way for the first two acts and most of the bad guys show open contempt for him after a he makes a series of bad decisions. Is this a good way to sell the new guy?

I understand why they might try to make a blacksploitation Bond (still doesn't mean they should have, tho), given the moment in cinema history, but as for many of the other creative choices, I'm kinda befuddled.

Your thoughts?

Napoleon Plural

1) The decision to leave him out of the pts was deliberate; the director felt that to introduce Moore straight off by showing him in a tux would just be rejected by audiences, better to bed in the plot then ease him in. Similar in a way to Connery; they establish the world of Bond before introducing him.

Lazenby wasn't terrible in the pts, but his jaunty introduction makes me cringe.

There is a bit of action, the assassinated chauffer from the airport. Anyway, I think the whole plot and premise is intriguing enough.

2) Er, no I don't know what you mean.

3) Moore's Bond was self-deprecating, to get audiences to be more accepting; cf Lazenby's rather cocky demeanour for much of his film. They did a similar thing with Brosnan, having him rundown by M and just about everyone actually, plus having black villains, it wouldn't do to have him be too smart, it would just make the film seem racist, rightly or wrongly.

DieAnotherDay

I understand what you're saying and I think they made some odd choices but I don't think any of them negatively affect the film. I love Moore in this flick

CmdrAtticus

I think one of THE largest mistakes they made was getting Moore to be flippant and smug the way they had written for Connery and keeping the buffoonery level of humor from DAF. I enjoyed Moore as the Saint and had they written his more serious turn as that character as Bond and kept the comedy more at the level of GF than DAF it would have made a more superior entry. It's these attributes among many that put this film in the bottom half of favorites list.

Thunderpussy

It has one if the weaker openings but is still a great movie, -{

Blackleiter

cdsdss wrote:

Rewatching this for the first time in a long time and I'm struck by the number of unusual (some might say bad) choices made in the film. To wit:

1) you're introducing a new Bond for the second time (the first didn't go so hot), and you not only leave him out of the PTS, but he doesn't get an active action scene for about an hour into the film.

2) your plot has Bond as a fish-out-of-water...except we haven't yet seen this fish in water (you know what I mean).

3) again, introducing your new Bond and he's outsmarted every step of the way for the first two acts and most of the bad guys show open contempt for him after a he makes a series of bad decisions. Is this a good way to sell the new guy?

I understand why they might try to make a blacksploitation Bond (still doesn't mean they should have, tho), given the moment in cinema history, but as for many of the other creative choices, I'm kinda befuddled.

Your thoughts?

I think you're absolutely right about those choices. They were all very poor decisions and they most definitely had a negative impact on the movie overall. I felt so let down when I didn't see Bond at all in the PTS, and then when the "new" Bond finally was introduced there was no cleverness, no surprises, no nothing. It all felt very limp and unlike Bond, and for me the Roger Moore era never recovered from that tepid start.

always shaken

I seem to remember that this was discussed a while ago, but hey ho, all good points, but we do have to remember,
that this fim was made in 1973 ,that was 41 years ago, what product made 41 years ago has stood the test of time,
you cant compare a 41 year old film /technics/casting/stunts/ script writing ,with todays films but as ive said before ,
we are all allowed our input into AJB,or it will be very boring
ps for the record I love LALD

Thunderpussy

For Me the crocodile stunt is still breathtaking, -{ even 40 years later.

DieAnotherDay

Thunderpussy wrote:

For Me the crocodile stunt is still breathtaking, -{ even 40 years later.

+1. The highlight of the film :007)

jamesm123

LALD is always a fave amongst my non mega Bond fan friends. As a stand alone film i can see why. I love the slow introduction of Bond in this film, especially the scrutinising the hotel room/shaving in the bathroom scene.
And Roger looks way better than Daniel Craig when he takes his shirt off!

cdsdss

Oh, I'm not making judgements about the film's qualities. I don't much like LALD, but that's just my taste and I respect everyone's opinion of the movie. My post was just to try and understand the thought processes behind those decisions. They seem very counter-intuitive, especially when we look at the intros for all the subsequent new Bonds.

Miken Ayers

Seeing as how spies don't typically operate within their country's borders, wouldn't that make every Bond film "fish out of water" to some extent?

cdsdss

Miken Ayers wrote:

Seeing as how spies don't typically operate within their country's borders, wouldn't that make every Bond film "fish out of water" to some extent?

But we've never seen Bond as out of place as when he goes to Harlem where he sticks out, gets made, gets caught, and damn near gets killed. Even his CIA contact makes fun of him.

I'm just curious why, having a new Bond, the film makers didn't bother to give us Bond in a casino, a swanky hotel, M's office or the usual Bond locales to show us how Moore would play Bond in his natural habitat. True, the scene in his flat establishes his studly bona fides, but we don't get the rest.

Thunderpussy

It has been pointed out in the past that Moore's Bond didn't do any of
the Connery established "Bits of business" hence Moore never orders
a martini shaken not stirred, In LALD he doen't wear a Tux, or have
the M office scene, to make him totally different from Connery and
not try and make him a clone as they had tried with Lazenby.

Mr Mallory

I think LALD was one of the better Moore Bonds.

raptors_887

I wasn't alive in 1973 or even damn near close, but just watching the movie right now, I could imagine how some of the audience might be confused as to what is going on. There really is no introduction to the new Bond. He's just sort of thrust into the movie out of nowhere. OHMSS has a much better introduction I would say.


Although I do think LALD is probably Moore's 3rd best movie behind OP and TSWLM.

Quist

I think Kanangas death was the most ridiculous and cringeworthy scene in the film. It would have been a far lot better if bond had just kicked him into the shark pool and left him to be eaten by the sharks. This is how he died in the novel too.

James007Sweeney

To be honest I find it very easy to skip Roger Moore's incarnation. 1. He just applied the same character from the saint. He is too posh there is no grit to him. If you read OHMSS it goes so far against the bond that Fleming created. Flemings bond although living in his Chelsea apartment hated posh snobbery. But was meant to be played as a rough diamond. Connery, Craig and even Dalton capture this the rest for me were cast as a product of their time and their corresponding pop scene of the time and strayed to far away from what Fleming had created. Living Let Die is a ridiculous film almost Austin Powers-esque.

Aerospeed

Quist wrote:

I think Kanangas death was the most ridiculous and cringeworthy scene in the film. It would have been a far lot better if bond had just kicked him into the shark pool and left him to be eaten by the sharks. This is how he died in the novel too.

The director always did have an inflated opinion of himself...

Sorry... )

Mr Mallory

It did have a silly ending.

CmdrAtticus

always shaken wrote:

I seem to remember that this was discussed a while ago, but hey ho, all good points, but we do have to remember,
that this fim was made in 1973 ,that was 41 years ago, what product made 41 years ago has stood the test of time,
you cant compare a 41 year old film /technics/casting/stunts/ script writing ,with todays films but as ive said before ,
we are all allowed our input into AJB,or it will be very boring
ps for the record I love LALD

What film (product) made that long ago has stood the test of time??
Lets see....1972....The Godfather, Jeremiah Johnson, Cabaret, Frenzy, Sleuth. 1973...The Day of the Jackal, The Exorcist, Papillon, Serpico, The Sting. 1974... Blazing Saddles, Chinatown, Young Frankenstein....

I'd compare any of these films with current features and with most of these, they are superior to most of the garbage churned out by Hollywood that has priced itself so far out of it's market it has to rely on comic book sequals and digital animated characters in bloated zillion dollar budgets, toy marketing and 3D gimmickry to justify it's increasing ticket prices and weak scripts.

I just saw Dench in Philomena. That film and a few others made in 2013 I believe will also stand the test of time. Quality scripts with good actors and directors will always trump mindless action films and cloying digital animation (and the latter should just be made for DVDs that parents can let their children watch over and over instead of crowding out adult features in the cinemas).

Barbel

Aerospeed wrote:

The director always did have an inflated opinion of himself...

Well, that's true!

Blackleiter

CmdrAtticus wrote:

What film (product) made that long ago has stood the test of time??
Lets see....1972....The Godfather, Jeremiah Johnson, Cabaret, Frenzy, Sleuth. 1973...The Day of the Jackal, The Exorcist, Papillon, Serpico, The Sting. 1974... Blazing Saddles, Chinatown, Young Frankenstein....

Your point is very well made! -{