MovieChat Forums > Live and Let Die (1973) Discussion > Is LIVE AND LET DIE a Spiritual Sequel t...

Is LIVE AND LET DIE a Spiritual Sequel to DR. NO?


Mostly because it's the only other Bond film where 007 works w/ a man named Quarrel (I heard that it's supposed to be the son of the Quarrel we saw in Dr. No).

reply

In the books Live & Let Die is first, and it's the same Quarrel later in the Dr. No book. As far as spiritual sequels, Licence to Kill is a sequel to Live & Let Die: same Felix actor and some chapters and plot points from the novel end up in the Licence to Kill film adaptation. (The shark, the aquarium.)

---
Aren't you relieved to know you're not a golem?

reply

Its the other way. Dr No is the spiritual sequel to Live and Let Die.. Dr. Strangways and Quarrel who died in Dr. No were supposed to be in Live And Let Die..

reply

Actually the plan is not far off of Goldfinger. Instead of making a fortune in Gold by making his gold worth more. Kanaga was going to increase the number of herion addicts by handing out free heroin. Drive the mob out of business, then charge a large amount at a later date.

reply

No,No,No,No!

reply

spot on, as i just thought of something, this first roger moore movie shares some similarities with sean connery's first bond "dr. no", the whole bit about supernatural things, in dr. no they believed in the dragon, in this you've even got quarrel's son in a similar role if i'm not mistaken, the locations and settings are a bit similar, i never knew it was suppose to be the same quarrel, this is all new to me. unfortunately "licence to kill" is a humourless sadistic like (well just think about what happens to felix since you brought him up) flick with a bone dry bond, personally i stop watching the franchise after 1985 (a view to a kill). this is really one groovy bond flick and the contrast between british secret agent bond and south american sheriff j.w. pepper is a riot, so much they even brought him back in the following movie "the man with the golden gun" which i can never get over ever since i heard the fact jack palance was suppose to play the villain, i like christopher lee, but that part was like literary made for western movie star jack palance, that would probably have been my favorite bond movie if palance had actually been in the part. it says in the opening credits to this "introducing jane seymour", that means this was her first movie role, right? she may not have gotten the most outstanding role, but man, look at those jugs. it sure sounds like her currently narrating an add on cnn. "are you sure that was your brother in law, j.w?"



πŸ•΄πŸŠ 🐊 🐊 🐊 🐊 🚀 🚌 ♠️ ♣️ β™₯️ ♦️ πŸƒ 🎴 πŸšƒ πŸš†




cant stand you in harms way,
you belong in warm comfortable place,
with your perfect face,
like made for smilin except when strict as hell.

reply