Talk:Live and Let Die (novel)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Jane Seymour

I’ve an error in the “Jane Seymour” link: it points to a “Jane Seymour” that obviously isn’t the actress who played on 007 film. I’ll fix this removing the link. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaGioZal (talk • contribs) .

I changed the link to point to "Jane Seymour (actress)". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThreeTrees (talk • contribs) .

African American

Technically, lumping all of the black characters under the heading of African American is wrong, since many of them are residents of a carribean island nation, and not of the U.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.110.0.30 (talk • contribs) .

Location

why does it say "San Monique" is one of the film locations? "San Monique" does not exist. i can't edit the entry, as i do not know where the area depicted in the film as san monique is, but could someone sort that out? --172.201.249.209 13:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

San Monique is where a part of the film took place so it's listed under "Film locations." It doesn't mean the film was shot there. See "Shooting locations" for where the movie was actually shot. K1Bond007 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Big unresolved plot hole in film

When James Bond gets breakfast at the hotel room, he recieves a tarot card that warns him that Rosie Carver, (Gloria Henry), can not be trusted. She is taking a shower when he gets the food. It has never been explained who put the tarot card on the menu warning James Bond. Could you please metion this in your article on the movie, as it bothers a lot of people who have seen the film. The question was asked at www.imdb.com and the response was, nobody knows who sent it. 204.80.61.10 17:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

It's never said, but it was certainly Solitaire. While they were not lovers at the time, he did draw "The Lovers" card from Solitaire's stack when she allowed him a vision of his future when he first meets Big. This occurs prior to Bond receiving the inverted Queen of the Cups card during his breakfast. She also pulls "The Lovers" card again at another point, and then obviously again when Bond tricks her. It's also in Solitaire's character to attempt to help Bond because she very much wants to escape Mr. Big's clutches. Bond offers her this opportunity because she's already aware when he first flies to Harlem that he brings 'violence and destruction'. Her trying to get away from Big is revealed, IMHO, much better in the novel, but it's also true in the film and of her "clone" in Licence to Kill (whether you want to admit it or not, Licence to Kill is more or less a retelling of Live and Let Die with different characters; Solitarie = Lupe Lamora). Other evidence includes: she's probably the only one to know of Rosie's deceit and she is the only one that would probably inform Bond by way of a tarot card. Momentarily after receiving the card, Bond goes to a tarot card shop where he presumably buys a deck of "The Lovers" cards. K1Bond007 20:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

View to a Kill language

A recent edit to this page suggests that the next appearance of adult language in a Bond film was A View to a Kill. It's my least favorite Bond so I've only seen it a few times, but I have no recollection of there being any off-color language in that film. Can anyone cite and example? If not, then we should revert back to saying Licence to Kill was the next Bond film to use naughty words. 23skidoo 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted because like you I can't recall anything on this. If anyone can cite an example then we'll go back. K1Bond007 20:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Shooting Location

On the St. Petersburg, FL Wikipedia page under the 'Trivia' subtitle, it mentions "About one-third of Ian Fleming's James Bond novel, Live and Let Die, is set in St. Petersburg." However, there is no mention of St. Petersburg being a shooting location on the 'Live and Let Die' page.....can someone clear this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.202.80.98 (talk • contribs) .

The novel takes place there, the film does not. K1Bond007 16:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting

Each seperate piece of art needs a seperate article. See Revenge of the Sith ...._(Complain)^{(Let us to it pell-mell)} 00:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Warpfactor 23:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Characterisation of black people

The article says this book is controversial due to its depiction of black people. I read this article before I read the book and given what is written here, I went in expecting some sort of awful depiction of black people and African-Americans in particular. Instead, I found almost the opposite. The book has many good things to say about black people; far more than I've noted in most present-day books much less books written in the fifties. Sure, the book uses phrases and states things in a manner that would not be considered harmless in today's PC-mad world but at the end of the day for a book written by a stuffy old Etonian man in the 1950's this book is so progressive it's shocking. Fair enough, most of the bad guys are black, but a discussion at the beginning of the book claims this is a rarity (whether or not that is true). In the book, M and Felix Leiter speak admirably of progress African-Americans has made in fields such as medicine, science and the law, while Bond is content to spend half the book lustfully ogling black women. Of course, the book does refer to black people as negroes, as was common then and it also does have a chapter called "Nigger Heaven" (like many of Fleming's chapters in books, the chapter is named after a statement in a discussion within) but the reference is to Harlem as described in the (also, seemingly non-racist, though I have not read it) book of the same name. Was(is) this book honestly controversial? I can find no justification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoso Jade (talk • contribs) .

Well, there should be more written about this, but I believe the extent of the 'controversy' (and it is sometimes considered controversial) is just because of the use of the "n-word" even though it was written in 1954. In general, The Spy Who Loved Me was probably more controversial for the time; it was banned in some countries, I don't think that ever happened to Live and Let Die - though it was censored up until 2002 in the United States. K1Bond007 20:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing something about EON Productions having to think long and hard as to whether to adapt it as a movie back in the 1970s; there were apparently elements of the book that were considered too "un-PC" for even back then. I agree that Fleming's treatment of blacks in LALD was generally fair and fine, but as noted the US edition was censored for many years and it has something of a reputation (as opposed to reality) that has built up over the years. Personally I consider it one of my favorite Bond novels, and its strength as a story is evidenced that no less than 3 official Bond films used major elements from it, something no other Bond novel can claim. 23skidoo 18:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)