108 replies to this topic

[zencat]

[Split from I'm going to say it! Moonraker is my favorite Moore Bond film!]]

For me, the closest we ever came to a series sinking Bond film was LTK. That was the only time I ever felt the producers had lost their way. And this was what I felt when I saw LTK in '89. It was like seeing Star Trek V (which, ironically, came out that same summer). I just knew we had taken a major wrong step. It was the only time I told people the new Bond film was "bad."

But now that the series is back on track, I like LTK for the strange experiment that it was and it certainly now has a lot of fans. So...there is still no bad Bond.

[DLibrasnow]

Personally speaking I thought LTK was an interesting experiment. I have muted feelings about it. I don't dislike it but I am not crazy about it either.

[zencat]

What did you think about it when you first saw it, DLibrasnow? I had your TWINE-like hate for it (although I did go back and see it a few times). But I've warmed up to it over the years.

[DLibrasnow]

I have never seen it since 1999. I just remember sitting in the movie theater wishing the movie would just end.

[zencat]

No, I mean LTK. What did you think of LTK when you first saw it? (Or did you mistype 1989 as 1999?)

[DLibrasnow]

Oh, I actually thought it was okay....a bit of a "Miami Vice" rip-off but it was okay...

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

For me, the closest we ever came to a series sinking Bond film was LTK. That was the only time I ever felt the producers had lost their way. ... I just knew we had taken a major wrong step.  

And yet I'm sure that after their first pre-release, private screening of LTK, Cubby and co. would have truly believed that they could not have made a more commercial Bond film for that particular year (given the popularity of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, the notoriety of Manuel Noriega, etc.), and that they had another huge hit on their hands. It must have seemed that Bond was, as ever, totally in tune with the zeitgeist. I know that if I had seen a rough cut back in 1989, I would have been convinced that LTK had a shot at being the biggest-grossing 007 outing ever.

So what went wrong? There's the nobody-liked-Dalton theory (which doesn

[zencat]

Originally posted by Loomis
And yet I'm sure that after their first pre-release, private screening of LTK, Cubby and co. would have truly believed that they could not have made a more commercial Bond film for that particular year (given the popularity of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, the notoriety of Manuel Noriega, etc.), and that they had another huge hit on their hands. It must have seemed that Bond was, as ever, totally in tune with the zeitgeist. I know that if I had seen a rough cut back in 1989, I would have been convinced that LTK had a shot at being the biggest-grossing 007 outing ever.

But in 1989 the whole Lethal Weapon/Die Hard thing was sort of on the wane. Miami Vice had come and gone. Drugs and drug dealers were the stuff of bad Van Damn B-movies by '89. Had LTK been made in 1984 it would have been edgy and a hit, I think. But in '89 it was just re-treading tired '80s action movies clich

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

But in 1989 the whole Lethal Weapon/Die Hard thing was sort of on the wane. Miami Vice had come and gone. Drugs and drug dealers were the stuff of bad Van Damn B-movies by '89.  

I disagree that LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD were on the wane in 1989. Quite the reverse: they were in their prime as franchises. LETHAL WEAPON 2 went through the roof at the box office in the summer of '89, and a year after the release of LTK, DIE HARD 2 opened to colossal grosses. In many ways, DH2 was almost a remake of LTK, with a villain who was Noriega in all but name, and lots of shootouts with automatic weapons, exactly what MGM and Eon had delivered the previous summer. I'm not even sure that drugs and drug dealers were considered too old hat when LTK was being prepared - they continued to be the staple of action thrillers until well into the 1990s, and while "Miami Vice" had certainly come and gone by 1989, I don't believe that the Bond people were trying to surf its wave in any way, shape or form.

[zencat]

Yeah, you're right, Loomis. I forgot that LW2 came out that summer and DH2 had yet to be released. Guess that genre was booming when LTK came out. But I do remember thinking at the time that Miami drug dealers etc were the stuff of B-action movies (and TV) instead of A-action movies, and definitely NOT the stuff of Bond movies. Ironically, the villains in Die Hard were more Bondian -- euro terrorists, etc.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by zencat

LW2 came out that summer and DH2 had yet to be released. Guess that genre was booming when LTK came out.  

I remember an article in (I think) the London Evening Standard in the summer of 1990, headlined "Hollywood's Bloody Summer". It was a look at the new lows in violence supposedly plumbed by new blockbusters like DIE HARD 2 and TOTAL RECALL. That was a year after LTK, but LTK appeared more or less in the middle period of the trend for pumped-up, blood-soaked action movies with lotsa automatic weapons and colossal body counts, a trend started by LETHAL WEAPON, PREDATOR and DIE HARD.

Now, maybe LTK, for all its "darkness" and "brutality", simply didn't go far enough. Maybe if they'd gone for the R rating and stuffed the film with epic, virtuoso shootouts with rapid editing and the camera never still for a second, LTK would have been a box office smash. Perhaps I was wrong to suggest that the filmmakers could have "saved" it with a jawdropping stunt like the ski jump in THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. Perhaps they should have just fashioned LTK like an Arnie vehicle of the period, really laying on the hardcore violence. Sure, LTK did deliver blood and guts to an extent - the whipping of Lupe, Krest's exploding head, Bond getting all cut up and dirty during the final confrontation with Sanchez, etc. - but was it still too tame for its time?

[DLibrasnow]

The problem with LTK was Timothy Dalton. People went to TLD out of curiosity to see what the new man was like (John Glen made this observation immediately prior to the release of LTK on the ITV special covering the British premiere). By 1989 they knew what Dalton was like and just as certainly knew they didn't like his interpretation of 007.

[DLibrasnow]

I think LTK would have been more successful if Roger Moore had starred in it. Although he was way too old by that point, he was an established Bond that the public actually liked.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I think LTK would have been more successful if Roger Moore had starred in it. .... he was an established Bond that the public actually liked.  

I concede that an established Bond might have helped, but not all that much. LTK was outgunned by the likes of LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, glossier, more violent and more exciting films that boasted eye-popping action scenes that the Bond series was at the time quite unable to match. Watch LETHAL WEAPON 2 alongside LTK, and the latter's production values seem threadbare. There had never been franchises quite like LETHAL WEAPON and DIE HARD, and their effect in the late 80s and early 90s was akin to that of the Bond series in the 60s, stomping all over the old guard with big, new, shiny boots.

I really think that Dalton cops far too much of the blame, and I don't say that simply because I like his Bond and Bond films. Throughout the early 90s, the British press claimed that Martin Riggs, John McClane, Jack Ryan and the Terminator had killed the James Bond films, not Dalton.

Similarly, Brosnan gets too much credit for bringing the franchise back from the dead. The Bond series was saved because the filmmakers were determined to pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the blockbusters of Gibson, Willis and Schwarzenegger. In terms of action and stunts, GOLDENEYE held its own against the pretenders that had almost knocked Bond off the throne for good. Ultimately, that's why it succeeded.

[Genrewriter]

I think the main reason LTK dodn't do as well is because the general plot is similar to Lethal Weapon 2. Think about it, both films involve drug dealers and a character seeking bloody, violent revenge. Also compounding the problem was the fact that the two films were released in consecutive weeks, 7/7/89 and 7/14/89.

[Loomis]

I don't think LTK and LETHAL WEAPON 2 have similar plots at all. The villains of LW2 may be dealing in drugs, but that's really nothing more than a McGuffin. The interesting thing is that they get up to their evil tricks by exploiting their immunity as South African diplomats. Their real crime is apartheid. As for "a character seeking bloody, violent revenge", that's something that occurs only at the end of the film, when Riggs (Mel Gibson) discovers that he has a personal score to settle with one of the bad guys. Otherwise, LW2 is basically just a buddy movie, trading on quips and fireworks resulting from the union of two mismatched cops, with much more humour than LTK (as well as Joe Pesci, for those viewers wanting still more comedy on top of the banter between Gibson and Danny Glover). I'd say that LTK is much more similar to DIE HARD 2 than LW2.

Still, I am sure that the release of LW2 did overshadow that of LTK. I guess millions of moviegoers considered LW2 to be the hip new thing, while LTK was, well, just boring old James Bond. Unfortunately, LTK boasted neither the awesome action scenes nor a good marketing campaign to convince people otherwise. To point the finger at Dalton is to miss the point - LTK could have starred a young Connery, defrosted, Austin Powers-style, from a cryogenic sleep he'd entered in the 60s, and the folks in the malls of Middle America still wouldn't have cared.

[JimmyBond]

You might be onto something by saying that LTK might be too tame. On one hand it's a bit too tame for the average movie goer who made the likes of LW2 a hit, but on the other hand. The film is too violent for Bond fans who grew up with the Moore films. It's stuck in the middle of both's expectations and satisfies neither. I also agree with Loomis that Dalton is not the problem. If he was the problem, then why was Living Daylights so successful?

[zencat]

Originally posted by JimmyBond
You might be onto something by saying that LTK might be too tame. On one hand it's a bit too tame for the average movie goer who made the likes of LW2 a hit, but on the other hand. The film is too violent for Bond fans who grew up with the Moore films. It's stuck in the middle of both's expectations and satisfies neither...

Very well observed, JimmyBond.

I've often though the choice of John Glen as director for LTK was a mistake. I think it was difficult for him to break free of the traditional Bond mold. For such a new style they should have gone with a new director who was more familiar with these types of films and could bring new energy. Glen did a good job...but like Jimmy said, the film seems to be stuck between worlds.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
The problem with LTK was Timothy Dalton. People went to TLD out of curiosity to see what the new man was like (John Glen made this observation immediately prior to the release of LTK on the ITV special covering the British premiere). By 1989 they knew what Dalton was like and just as certainly knew they didn't like his interpretation of 007.

I also think there is truth to this.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by JimmyBond

It's stuck in the middle of both's expectations and satisfies neither.  

That's right. That's LTK in a nutshell: on the one hand, we have Lupe being whipped (not a scene of graphic nudity or gore, but her pleas for Sanchez to stop and her tears are genuinely disturbing), and Krest's head swelling and exploding in a scene that seems more appropriate to a Freddy Kreuger film than a Bond movie; and on the other hand, we have all the usual clowning with Q, and "comic" touches like skeletons showing up in an X-ray of a photograph.

I feel that THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH also tries too hard to please everyone, ending up as something of an uneven affair (although heaven knows it did well enough at the box office).

[Loomis]

How about:

LICENCE TO KILL - what really went wrong?

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I don't think that's necessary, the line was a natural progression of an ongoing discussion. To split it up just because people happened to discuss a Dalton movie to make a point about a Roger Moore movie (ie Moonraker) is rather inane. To butcher the thread by splitting it up would not make any sense whatsoever.  

I'm easy.

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

In many ways 'Moonraker' and 'License to Kill' are quite opposites of each other in the James Bond 007 canon, its an interesting comparison.  

I agree. They make for a fascinating double bill, showing the Bond series at its extremes of "fantasy" and "realism".

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

The problem with LTK was Timothy Dalton. People went to TLD out of curiosity to see what the new man was like (John Glen made this observation immediately prior to the release of LTK on the ITV special covering the British premiere). By 1989 they knew what Dalton was like and just as certainly knew they didn't like his interpretation of 007.

Dalton's always the fall guy for the "failure" of LTK, but do you really think that the film would have gone through the roof in the summer of 1989 had Moore starred in it? I'm not sure that it would have done better with Brosnan, either. I think it had the misfortune to come out at a time when audiences wanted to see megastars like Gibson, Schwarzenegger and Willis in big, brawny, all-American action pictures made on budgets that MGM/Eon were unable or unwilling to match. By November 1995 and the release of GOLDENEYE, the whole Arnie-Bruce-and-Sly genre of dumb lunk action had become a joke (well, even more of a joke) and was considered yesterday's thing (the success that year of DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE came as a shock to many, since it had been widely expected to flop), and the LETHAL WEAPON franchise was on hold. Bond no longer had the fierce competition that it had had in 1989 (and, for that matter, I wonder how well GOLDENEYE would have done had it gone up against TRUE LIES and CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER in the summer of 1994).

[Genrewriter]

I agree with the above, Loomis. As far as how Goldeneye would have done in the summer of 94, I think there would have been a definite dropoff in terms of boxoffice gross given the fact that it was a big summer like 89 and also the fact that True Lies was seen by many as a substitute for Bond.

Looking over my previous post I can see that I did make an error or two. The plots are not as similar as I thought.

[Righty007]

I was only a couple months old when Licence To Kill came out, so I didn't get to see it in theater. I saw it for the first time last year and I loved it. It is now one of my top 5 favorite Bond films:

1. Live and Let Die
2. Goldfinger
3. The World Is Not Enough
4. Licence To Kill
5. Die Another Day

[JimmyBond]

Expanding on my post. Would a Bond film that was rated R and taken to the extreme done as well enough to warrant the changes? I understand LTK had to have several scenes trimmed to recieve an R, had they kept those scenes in and accepted the R rating would the film have found an audience then?

It's an interesting thing to consider, the hardfore Fleming fans might see this as a sign that this film was'nt going to pull any punches (the PG-13 rating, while a first for a Bond film, still is'nt an acurate representation of the films conent), they would have showed up, and the action junkies would have shown up, cause if people were like me as a teenager, they'd look at a R rated action film and immediately jump to see it, cause quite frankly, they feel (as I did too, at the time) that the best action films were ultra-violent orgies of littered corpses and such (the LW films, Die Hard, etc.).

[BONDFINESSE 007]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
I think LTK would have been more successful if Roger Moore had starred in it. Although he was way too old by that point, he was an established Bond that the public actually liked.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HAD ROGER MOORE THEN
i would have been so happy if roger could have done ltk, i know i would like the movie insted of dislikeing it...give me an "OLD" MOORE OVER DALTON ANY DAY

[TonicBH]

I don't think that LTK would've survived by Brosnan or Moore. it just would've been real out-of-place to see Moore more (forgive the pun) hard-edged than usual. he wasn't even that hard-edged in FYEO!

But, come to think of it: if Brosnan/Moore did do TLD, LTK wouldn't have happened because it was tailored to Dalton's style.

[Triton]

I think what went wrong was that MGM/UA gave Eon a very small budget to work with. To make the film Broccoli had to make sacrifices to make the most of the budget he had, like moving the films outside shooting locations from around Asia to in and around Mexico, Bimini, and the Florida Keys, and relocating the production offices from London to Mexico City. Eon then renovated soundstages in Mexico City for the film's use to save more money, instead of using Pinewood or other studios in England to shoot the film's interior scenes.

If you watch the Special Edition documentary at the end of "Licence to Kill" you will find out that the budget for the Bond pictures did not increase since "Moonraker" in 1979, while the costs of producing the films had skyrocketed in the span of ten years. Unfortunately the documentary does not tell how much the price of the films had inflated or how much it would have cost to produce "Moonraker" in 1989 dollars.

For example, if I remember correctly, Peter Lamont said the he told Broccoli that they were mad to go and try to make a picture in Mexico City and Cubby responded "Then we don't do the picture."

They simply did not have the budget to tell a traditional Bond story, such as the I want to destroy/rule the world meglomaniac, so they rewrote the screenplay to make it more modest and inline with the production budget they had to work with.

Because of the hit TV series "Miami Vice" that was on television at the time and the hit film "Die Hard", the producers (Broccoli and Wilson) probably reasoned that they should do a harder-edged and more "realistic", and cheaper, action film and dispense with most of the expensive hedonistic eye candy. Sorry, no Aston Martin, they are too expensive to rent, let's use a Ford Thunderbird instead.

Plus I think this more realistic approach appealed to Timothy Dalton because of his desire to portray the James Bond character in the Ian Fleming books, not the character that had been established by Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Dalton's Bond was the humorless chain-smoking hired assassin, who would drown his sorrows in a double bourbon because he didn't like killing.

Despite the film's obvious flaws and problems, it did have some very exciting action sequences. Such as the DEA capture of Sanchez's private plane, the films underwater chase among the coral reefs, and the truck tanker chase during the film's finale.

I very much enjoyed watching "Licence to Kill" in the theater in 1989 and found the film to be very entertaining when compared with the other film choices that were released that summer. But I admit that when I compared it to the other Bond films that came before, I was very disappointed. "Licence to Kill" is not a Bond film because it doesn't follow the Bond formula, its an ordinary action film that features a character named James Bond.

Compounding my disappointment was Micheal Kamen's mostly dreadful score for the picture, 007 goes latin, and that horrible arrangement of the James Bond theme for the gun barrel sequence. All I can say about the Gladys Knight "Licence to Kill" theme song: BLECCCH!

I also have to admit that in my Bond DVD collection, it is the picture I watch the least.

[Triton]

I think what went wrong was that MGM/UA gave Eon a very small budget to work with. To make the film Broccoli had to make sacrifices to make the most of the budget he had, like moving the films outside shooting locations from around Asia to in and around Mexico, Bimini, and the Florida Keys, and relocating the production offices from London to Mexico City. Eon then renovated soundstages in Mexico City for the film's use to save more money, instead of using Pinewood or other studios in England to shoot the film's interior scenes.

If you watch the Special Edition documentary at the end of "Licence to Kill" you will find out that the budget for the Bond pictures did not increase since "Moonraker" in 1979, while the costs of producing the films had skyrocketed in the span of ten years. Unfortunately the documentary does not tell how much the price of the films had inflated or how much it would have cost to produce "Moonraker" in 1989 dollars.

For example, if I remember correctly, Peter Lamont said the he told Broccoli that they were mad to go and try to make a picture in Mexico City and Cubby responded "Then we don't do the picture."

They simply did not have the budget to tell a traditional Bond story, such as the I want to destroy/rule the world meglomaniac, so they rewrote the screenplay to make it more modest and inline with the production budget they had to work with.

Because of the hit TV series "Miami Vice" that was on television at the time and the hit film "Die Hard", the producers (Broccoli and Wilson) probably reasoned that they should do a harder-edged and more "realistic", and cheaper, action film and dispense with most of the expensive hedonistic eye candy. Sorry, no Aston Martin, they are too expensive to rent, let's use a Ford Thunderbird instead.

Plus I think this more realistic approach appealed to Timothy Dalton because of his desire to portray the James Bond character in the Ian Fleming books, not the character that had been established by Sean Connery or Roger Moore. Dalton's Bond was the humorless chain-smoking hired assassin, who would drown his sorrows in a double bourbon because he didn't like killing.

Despite the film's obvious flaws and problems, it did have some very exciting action sequences. Such as the DEA capture of Sanchez's private plane, the films underwater chase among the coral reefs, and the truck tanker chase during the film's finale.

I very much enjoyed watching "Licence to Kill" in the theater in 1989 and found the film to be very entertaining when compared with the other film choices that were released that summer. But I admit that when I compared it to the other Bond films that came before, I was very disappointed. "Licence to Kill" is not a Bond film because it doesn't follow the Bond formula, its an ordinary action film that features a character named James Bond.

Compounding my disappointment was Micheal Kamen's mostly dreadful score for the picture, 007 goes latin, and that horrible arrangement of the James Bond theme for the gun barrel sequence. All I can say about the Gladys Knight "Licence to Kill" theme song: BLECCCH!

I also have to admit that in my Bond DVD collection, it is the picture I watch the least.

[Jaelle]

<>

Exactly. Couldn't have put it better myself. The constant refrain at the time was--and I remember feeling this way myself back then--"Bond is pass

[zencat]

What else went wrong? Let's not forget....

1. Dirty Love
2. Truman Lodge
3. Dalton's hair
4. Dalton's wardrobe
5. Ninjas in South America?
6. A bar dancer who can't dance
7. The poster
8. The title change
9. That old bald guy with the beard and a bottle of champagne dirty dancing by the pool.
10. "I love James, so much."

But, to be fair, here's 10 things that went right.

1. Carey Lowell
2. Robert Davi
3. Dario
4. The tanker chase
5. Q
6. The teaser poster
7. Good underwater action for a change.
8. Music isn't terrible (I'm reaching)
9. Wayne Newton (I'm really reaching)
10. Did I mention Carey Lowell?