77 replies to this topic

[jmarks4life]

LTK was ahead of its time. Dalton went back to Fleming's original concept. 007 is an assassin. I agree with most of the points posted. It was the summer of '89. Craig owes a lot to Dalton.

Agreed. And didn't Dalton comment, when Casino Royale opened in 2006, that Craig had "made the Bond film we all wish we had made." ? Would the Bond of CR 2006 ever have appeared had it not been for the change in direction in the late 1980s? I'd even argue that Brosnan, who is closer to Moore in his performance as Bond, nevertheless continued where Dalton left off, in some respects - he had a lighter approach certainly, but still went back to the Fleming source material as his guide on how Bond should be portrayed.

I agree with the two of you here, although everyone is making valid points. Dalton & Craig's Bond are where it's at for me. Brosnan was good, but bought back memories of Moore, who I also like, just not as much as TD & DC.

No way was it lame and dull.... I am so sad that people hate this movie because in my opinion it's probably one of my all time favorite bond movies.

I agree. I don't think was lame at all, and don't understand why anyone would hate this movie. LTK is right up there with TLD for me.

Edited by jmarks4life, 29 July 2013 - 04:25 AM.

[Guy Haines]

I was at a convention this weekend called Convergence 2013. I went to Skyfall and Bond at 50 and every single person on the panel hated License to Kill. I think the reason is because it's so unlike Sean Connery and that was too much. I think if Timothy Dalton was cast a lot later I think he would have been more well respected. Also there was that transition from Moore to Dalton and everyone grew up with Moore so it was too drastic of a change.

I just thought it was interesting that no one was quick to defend Dalton and that made me sad.

 

Concerning the transition, I refer to my earlier comment. I think a new Bond with a new approach to the role should have meant new writers and a new director. The production team at the time was used to making Bond films in a particular way that suited Dalton's predecessor Roger Moore. Nothing wrong with that if Moore's successor had taken up where he left off - as Pierce Brosnan might have done had he become Bond in 1986. But Dalton's Bond was very different from Moore's, and the tensions between the direction he took the character and the direction the film makers were used to sometimes showed. As I have said earlier, as if to compensate I think the film makers tried to make LTK "too tough" at times, while still wanting to keep the elements audiences were used to from previous 70s and 80s films.

 

Incidentally, I don't think a change of director and writer was necessary when Moore succeeded Connery - the trend toward a lighter approach to Bond was already well advanced with DAF. (Although at times, LALD was a much more sinister film than DAF - the voodoo scenes, for example.)

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t know if the reception of LTK really has something to with the transition from Moore to Dalton.

 

When AVTAK was released, audiences and the media were finished with Moore´s Bond.  Everybody complained about his age and Bond´s relevance.

 

Then Dalton took over and TLD was received with big enthusiasm all around.  Nobody missed Moore.

 

However, by the time LTK was released in the highly competitive "Batman"-summer of 1989, action movies had become tougher and action heroes had become more down-to-earth.  A British secret agent had to compare badly with the suicidal daredevil played by Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon".  So, the impulse to toughen Bond up was right.  Unfortunately, general audiences were tired of the Bond films.  Their attention was used up by "Batman", "Indiana Jones" and "Lethal Weapon 2" before LTK with its (only in comparison) tamer action could impress anybody.

 

However, films will be appreciated with years. And LTK is definitely in the same category as OHMSS, another film that just did not hit the zeitgeist nerve during its initial run.

[Guy Haines]

I don´t know if the reception of LTK really has something to with the transition from Moore to Dalton.

 

When AVTAK was released, audiences and the media were finished with Moore´s Bond.  Everybody complained about his age and Bond´s relevance.

 

Then Dalton took over and TLD was received with big enthusiasm all around.  Nobody missed Moore.

 

However, by the time LTK was released in the highly competitive "Batman"-summer of 1989, action movies had become tougher and action heroes had become more down-to-earth.  A British secret agent had to compare badly with the suicidal daredevil played by Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon".  So, the impulse to toughen Bond up was right.  Unfortunately, general audiences were tired of the Bond films.  Their attention was used up by "Batman", "Indiana Jones" and "Lethal Weapon 2" before LTK with its (only in comparison) tamer action could impress anybody.

 

However, films will be appreciated with years. And LTK is definitely in the same category as OHMSS, another film that just did not hit the zeitgeist nerve during its initial run.

I think there's something in what you say, too. Batman 1, Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones 3 and........ Bond 16 (17 if you include the unofficial NSNA, 18 if we count CR from 1967). Audiences outside the hard core Bond fandom probably were getting a little jaded with 007, which is why I think the opportunity for a re-imagining, if not a fully fledged re-boot, was missed during the Dalton era. Would it have helped the Bond series given the competition? Who can tell, but I think it would have stirred interest with audiences more than releasing a film every two years - same format but different actor and deliberately "more brutal" in the case of LTK - and expecting the paying public to dutifully turn up at the cinema.

[SecretAgentFan]

But Dalton, IMO, did reboot the series big time.  First with TLD, then with LTK.

 

I guess the franchise needed a break at that time.  They could have done everything and would still not have captured the zeitgeist.  It was the time of the end of the cold war.  The most famous cold warrior seemed like an anachronism.

 

The series had to wait for things to settle.

[glidrose]

My two cents...

 

Too much competition? Bollocks! Tell that to Octopussy which did solid U.S. business in the summer of '83 despite Return of the Jedi, Superman III, War Games, Blue Thunder, etc. Oh yeah, and this other Bond film with Connery that had a lot of buzz despite not opening for several more months...

 

"Competition" is a total cop-out excuse. Even if there had been no action competition LTK still would not have done well. I think it may have done slightly better had they released it in the fall.

 

Many people either forget or don't realize that LTK did NOT open wide in the United States. It opened in about three-quarters of the theatres TLD opened in. I once spoke to a cinema manager who got an advance screening to decide if he should book the film for his cinema. In his opinion the film was just garbage, overlong - at 133 minutes they could only have two screenings a night - and many more things besides. He thought the series was on his last legs and chose not to book it for him admittedly small theatre. According to him a lot of cinema owners thought it was no bloody good. The consensus was that the series took a very big wrong turn with Dalton. Should have gotten Brosnan.

 

Our own Byline has said that the film seems to be pulling in two very different directions. Dalton going serious, while Glen, Maibaum and Wilson still part of the old Roger Moore team. That bi-polar nature is offputting. At least the Craig films are tonally consistent.

 

Let's go back to Moore. People often forget what a big falling off there was between Octopussy and AVTAK. TLD did slightly better than AVTAK because of the hype machine TLD had ("a new younger Bond!"). What did LTK have? The same guy you saw last time in a "Miami Vice" plot.

 

And on top of that we've got John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, the patchy script with lots of tin-eared dialogue.

 

I too do not understand the love Dalton gets. Mr. Charisma he aint. I think our own Guy Haines - a Dalton fan - said that Dalton always seemed uncomfortable onscreen. Like others on these fora, I too think Dalton had no chemistry and was too glum and angry. And he never gave the impression he was comfortable with women, like he wouldn't know what to do with one if she fell in his lap.

 

I generally like the film. It's approximately number 10 on my list of best Bond films. An improvement on TLD which I think is one of the series' worst.

[Rufus Ffolkes]

The film seems to be pulling in two very different directions. Dalton going serious, while Glen, Maibaum and Wilson still part of the old Roger Moore team. That bi-polar nature is offputting...

 

And on top of that we've got John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, the patchy script with lots of tin-eared dialogue...

 

Like others on these fora, I too think Dalton had no chemistry and was too glum and angry. And he never gave the impression he was comfortable with women, like he wouldn't know what to do with one if she fell in his lap...

 

Bingo.

[SecretAgentFan]

My two cents...

 

Too much competition? Bollocks! Tell that to Octopussy which did solid U.S. business in the summer of '83 despite Return of the Jedi, Superman III, War Games, Blue Thunder, etc. Oh yeah, and this other Bond film with Connery that had a lot of buzz despite not opening for several more months...

 

I think you´re wrong on this.  The only real moneymaker in that summer was "Return of the Jedi".  The only other successful summer movies that made over 80 million dollars were "Trading Places" & "WarGames".

 

Compare this with the summer of ´89:  "Batman" (251 millions), "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (197), "Lethal Weapon 2" (147), "Honey I shrunk the kids" (130), "Ghostbusters 2" (112), "Parenthood" (100), "Dead Poets Society" (95), "When Harry Met Sally" (92).  

 

Even with regards to inflation, this summer was very competitive and set standards that would change the way the industry looked at box office successes.  Climbing the 100 million mark would not be a sign for unexpectedly huge success but something a profitable film had to achieve.

 

Of course, if you don´t like the film you won´t defend it.  That´s perfectly fine.

[glidrose]

My two cents...
 
Too much competition? Bollocks! Tell that to Octopussy which did solid U.S. business in the summer of '83 despite Return of the Jedi, Superman III, War Games, Blue Thunder, etc. Oh yeah, and this other Bond film with Connery that had a lot of buzz despite not opening for several more months...

 
I think you´re wrong on this.  The only real moneymaker in that summer was "Return of the Jedi".  The only other successful summer movies that made over 80 million dollars were "Trading Places" & "WarGames".
 
Compare this with the summer of ´89:  "Batman" (251 millions), "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (197), "Lethal Weapon 2" (147), "Honey I shrunk the kids" (130), "Ghostbusters 2" (112), "Parenthood" (100), "Dead Poets Society" (95), "When Harry Met Sally" (92).  
 
Even with regards to inflation, this summer was very competitive and set standards that would change the way the industry looked at box office successes.  Climbing the 100 million mark would not be a sign for unexpectedly huge success but something a profitable film had to achieve.

Let's not forget "Turner and Hooch" starring Tom Hanks and a drooling dog. That made 71 million in the U.S. alone, more than twice what LTK made - $33,197,509 if IMDB is to believed. This proves that "competition" can only explain so much. Does anybody here like Turner and Hooch more than LTK? Maybe one or two. Probably Jim. But that's it. Christ, even "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" with Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder did much better business: $46,908,987. Then there's another cop & canine buddy picture, "K-9" with Jim Belushi which pulled in $43,247,647. Then we've got "The Karate Kid, Part III" - were there really that many Ralph Macchio fans back then? - which made $38,956,288. LTK narrowly beat out "Road House" with Patrick Swayze ($30M) and a reissue of the 1953 "Peter Pan" ($29.5M).

If people wanted to see LTK, they would have. They didn't. They didn't want to. Period. Ain't the competition's fault.

Notice that LTK also did 42% less business in its second week where "When Harry Met Sally" did 708% more business, also in its second week. No typo, seven hundred and eight percent. LTK fell off 33% in its third weekend. It fell off 40% in its fourth weekend. It fell off another 40% its fifth weekend. And then it drops out of the top 19. Ewwww.

Now if we were discussing why LTK didn't open at number 1 then you'd be mostly correct to blame the competition.

TLD opened at number 1, remained there in its second week falling off by only 30%, falling off another 35% the following week, falling off another 28% the week after that, falling off another 41% the following week, growing by 5% the following week.

AVTAK opened at number 2 with $13.7M, much better than either TLD or LTK. Believe it or not but AVTAK remains the biggest grossing 80's Bond film on opening weekend. It fell off worse than TLD, tho' not as badly as LTK. Octopussy had the shallowest decline of any 80's Bond flick. I gotta mention that Return of the Jedi (1983) opened in only one thousand theatres and pulled in $30M dollars opening weekend. Even LTK opened in more theatres. A little birdie tells me there were fewer movie theatres during the early 1980s than in many decades. Only by the late 1980s did movie theatre construction get under way again. So comparing 1983 to 1989 box office is in some ways comparing apples and oranges.

 

Of course, if you don´t like the film you won´t defend it.  That´s perfectly fine.

Please don't seem to misquote me. I said that I generally like the film.

Of course the flip side of your argument is that if a person likes the film a lot they'll defend it. More than it deserves to be defended.

And despite what somebody else claimed in this thread, the film did not get terrible reviews. It got very mixed reviews with some critics (Roger Ebert, David Denby, Leonard Maltin, Derek Malcolm) liking it a lot, much more than they had previous Bond films. It certainly got better reviews than AVTAK.

[Royal Dalton]

 

If people wanted to see LTK, they would have. They didn't. They didn't want to. Period. Ain't the competition's fault.

 

Well, I wanted to see it, and couldn't. Because I was 14 at the time.

[tdalton]

I think that at this point, it doesn't really matter why Licence to Kill failed at the American box office.  It simply failed to make an impact at the US box office which, as it seems, was the measuring stick at the time for the success or failure of a film.  It did considerably better oversees (making more than 3/4 of its total haul outside the US), which is something that would have made it seem like much less of a failure if it had been released in today's climate, where more emphasis is put on the international number rather than an overemphasis on the US total.

 

That said, I think that it's fair to say, strictly from a financial standpoint, that Licence to Kill failed at the American box office and was, therefore, viewed as a failure.  That's just a fact, and I don't think that it's necessarily constructive to try to say that the film didn't fail at the box office.  By the same token, I also don't find it particularly constructive to read comments that suggest that those of us who like Dalton must be out of our minds for doing so or that it's not possible to understand why someone might like Dalton and/or his portrayal of Bond, which has been a running theme as of late.

 

There's a difference between the two kinds of failures that a film can be labeled as being.  Licence to Kill was a financial failure in the summer of 1989.  Whether that's because of its competition, poor marketing, quality of the film, or whatever, it doesn't really matter because knowing why doesn't really change the fact that it was a failure.  That said, I don't think for one second that Licence to Kill is a creative failure at all.  As Bond films go, it's a quality film and features a terrific Bond, a terrific villain, excellent Bond girls, and some good, strong plot points taken directly from the original source.  Creatively, I don't think that Dalton was at all a failure as Bond.  He brought something new and exciting to the role which had become somewhat stagnant by the time Roger Moore had gone a film past the point where he should have retired from the role.  He also brought the character closer to what Fleming envisioned as opposed to the comical character that Bond had become by the mid-1980s.  Financially, the numbers pretty much speak for themselves.  

Edited by tdalton, 01 August 2013 - 03:59 AM.

[SecretAgentFan]

 

 

My two cents...
 
Too much competition? Bollocks! Tell that to Octopussy which did solid U.S. business in the summer of '83 despite Return of the Jedi, Superman III, War Games, Blue Thunder, etc. Oh yeah, and this other Bond film with Connery that had a lot of buzz despite not opening for several more months...

 
I think you´re wrong on this.  The only real moneymaker in that summer was "Return of the Jedi".  The only other successful summer movies that made over 80 million dollars were "Trading Places" & "WarGames".
 
Compare this with the summer of ´89:  "Batman" (251 millions), "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (197), "Lethal Weapon 2" (147), "Honey I shrunk the kids" (130), "Ghostbusters 2" (112), "Parenthood" (100), "Dead Poets Society" (95), "When Harry Met Sally" (92).  
 
Even with regards to inflation, this summer was very competitive and set standards that would change the way the industry looked at box office successes.  Climbing the 100 million mark would not be a sign for unexpectedly huge success but something a profitable film had to achieve.

 

Let's not forget "Turner and Hooch" starring Tom Hanks and a drooling dog. That made 71 million in the U.S. alone, more than twice what LTK made - $33,197,509 if IMDB is to believed. This proves that "competition" can only explain so much. Does anybody here like Turner and Hooch more than LTK? Maybe one or two. Probably Jim. But that's it. Christ, even "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" with Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder did much better business: $46,908,987. Then there's another cop & canine buddy picture, "K-9" with Jim Belushi which pulled in $43,247,647. Then we've got "The Karate Kid, Part III" - were there really that many Ralph Macchio fans back then? - which made $38,956,288. LTK narrowly beat out "Road House" with Patrick Swayze ($30M) and a reissue of the 1953 "Peter Pan" ($29.5M).

If people wanted to see LTK, they would have. They didn't. They didn't want to. Period. Ain't the competition's fault.

Notice that LTK also did 42% less business in its second week where "When Harry Met Sally" did 708% more business, also in its second week. No typo, seven hundred and eight percent. LTK fell off 33% in its third weekend. It fell off 40% in its fourth weekend. It fell off another 40% its fifth weekend. And then it drops out of the top 19. Ewwww.

Now if we were discussing why LTK didn't open at number 1 then you'd be mostly correct to blame the competition.

TLD opened at number 1, remained there in its second week falling off by only 30%, falling off another 35% the following week, falling off another 28% the week after that, falling off another 41% the following week, growing by 5% the following week.

AVTAK opened at number 2 with $13.7M, much better than either TLD or LTK. Believe it or not but AVTAK remains the biggest grossing 80's Bond film on opening weekend. It fell off worse than TLD, tho' not as badly as LTK. Octopussy had the shallowest decline of any 80's Bond flick. I gotta mention that Return of the Jedi (1983) opened in only one thousand theatres and pulled in $30M dollars opening weekend. Even LTK opened in more theatres. A little birdie tells me there were fewer movie theatres during the early 1980s than in many decades. Only by the late 1980s did movie theatre construction get under way again. So comparing 1983 to 1989 box office is in some ways comparing apples and oranges.

 

Of course, if you don´t like the film you won´t defend it.  That´s perfectly fine.

Please don't seem to misquote me. I said that I generally like the film.

Of course the flip side of your argument is that if a person likes the film a lot they'll defend it. More than it deserves to be defended.

And despite what somebody else claimed in this thread, the film did not get terrible reviews. It got very mixed reviews with some critics (Roger Ebert, David Denby, Leonard Maltin, Derek Malcolm) liking it a lot, much more than they had previous Bond films. It certainly got better reviews than AVTAK.

 

 

Thank you for your detailed research.  However, lots of competition does affect a movie´s performance.  And if the audience already is worn out by an assault of action-adventure they will be less likely inclined to watch another action-adventure.  (This is what´s happening this summer, too, by the way.)  And that worked in favor of films in other genres in the summer of ´89.  "When Harry Met Sally" not only got people into cinemas because it was a well-made film but because it was the only classy romantic comedy during that time.  So, IMO, you definitely can say that LTK´s performance suffered from the competition and oversaturation of the action-adventure market.

 

In the end, of course, tdalton is right: LTK failed to ignite the box office, and there are many reasons for that - but not its quality.

[Guy Haines]

My two cents...

 

Too much competition? Bollocks! Tell that to Octopussy which did solid U.S. business in the summer of '83 despite Return of the Jedi, Superman III, War Games, Blue Thunder, etc. Oh yeah, and this other Bond film with Connery that had a lot of buzz despite not opening for several more months...

 

"Competition" is a total cop-out excuse. Even if there had been no action competition LTK still would not have done well. I think it may have done slightly better had they released it in the fall.

 

Many people either forget or don't realize that LTK did NOT open wide in the United States. It opened in about three-quarters of the theatres TLD opened in. I once spoke to a cinema manager who got an advance screening to decide if he should book the film for his cinema. In his opinion the film was just garbage, overlong - at 133 minutes they could only have two screenings a night - and many more things besides. He thought the series was on his last legs and chose not to book it for him admittedly small theatre. According to him a lot of cinema owners thought it was no bloody good. The consensus was that the series took a very big wrong turn with Dalton. Should have gotten Brosnan.

 

Our own Byline has said that the film seems to be pulling in two very different directions. Dalton going serious, while Glen, Maibaum and Wilson still part of the old Roger Moore team. That bi-polar nature is offputting. At least the Craig films are tonally consistent.

 

Let's go back to Moore. People often forget what a big falling off there was between Octopussy and AVTAK. TLD did slightly better than AVTAK because of the hype machine TLD had ("a new younger Bond!"). What did LTK have? The same guy you saw last time in a "Miami Vice" plot.

 

And on top of that we've got John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, the patchy script with lots of tin-eared dialogue.

 

I too do not understand the love Dalton gets. Mr. Charisma he aint. I think our own Guy Haines - a Dalton fan - said that Dalton always seemed uncomfortable onscreen. Like others on these fora, I too think Dalton had no chemistry and was too glum and angry. And he never gave the impression he was comfortable with women, like he wouldn't know what to do with one if she fell in his lap.

 

I generally like the film. It's approximately number 10 on my list of best Bond films. An improvement on TLD which I think is one of the series' worst.

I thought Dalton looked uncomfortable at times as Bond because, as you say, and I've argued along much the same lines, the films he made seemed to pull in two directions. That's why I think a new team behind the scenes crafting a Bond film suited to his "back to the books" approach might have helped. Dalton had, however, one other problem to face - the era his films were made in. Not just the end of the Cold War, but AIDS. The "sleeping around" of previous Bonds - even if, compared with other films it was pretty tame stuff - wasn't an option for his Bond. I don't know if the producers at the time felt a responsibility to promote "safe sex", but I remember commentators remarking - complaining, some of them - that the "devil may care" lothario side of Bond wasn't there any more. Dalton made his Bond more of a brooding romantic hero type - he'd played that type in the past - and that seemed to work in TLD. (Female friends of mine who'd seen TLD liked that approach.) But he was up against comparisons with Connery and Moore, and some opinionated types in the media missed the "love 'em and leave 'em" approach of previous Bonds. Even now, there are some who refer to his version as the most "P.C." of the Bonds.

[Hockey Mask]

My two cents...
 
Too much competition? Bollocks! Tell that to Octopussy which did solid U.S. business in the summer of '83 despite Return of the Jedi, Superman III, War Games, Blue Thunder, etc. Oh yeah, and this other Bond film with Connery that had a lot of buzz despite not opening for several more months...

 
I think you´re wrong on this.  The only real moneymaker in that summer was "Return of the Jedi".  The only other successful summer movies that made over 80 million dollars were "Trading Places" & "WarGames".
 
Compare this with the summer of ´89:  "Batman" (251 millions), "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (197), "Lethal Weapon 2" (147), "Honey I shrunk the kids" (130), "Ghostbusters 2" (112), "Parenthood" (100), "Dead Poets Society" (95), "When Harry Met Sally" (92).  
 
Even with regards to inflation, this summer was very competitive and set standards that would change the way the industry looked at box office successes.  Climbing the 100 million mark would not be a sign for unexpectedly huge success but something a profitable film had to achieve.

Let's not forget "Turner and Hooch" starring Tom Hanks and a drooling dog. That made 71 million in the U.S. alone, more than twice what LTK made - $33,197,509 if IMDB is to believed. This proves that "competition" can only explain so much. Does anybody here like Turner and Hooch more than LTK? Maybe one or two. Probably Jim. But that's it. Christ, even "See No Evil, Hear No Evil" with Richard Pryor and Gene Wilder did much better business: $46,908,987. Then there's another cop & canine buddy picture, "K-9" with Jim Belushi which pulled in $43,247,647. Then we've got "The Karate Kid, Part III" - were there really that many Ralph Macchio fans back then? - which made $38,956,288. LTK narrowly beat out "Road House" with Patrick Swayze ($30M) and a reissue of the 1953 "Peter Pan" ($29.5M).
If people wanted to see LTK, they would have. They didn't. They didn't want to. Period. Ain't the competition's fault.
Notice that LTK also did 42% less business in its second week where "When Harry Met Sally" did 708% more business, also in its second week. No typo, seven hundred and eight percent. LTK fell off 33% in its third weekend. It fell off 40% in its fourth weekend. It fell off another 40% its fifth weekend. And then it drops out of the top 19. Ewwww.
Now if we were discussing why LTK didn't open at number 1 then you'd be mostly correct to blame the competition.
TLD opened at number 1, remained there in its second week falling off by only 30%, falling off another 35% the following week, falling off another 28% the week after that, falling off another 41% the following week, growing by 5% the following week.
AVTAK opened at number 2 with $13.7M, much better than either TLD or LTK. Believe it or not but AVTAK remains the biggest grossing 80's Bond film on opening weekend. It fell off worse than TLD, tho' not as badly as LTK. Octopussy had the shallowest decline of any 80's Bond flick. I gotta mention that Return of the Jedi (1983) opened in only one thousand theatres and pulled in $30M dollars opening weekend. Even LTK opened in more theatres. A little birdie tells me there were fewer movie theatres during the early 1980s than in many decades. Only by the late 1980s did movie theatre construction get under way again. So comparing 1983 to 1989 box office is in some ways comparing apples and oranges.
 

Of course, if you don´t like the film you won´t defend it.  That´s perfectly fine.

Please don't seem to misquote me. I said that I generally like the film.
Of course the flip side of your argument is that if a person likes the film a lot they'll defend it. More than it deserves to be defended.
And despite what somebody else claimed in this thread, the film did not get terrible reviews. It got very mixed reviews with some critics (Roger Ebert, David Denby, Leonard Maltin, Derek Malcolm) liking it a lot, much more than they had previous Bond films. It certainly got better reviews than AVTAK.

 
Thank you for your detailed research.  However, lots of competition does affect a movie´s performance.  And if the audience already is worn out by an assault of action-adventure they will be less likely inclined to watch another action-adventure.  (This is what´s happening this summer, too, by the way.)  And that worked in favor of films in other genres in the summer of ´89.  "When Harry Met Sally" not only got people into cinemas because it was a well-made film but because it was the only classy romantic comedy during that time.  So, IMO, you definitely can say that LTK´s performance suffered from the competition and oversaturation of the action-adventure market.
In the end, of course, tdalton is right: LTK failed to ignite the box office, and there are many reasons for that - but not its quality.

35 other films dealt with 1989's box office competition and performed better.

[SecretAgentFan]

I know.  But my point is: the bigger the onslaught of huge grossing movies has already been the harder it is for another movie to follow. LTK definitely had to struggle there. Would it have grossed more if it had been the first summer film to open in ´89?  Who knows?  But I do believe so.

 

 

But witness this summer´s films. After IRON MAN 3, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS already began to struggle. MAN OF STEEL was pushed into a comfortable atmosphere but (secretly) underperformed. Then most of the other blockbusters already are cannibalizing themselves. And THE WOLVERINE, coming in late, underperformed immensely (a film a bit like LTK in some respect: a veteran hero, going off course, not a bad film at all but not perceived as fresh enough anymore).

 

It will be very interesting to see whether the summer will offer another film that can open really big (meaning, these days, over 80 or 90 million dollars). 

[glidrose]

If people wanted to see LTK, they would have. They didn't. They didn't want to. Period. Ain't the competition's fault.

 
Well, I wanted to see it, and couldn't. Because I was 14 at the time.

 
Ah yes... the age certificate issue. The problem with this argument is that the 15 certificate was in UK only. We're discussing the U.S. box office. In the U.S. the film was rated PG-13 as were all subsequent Bond films.
 
 

That said, I think that it's fair to say, strictly from a financial standpoint, that Licence to Kill failed at the American box office and was, therefore, viewed as a failure.  That's just a fact, and I don't think that it's necessarily constructive to try to say that the film didn't fail at the box office.

Our old member Zorin Industries would vehemently disagree with you about that. He believes the film did not fail in the U.S., it just underperformed.

 

Thank you for your detailed research.  However, lots of competition does affect a movie´s performance.  And if the audience already is worn out by an assault of action-adventure they will be less likely inclined to watch another action-adventure.  (This is what´s happening this summer, too, by the way.)  And that worked in favor of films in other genres in the summer of ´89.  "When Harry Met Sally" not only got people into cinemas because it was a well-made film but because it was the only classy romantic comedy during that time.  So, IMO, you definitely can say that LTK´s performance suffered from the competition and oversaturation of the action-adventure market.
 
In the end, of course, tdalton is right: LTK failed to ignite the box office, and there are many reasons for that - but not its quality.

I disagree. I do believe that John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, and Wilson and Maibaum's patchy script and tin-eared dialogue did the film no favors. Let's not forget the film's meager budget. I think it is generally accepted that the Bonds were grossly under-budgeted at the time. I am sure that even the LTK boosters will agree that the film would have benefitted from a Brosnan-style budget. I do believe these all contributed to the film's negative aura, if you will. Although I'm not suggesting that production flaws were the #1 reason. And while the competition didn't help, I also don't believe that "competition" is the #1 (or #2) reason. Even without the competition, this film was never going to outgross TLD.

Your argument doesn't explain how the Belushi pic K-9, the Wilder-Pryor film, let alone "The Karate Kid III" made more money. LTK, even with all that competition, should have done better than those three films.

Like it or not, but American audiences did not take a shine to Dalton. He did not connect.

Another reason? A new Bond film every two years, regular as clockwork. As much as us die hard fans love a frequent production schedule, the casual viewer does not.

 

I thought Dalton looked uncomfortable at times as Bond because, as you say, and I've argued along much the same lines, the films he made seemed to pull in two directions. That's why I think a new team behind the scenes crafting a Bond film suited to his "back to the books" approach might have helped. Dalton had, however, one other problem to face - the era his films were made in. Not just the end of the Cold War, but AIDS. The "sleeping around" of previous Bonds - even if, compared with other films it was pretty tame stuff - wasn't an option for his Bond. I don't know if the producers at the time felt a responsibility to promote "safe sex", but I remember commentators remarking - complaining, some of them - that the "devil may care" lothario side of Bond wasn't there any more. Dalton made his Bond more of a brooding romantic hero type - he'd played that type in the past - and that seemed to work in TLD. (Female friends of mine who'd seen TLD liked that approach.) But he was up against comparisons with Connery and Moore, and some opinionated types in the media missed the "love 'em and leave 'em" approach of previous Bonds. Even now, there are some who refer to his version as the most "P.C." of the Bonds.

 
I'm mixed about this argument. However I do agree there was a malaise about Bond by the late 1980s.

[tdalton]

 

 

That said, I think that it's fair to say, strictly from a financial standpoint, that Licence to Kill failed at the American box office and was, therefore, viewed as a failure.  That's just a fact, and I don't think that it's necessarily constructive to try to say that the film didn't fail at the box office.

Our old member Zorin Industries would vehemently disagree with you about that. He believes the film did not fail in the U.S., it just underperformed.

 

I don't think that one can make the argument that it simply "underperformed" (which is really just a nice way of calling it a "failure" anyway) when it didn't even earn 1/3 of its total haul at the US box office.  Regardless of how well a film does internationally, a film is going to be viewed as a failure if it does the business that Licence to Kill did in the US, and rightfully so.  That's not even to say that Licence to Kill did well internationally anyway.  It finished 12th overall internationally, some $255.1 million behind Batman and, shamefully, some $60 million behind the children's film Honey I Shrunk the Kids.  As much as I like Licence to Kill, and I rank it as my absolute favorite Bond film, there's no way around saying that it failed at the box office.  The only real argument that can be made about its failure is to argue about how much of the failure was self-inflected failure.  

[glidrose]

I don't think that one can make the argument that it simply "underperformed" (which is really just a nice way of calling it a "failure" anyway) when it didn't even earn 1/3 of its total haul at the US box office.  Regardless of how well a film does internationally, a film is going to be viewed as a failure if it does the business that Licence to Kill did in the US, and rightfully so.  That's not even to say that Licence to Kill did well internationally anyway.  It finished 12th overall internationally, some $255.1 million behind Batman and, shamefully, some $60 million behind the children's film Honey I Shrunk the Kids.  As much as I like Licence to Kill, and I rank it as my absolute favorite Bond film, there's no way around saying that it failed at the box office.  The only real argument that can be made about its failure is to argue about how much of the failure was self-inflected failure.

Let's not forget it was only seventh at the British box office that year. Ouch.

[SecretAgentFan]

I disagree. I do believe that John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, and Wilson and Maibaum's patchy script and tin-eared dialogue did the film no favors. Let's not forget the film's meager budget. I think it is generally accepted that the Bonds were grossly under-budgeted at the time. I am sure that even the LTK boosters will agree that the film would have benefitted from a Brosnan-style budget. I do believe these all contributed to the film's negative aura, if you will. Although I'm not suggesting that production flaws were the #1 reason. And while the competition didn't help, I also don't believe that "competition" is the #1 (or #2) reason. Even without the competition, this film was never going to outgross TLD.

 

 

I don´t think that "competition" was the only or main reason either.  And I would agree that Dalton mostly did not connect with US audiences (which still seem to be in the majority of Dalton haters).

 

But your opinion on the direction, set decoration, production design and script is just as valid (or irrelevant) as mine (which is the total opposite).  And neither explains or counters the film´s financial disappointment.

 

Your argument doesn't explain how the Belushi pic K-9, the Wilder-Pryor film, let alone "The Karate Kid III" made more money. LTK, even with all that competition, should have done better than those three films.

 

 

I disagree strongly on this point.  You cannot compare different genres because they will attract different audiences.  A family entertainment film will always rake in more than an adult thriller.

[Hockey Mask]

 

I disagree. I do believe that John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, and Wilson and Maibaum's patchy script and tin-eared dialogue did the film no favors. Let's not forget the film's meager budget. I think it is generally accepted that the Bonds were grossly under-budgeted at the time. I am sure that even the LTK boosters will agree that the film would have benefitted from a Brosnan-style budget. I do believe these all contributed to the film's negative aura, if you will. Although I'm not suggesting that production flaws were the #1 reason. And while the competition didn't help, I also don't believe that "competition" is the #1 (or #2) reason. Even without the competition, this film was never going to outgross TLD.

 

 

I don´t think that "competition" was the only or main reason either.  And I would agree that Dalton mostly did not connect with US audiences (which still seem to be in the majority of Dalton haters).

 

But your opinion on the direction, set decoration, production design and script is just as valid (or irrelevant) as mine (which is the total opposite).  And neither explains or counters the film´s financial disappointment.

 

Your argument doesn't explain how the Belushi pic K-9, the Wilder-Pryor film, let alone "The Karate Kid III" made more money. LTK, even with all that competition, should have done better than those three films.

 

 

I disagree strongly on this point.  You cannot compare different genres because they will attract different audiences.  A family entertainment film will always rake in more than an adult thriller.

 

But your reasoning of "different genres attracting different audiences" also discredits that they are even competition.

[SecretAgentFan]

I don´t think so.  I was talking about the competition LTK got from other action-adventures during the summer of ´89 that cut into its box office success.

 

Oh, and I have not even started on LTK´s rating.  Even if US censors were okay with the violence and gave it a PG-13 (instead of the usual PG), that was another factor working against LTK.  Since Bond was family entertainment for years, suddenly the whole family was not allowed to see the new Bond anymore.  And for those who craved hard action, LTK was not badass enough - so they went to see the R-rated "Lethal Weapon 2" instead.

 

Yeah, yeah, I know.  All these explanations are either justifications or speculations.  But since I was there in the summer of ´89 I know from experience that many friends and their families were turned off by the rating (in Germany, no one under 16 was allowed in).  Lots of people decided to sit this one out and wait for the next Bond film.

[S K Y F A L L]

I've always just looked at the negative responses to LTK (& even OHMSS, MR, DAD, QOS) as just a failure to adapt to the changing modern world which Bond is suppose to be living in 

 

OHMSS

-I think they tried to adapt to soon when everyone is still hot of the heals of Connery, not to mention Bond getting married and crying like a big baby ("the b**** is dead" well I guess they learned their lesson)

 

MR 

-Clearly tried too hard to bank off the success of Star Wars and the correct science fiction trend. 

 

LTK had;

-smoking which become unpopular

-the aids uproar

-a bombardment of Hollywood flicks to compete with

and I think with a new actor playing Bond people weren't ready for such a dramatic change from what they saw in the previous Bonds (ahead of its time)

 

DAD

-kind of became the film that Austin Powers should have taught us not to make

-Brosnan's age becomes even more noticeable with advancements in cinema like HD or digital cameras

-competition from other films like Bourne, prequels/reboots became the trend with more serious tones "why so serious?"

 

QOS

-was just cashing in on the success of CR rather then improve on it (writers strike; what can you do? delay the film maybe?...)

-Batman come back to haunt Bond again

 

That's how I've kind of looked at it anyway. 

[Hockey Mask]

Oh, and I have not even started on LTK´s rating.  Even if US censors were okay with the violence and gave it a PG-13 (instead of the usual PG), that was another factor working against LTK.  Since Bond was family entertainment for years, suddenly the whole family was not allowed to see the new Bond anymore.  And for those who craved hard action, LTK was not badass enough - so they went to see the R-rated "Lethal Weapon 2" instead.

I would lend a bit more weight to the rating than competition and you are right that there were a number of things working against it but in the end what was on the screen didn't connect with US audience.  Word-of-mouth would have overcome the hurdles had LTK been worthwhile.

[glidrose]

 

I disagree. I do believe that John Glen's creaky direction, Alec Mill's floodlight interiors, Peter Lamont's cheap production design, and Wilson and Maibaum's patchy script and tin-eared dialogue did the film no favors. Let's not forget the film's meager budget. I think it is generally accepted that the Bonds were grossly under-budgeted at the time. I am sure that even the LTK boosters will agree that the film would have benefitted from a Brosnan-style budget. I do believe these all contributed to the film's negative aura, if you will. Although I'm not suggesting that production flaws were the #1 reason. And while the competition didn't help, I also don't believe that "competition" is the #1 (or #2) reason. Even without the competition, this film was never going to outgross TLD.

 
I don´t think that "competition" was the only or main reason either.  And I would agree that Dalton mostly did not connect with US audiences (which still seem to be in the majority of Dalton haters).
 
But your opinion on the direction, set decoration, production design and script is just as valid (or irrelevant) as mine (which is the total opposite).  And neither explains or counters the film´s financial disappointment.
 

Your argument doesn't explain how the Belushi pic K-9, the Wilder-Pryor film, let alone "The Karate Kid III" made more money. LTK, even with all that competition, should have done better than those three films.

 
I disagree strongly on this point.  You cannot compare different genres because they will attract different audiences.  A family entertainment film will always rake in more than an adult thriller.

 

Many examples exist where an adult thriller (which LTK is not) outgrossed a family entertainment.

Further K-9 was also a PG-13 film. See No Evil, Hear No Evil was rated R.

I'm still not convinced that the whole PG-13 rating was that big an issue.

However it looks like we're arguing semantics. As you said above you don't think "competition" was the only or main reason for it's poor performance which to be honest surprised me because I thought that was your #1 reason. I won't dispute that the competition did LTK no favors, though it was never going to be a big hit - let alone outgross TLD - no matter what. If I were to give you a list of the ten reasons why LTK did poorly, "the summer action film competition" would be on the list but near the bottom of my list. (Uninspired ad campaign ranks even lower for me.) I suppose another way of looking at the competition issue is that instead of just looking at the other action films out that summer, we should also (and more importantly) consider the glut of franchise competition the series was up against that decade - especially the latter part of the decade - which added to the general malaise the series suffered.

As long as you're willing to admit "competition" is neither the #1 or #2 reason why LTK underperformed, then I'm willing to accept almost all of your arguments.

Hm, perhaps we should rank the reasons? I'm willing to change the order of reasons if anybody can come up with even a fairly good argument. I'm also willing to add more reasons since I'm sure more exist.

1. Timothy Dalton instead of Pierce Brosnan (and this is the big reason)
2. General malaise about series, not attracting new fans
3. Films being released every two years
4. Miami Vice plot not what people were looking for in an escapist Bond film
5. Reduced number of theatres it opened in (of course I can hear somebody say that this issue directly relates to the "competition")
6. Production values, exhausted production team, film's lack of confidence, etc
7. Weak word of mouth (hence the massive weekly falling off which the series had not seen since TMWTGG)
8. Glut of competing action franchises
9. Summer action competition
10. Release date
11. Running time (resulting in reduced screenings: first performances opens during dinner hour and final performances finishes way too late at night, though I admit that other Bond films are just as long - but imagine if this film had been twenty to thirty minutes shorter... surely that would have resulted in better box office, no?)
12. Weak direct-to-video title
13. Uninspired ad campaign. (I rate this so low is because it's a Bond film. By this point only the die-hard fans and the casual fans were seeing the films. It's part of an established franchise so you don't really need to sell the film that hard.)

Edited by glidrose, 03 August 2013 - 05:39 PM.

[Grard Bond]

Don't forget that Batman was the most awaited movie of the year, especially in America and "everyone" wanted to see that movie that summer. It was what you can call a big hype.

Not everyone goes to every movie, the average moviegoer goes once, or two times in one summer to the movietheater.

Batman opened much earlier in the U.S. then in Europe. Everyone wanted to see that picture and not Licence to kill.

I was that summer in London with my dad and Batman just had opened on Leicester Square. There was a line of people around the corner for Batman. We tried to get tickets but it was sold out for days.

In my homecountry The Netherlands (aka Holland) Batman was released much later and in Holland Licence to kill had not such a big competition, even Indiana Jones and Lethal Weapon2 were not released yet, so Licence to kill was a very big hit over here in Holland. I think it was the most succesfull blockbuster of that year in Holland.

 

So yeah, I think it had a lot to do with the competition.

Edited by Grard Bond, 02 August 2013 - 11:59 PM.

[tdalton]

 

Many examples exist where an adult thriller (which LTK is not) outgrossed a family entertainment.

Further K-9 was also a PG-13 film. See No Evil, Hear No Evil was rated R.

I'm still not convinced that the whole PG-13 rating was that big an issue.

However it looks like we're arguing semantics. As you said above you don't think "competition" was the only or main reason for it's poor performance which to be honest surprised me because I thought that was your #1 reason. I won't dispute that the competition did LTK no favors, though it was never going to be a big hit - let alone outgross TLD - no matter what. If I were to give you a list of the ten reasons why LTK did poorly, "the summer action film competition" would be on the list but near the bottom of my list. (Uninspired ad campaign ranks even lower for me.) I suppose another way of looking at the competition issue is that instead of just looking at the other action films out that summer, we should also (and more importantly) consider the glut of franchise competition the series was up against that decade - especially the latter part of the decade - which added to the general malaise the series suffered.

As long as you're willing to admit "competition" is neither the #1 or #2 reason why LTK underperformed, then I'm willing to accept almost all of your arguments.

Hm, perhaps we should rank the reasons? I'm willing to change the order of reasons if anybody can come up with even a fairly good argument. I'm also willing to add more reasons since I'm sure more exist.

1. Timothy Dalton instead of Pierce Brosnan (and this is the big reason)
2. General malaise about series, not attracting new fans
3. Films being released every two years
4. Miami Vice plot not what people were looking for in an escapist Bond film
5. Reduced number of theatres it opened in (of course I can hear somebody say that this issue directly relates to the "competition")
6. Production values, etc
7. Weak word of mouth (hence the massive weekly falling off which the series had not seen since TMWTGG)
8. Glut of competing action franchises
9. Summer action competition
10. Release date
11. Running time (resulting in reduced screenings: first performances opens during dinner hour and final performances finishes way too late at night, though I admit that other Bond films are just as long - but imagine if this film had been twenty to thirty minutes shorter... surely that would have resulted in better box office, no?)
12. Weak direct-to-video title
13. Uninspired ad campaign. (I rate this so low is because it's a Bond film. By this point only the die-hard fans and the casual fans were seeing the films. It's part of an established franchise so you don't really need to sell the film that hard.)

 

 

I think that reasons #2 and #3 listed above are probably the top two reasons that Licence to Kill didn't succeed at the box office.  I'm fully willing to admit that had Brosnan taken over, that he might have had a bit more success than Dalton, but I don't think that the returns on Licence to Kill (or whatever his follow-up to The Living Daylights would have been) would have been as astronomically higher than Dalton's as some would like to think they would have been.  Obviously, there's no way to know that for sure, and it's just an opinion, but I think that the aforementioned malaise surrounding the series and the rapid-fire release schedule that saw new films released every other year like clockwork (save for the 3-year gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM) probably had much more of an impact than the Dalton vs. Brosnan debate (which is not to say that it had no effect, of course).  

 

What they really should have done was to wait a few years after A View to a Kill and relaunch the series with Dalton and a whole new creative team surrounding him, a team that would have catered the films to his strengths rather than pulling in one direction while Dalton tried to break new ground with the character by pulling him in a different direction.  I think that the general idea behind Licence to Kill could have made for a big hit at the box office had they fully invested in it.  Someone adept at that type of filmmaking, perhaps someone like Brian de Palma, who had both Scarface and The Untouchables under his belt by the time 1989 rolled around, could have taken the reigns of Licence to Kill and really done something truly interesting with it.  The criticisms of the film with respect to general lack of quality from behind the camera are valid concerns when considering the film as just a film out against every other film in the marketplace, as its visuals to reference some sort of television-style look.  That said, it can't really be levied as a valid complaint against Licence to Kill within the context of the Bond franchise, as there are other Bond films that have had the same problems but don't get called to the mat nearly as much for them as Licence to Kill does.  GoldenEye, the "film that saved the series", looks every bit as much, if not more, like it could have come from the realm of television.  As I already said, bringing in a new crew behind the camera could have done wonders for the series and Licence to Kill, as there could have been some true interest from the public simply for the fact that it could have really looked different from what came before rather than just simply being a different coat of paint on a structure that had already been, more or less, built by someone else.

[Hockey Mask]

Dalton was a bore.

[ViperSRT87]

 

 

Many examples exist where an adult thriller (which LTK is not) outgrossed a family entertainment.

Further K-9 was also a PG-13 film. See No Evil, Hear No Evil was rated R.

I'm still not convinced that the whole PG-13 rating was that big an issue.

However it looks like we're arguing semantics. As you said above you don't think "competition" was the only or main reason for it's poor performance which to be honest surprised me because I thought that was your #1 reason. I won't dispute that the competition did LTK no favors, though it was never going to be a big hit - let alone outgross TLD - no matter what. If I were to give you a list of the ten reasons why LTK did poorly, "the summer action film competition" would be on the list but near the bottom of my list. (Uninspired ad campaign ranks even lower for me.) I suppose another way of looking at the competition issue is that instead of just looking at the other action films out that summer, we should also (and more importantly) consider the glut of franchise competition the series was up against that decade - especially the latter part of the decade - which added to the general malaise the series suffered.

As long as you're willing to admit "competition" is neither the #1 or #2 reason why LTK underperformed, then I'm willing to accept almost all of your arguments.

Hm, perhaps we should rank the reasons? I'm willing to change the order of reasons if anybody can come up with even a fairly good argument. I'm also willing to add more reasons since I'm sure more exist.

1. Timothy Dalton instead of Pierce Brosnan (and this is the big reason)
2. General malaise about series, not attracting new fans
3. Films being released every two years
4. Miami Vice plot not what people were looking for in an escapist Bond film
5. Reduced number of theatres it opened in (of course I can hear somebody say that this issue directly relates to the "competition")
6. Production values, etc
7. Weak word of mouth (hence the massive weekly falling off which the series had not seen since TMWTGG)
8. Glut of competing action franchises
9. Summer action competition
10. Release date
11. Running time (resulting in reduced screenings: first performances opens during dinner hour and final performances finishes way too late at night, though I admit that other Bond films are just as long - but imagine if this film had been twenty to thirty minutes shorter... surely that would have resulted in better box office, no?)
12. Weak direct-to-video title
13. Uninspired ad campaign. (I rate this so low is because it's a Bond film. By this point only the die-hard fans and the casual fans were seeing the films. It's part of an established franchise so you don't really need to sell the film that hard.)

 

 

I think that reasons #2 and #3 listed above are probably the top two reasons that Licence to Kill didn't succeed at the box office.  I'm fully willing to admit that had Brosnan taken over, that he might have had a bit more success than Dalton, but I don't think that the returns on Licence to Kill (or whatever his follow-up to The Living Daylights would have been) would have been as astronomically higher than Dalton's as some would like to think they would have been.  Obviously, there's no way to know that for sure, and it's just an opinion, but I think that the aforementioned malaise surrounding the series and the rapid-fire release schedule that saw new films released every other year like clockwork (save for the 3-year gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM) probably had much more of an impact than the Dalton vs. Brosnan debate (which is not to say that it had no effect, of course).  

 

What they really should have done was to wait a few years after A View to a Kill and relaunch the series with Dalton and a whole new creative team surrounding him, a team that would have catered the films to his strengths rather than pulling in one direction while Dalton tried to break new ground with the character by pulling him in a different direction.  I think that the general idea behind Licence to Kill could have made for a big hit at the box office had they fully invested in it.  Someone adept at that type of filmmaking, perhaps someone like Brian de Palma, who had both Scarface and The Untouchables under his belt by the time 1989 rolled around, could have taken the reigns of Licence to Kill and really done something truly interesting with it.  The criticisms of the film with respect to general lack of quality from behind the camera are valid concerns when considering the film as just a film out against every other film in the marketplace, as its visuals to reference some sort of television-style look.  That said, it can't really be levied as a valid complaint against Licence to Kill within the context of the Bond franchise, as there are other Bond films that have had the same problems but don't get called to the mat nearly as much for them as Licence to Kill does.  GoldenEye, the "film that saved the series", looks every bit as much, if not more, like it could have come from the realm of television.  As I already said, bringing in a new crew behind the camera could have done wonders for the series and Licence to Kill, as there could have been some true interest from the public simply for the fact that it could have really looked different from what came before rather than just simply being a different coat of paint on a structure that had already been, more or less, built by someone else.

 

Excellent analysis Tdalton. I fully agree with you here. Dalton really was trying to "relaunch" the series in his performance but everything else lagged behind him. Given some time and a fresh crew I do feel thing might have fared differently. However for me personally I still love both his films especially TLD. 

[Guy Haines]

 

 

Many examples exist where an adult thriller (which LTK is not) outgrossed a family entertainment.

Further K-9 was also a PG-13 film. See No Evil, Hear No Evil was rated R.

I'm still not convinced that the whole PG-13 rating was that big an issue.

However it looks like we're arguing semantics. As you said above you don't think "competition" was the only or main reason for it's poor performance which to be honest surprised me because I thought that was your #1 reason. I won't dispute that the competition did LTK no favors, though it was never going to be a big hit - let alone outgross TLD - no matter what. If I were to give you a list of the ten reasons why LTK did poorly, "the summer action film competition" would be on the list but near the bottom of my list. (Uninspired ad campaign ranks even lower for me.) I suppose another way of looking at the competition issue is that instead of just looking at the other action films out that summer, we should also (and more importantly) consider the glut of franchise competition the series was up against that decade - especially the latter part of the decade - which added to the general malaise the series suffered.

As long as you're willing to admit "competition" is neither the #1 or #2 reason why LTK underperformed, then I'm willing to accept almost all of your arguments.

Hm, perhaps we should rank the reasons? I'm willing to change the order of reasons if anybody can come up with even a fairly good argument. I'm also willing to add more reasons since I'm sure more exist.

1. Timothy Dalton instead of Pierce Brosnan (and this is the big reason)
2. General malaise about series, not attracting new fans
3. Films being released every two years
4. Miami Vice plot not what people were looking for in an escapist Bond film
5. Reduced number of theatres it opened in (of course I can hear somebody say that this issue directly relates to the "competition")
6. Production values, etc
7. Weak word of mouth (hence the massive weekly falling off which the series had not seen since TMWTGG)
8. Glut of competing action franchises
9. Summer action competition
10. Release date
11. Running time (resulting in reduced screenings: first performances opens during dinner hour and final performances finishes way too late at night, though I admit that other Bond films are just as long - but imagine if this film had been twenty to thirty minutes shorter... surely that would have resulted in better box office, no?)
12. Weak direct-to-video title
13. Uninspired ad campaign. (I rate this so low is because it's a Bond film. By this point only the die-hard fans and the casual fans were seeing the films. It's part of an established franchise so you don't really need to sell the film that hard.)

 

 

I think that reasons #2 and #3 listed above are probably the top two reasons that Licence to Kill didn't succeed at the box office.  I'm fully willing to admit that had Brosnan taken over, that he might have had a bit more success than Dalton, but I don't think that the returns on Licence to Kill (or whatever his follow-up to The Living Daylights would have been) would have been as astronomically higher than Dalton's as some would like to think they would have been.  Obviously, there's no way to know that for sure, and it's just an opinion, but I think that the aforementioned malaise surrounding the series and the rapid-fire release schedule that saw new films released every other year like clockwork (save for the 3-year gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM) probably had much more of an impact than the Dalton vs. Brosnan debate (which is not to say that it had no effect, of course).  

 

What they really should have done was to wait a few years after A View to a Kill and relaunch the series with Dalton and a whole new creative team surrounding him, a team that would have catered the films to his strengths rather than pulling in one direction while Dalton tried to break new ground with the character by pulling him in a different direction.  I think that the general idea behind Licence to Kill could have made for a big hit at the box office had they fully invested in it.  Someone adept at that type of filmmaking, perhaps someone like Brian de Palma, who had both Scarface and The Untouchables under his belt by the time 1989 rolled around, could have taken the reigns of Licence to Kill and really done something truly interesting with it.  The criticisms of the film with respect to general lack of quality from behind the camera are valid concerns when considering the film as just a film out against every other film in the marketplace, as its visuals to reference some sort of television-style look.  That said, it can't really be levied as a valid complaint against Licence to Kill within the context of the Bond franchise, as there are other Bond films that have had the same problems but don't get called to the mat nearly as much for them as Licence to Kill does.  GoldenEye, the "film that saved the series", looks every bit as much, if not more, like it could have come from the realm of television.  As I already said, bringing in a new crew behind the camera could have done wonders for the series and Licence to Kill, as there could have been some true interest from the public simply for the fact that it could have really looked different from what came before rather than just simply being a different coat of paint on a structure that had already been, more or less, built by someone else.

 

Your final paragraph above - I couldn't have put it better myself. The declining box office revenues - masked by the way TLD did - ought to have been a hint that the series needed a re-vamp. Dalton pulling in one direction with a team used to the "way it's always been" ought to have been another. The only thing I would question is whether, if the series had taken a lengthy break after AVTAK, Timothy Dalton would have been cast? Pierce Brosnan was, apparently, the first choice for TLD - he came that close, it was only the Remington Steele option to make another series that caused him to pull out. Had they waited until, say, 1988/89 for the first film since AVTAK then Brosnan might have been available again.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think all possible reasons have been analysed so far - and compliments to everybody involved for such a civil discussion!

 

In the end, I am grateful that EON produced the two Dalton entries.  Even if the box office results (for LTK) were disappointing the learning curve was essential.  I also think that the two year-cycle (nowadays, the three-year cycle) is important for Bond.  He has to remain a reliable factor, something audiences can look forward to.