123 replies to this topic

[algernon]

The box office figures can't be denied: LTK was the least financially successful Eon Bond movie in the U.S. since the J.W. Pepper-cringe inducing The Man with the Golden Gun (ouch).
LTK happens to be one of my favorite Bond movies, but I think some proponents of the film tend to be apologists for its poor performance. What really happened?
*Some sources blame not enough or lousy advertising/promotion. Is this valid?
*Some blame it being released during the '89 summer "bloodbath" against heavyweights like Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. This doesn't seem to hold water, because every Bond movie since The Spy Who Loved Me in '77 had been released during the summer, often against heavy competition (i.e., Octopussy v. Return of the Jedi in '83), and all except LTK at least doubled the film's budget in U.S. grosses.
* Some say U.S. audiences never warmed to Dalton's Bond, for various reasons (not a well-known commodity before he got the part, too radical a departure from Roger Moore's cheeky portrayal and the cinematic Bond in general).
Box office isn't a big barometer for me (LTK as to GoldenEye what OHMSS was to Diamonds Are Forever--a movie with twice the artistic value of the picture it preceded, but earned less than half the box office) but I suspect had LTK made more money that Dalton would have continued as Bond when the series revived. I know the "official" version is that the parting was amicable, but the consensus on some fan sites seems to be that he jumped before he was pushed out by the Pierce Brosnan-promoting MGM/UA brass.
Then again, if Roger Moore had been judged based on TMWTGG's box office receipts, and there had been a six-year gap before Spy, might he have been obliged to hang up his Walther?

[ChandlerBing]

The Living Daylights opened huge in the US at number one over the weekend, bringing in the biggest opening gross for a Bond up until that time. HOWEVER, it quickly dropped at the BO, making a bit over 50 mil here, and bringing in the lowest attendance figures in quite some time. OHMSS even brought in more tickets.
License To Kill suffered an even worse fate, opening at number 3 or 4, settling for only 8 million tickets sold and a gross around 34-35 mil here in the US.
Why did License To Kill fail in the states? Dalton was very really accepted by the mainstream public as Bond. He was regarded by some as a second choice when Brosnan was unable to take the part. Obviously, the advent of both of his movies on DVD and TV, more people are getting to see them for the first time.
Combine that with the studio in the dire straits it was in, as well as the producers who had no clue what to do with Bond (some might say they still don't!), and you have a recipe for disaster.
After the failure of Heaven's Gate in 1980, MGM and United Artists relied on Bond to keep it afloat, but the strain finally got the better of them in 1989.

[DLibrasnow]

A lot of my friends here in the US in 1989 said that Bond was passe and snubbed their noses at the whole franchise.

Dalton seemed a little too serious for a role that under both Connery and Moore had been treated a bit tongue-in-cheek and he lacked the essential name recognition that Moore (and later Brosnan) had enjoyed from their television shows.

The plot was weak and tired for Licence to Kill. It was an excellent personal plot for 007 but it lacked the drive and adreneline pumping rush that action fans were able to get elsewhere in the summer of 1989. It's true that Licence to Kill faced just as tough competition as all the movies since 1977's The Spy Who Loved Me but its lackluster pace did not help it stand up against the other summer movies and 1988's "Die Hard".

It attempted to cash in on "Miami Vice" a couple of years too late.

Really, the reasons why Licence to Kill failed at the US box office are varied. There is no one single reason, but many that when combined led to a grave for the picture in the summer of 1989.

[Qwerty]

I 100% agree with DLibrasnow. Almost everything was against LTK to doing well at the box office. The introduction of 'tough' action films such as Die Hard and Lethal Weapon were intriguing to everyone, and the Bond formula just didn't work. People already knew about Bond, but this was the first time for these down and dirty action films to show up in theatres.

[Triton]

Don't forget that in the summer of 1989 Licence to Kill had the following competition at the box office:

Batman

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Lethal Weapon 2

I just think it was clobbered by these other films. Although I have never understood its appeal, Batman was the monster hit of that summer. I would have to say that the explanation for the poor box office performance of Licence to Kill was that the other studios had bigger guns. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was also a flop that summer.

[ChandlerBing]

Yeah, but Star Trek V still made over 50 mil here in the US, recovered enough to make a sequel 2 yrs later, and they have also been releasing their sequels around Christmas...coincidence? I think not!

[Triton]

I thought that it was rather silly that during the 1980s that the Hollywood studios chose to release their big budget action/adventure films during the summer time. It really was either feast or famine. While the Christmas season just had family fare or oscar contenders available for viewing at theaters. I find it strange that the studios always wanted to bring out their big guns at the same time and neglected the other nine months of the year. At least now we have a variety of films to see during the Christmas season.

[Jaelle]

All the reasons for LTK's failure have already been stated. However, whenever this subject comes up on these boards, one particular point usually gets ignored:

EON had every possible reason to believe that LTK was going to be a big hit not just outside the US, but very much among US audiences.

Why?

Because LTK was *the highest performing Bond film ever* among test audiences in the US and UK. No other Bond film before LTK performed as well among these audiences. The ratings after these test screenings were consistently "outstanding." EON was very impressed with the results of these test screenings, which is why they were so upset about all of the chaos at MGM's publicity department (which changed hands countless times throughout the period of 1987-1993) that resulted in such a miserable PR campaign for the film. They had strong faith in the film, which is why they were unprepared for the film's poor performance.

Now...let's consider this point for a moment. Just like any other production company, for years EON had been relying on these test screenings as a measure of what to expect for their newest Bond film. The results of these test screenings would sometimes cause EON to go back and make some needed changes on the final cut, tweak it for what those test audiences said they didn't like. Accordingly, very few changes were made on LTK after these highly successful test screenings. And the majority of these test screenings were conducted in the most important market: the US.

For the most part, these test screenings had been pretty reliable in the past. The Bond series had, after all, suffered few failures. And even those failures were never *box office* failures. Films like AVTAK, TMWTGG, DAF and OHMSS did not lose money, and certainly preformed better than many other more prestigious films that came out the same years they were released. They just made less money than the more successful Bond films. And none of the above weaker-performing Bond films performed as weak as LTK did. EON had no reason to believe that LTK would perform as poorly as it did in the US. (BTW, let's remember that LTK did not *lose money.* No Bond film ever has.)

So...what could've made those US test audiences so thoroughly wrong? It wasn't that they were just wrong. They were VERY wrong -- at least for the film's success in the US. It did better outside the US.

I think at bottom there were just too many contributing factors. The period of 1985-1993 was a period of great upheaval for the Bond series and for the film industry itself. Michael Wilson in an issue of Starlog (while on the set of LTK) admitted that they "were running scared" and that he and Cubby were talking a lot about the future of the series with growing concern. They knew the Moore era was over, that serious changes were needed if the series was going to survive in an era where action films were now the norm, not the exception. So they had to try different things. They were looking at a troubled industry, a film industry undergoing dramatic changes, the increasing popularity of hi-tech big sfx action films. Before that period those kinds of films were rare -- the Bond films had benefitted from being unique.

There are so many ifs here....if Dalton had been more charming and humorous in LTK, would the film have been more successful? Even with the same pathetic promotion campaign, the same rivals like Batman and The Last Crusade? The same pathetic budget compared to the budget of that year's biggest film, Batman? If LTK had had a bigger budget, would it have mattered? At $38 million, MR was considered a huge investment and a massive success. Just six years later, that same budget for LTK was considered extremely tight and gave the film a cheaper look. What if Pierce had been Bond at the time, with the same conditions -- the same low budget, the same rivals at the box office, the same chaos at MGM, the same pathetic PR campaign, the same absence of Dick Maibaum from the script and so on?

:eek: We could go on forever!

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
I thought that it was rather silly that during the 1980s that the Hollywood studios chose to release their big budget action/adventure films during the summer time. It really was either feast or famine. While the Christmas season just had family fare or oscar contenders available for viewing at theaters.  I find it strange that the studios always wanted to bring out their big guns at the same time and neglected the other nine months of the year. At least now we have a variety of films to see during the Christmas season.

No, not really. The studios release their big guns (meaning those films they want for Oscar consideration) all at the end of the year. That's why in the last 15 years or so you almost never see any film nominated for an Oscar that was released at the start or middle of the year.

[Kingdom Come]

License To Kill as a title alone started the rot - what a weak title. The films poster was lazy and contained nothing but cliched images that made the whole Bond world laughable. Dull opening sequence that really set the tone of disappointment. Binder's titles the worst of the series The locations stunk. The direction stunk. Melodramatic performances. Poor editing; very noticable in the pre-titles sequence. Glen's weakest of his five - he stayed one film too many - should have moved on after the almost excellent TLD.

There was no surprises in the film. We had been here way too often. There was no fantasy elements to speak off - the gadgets all were rotten - I ask you, an exploding alarm clock!!! how lazy is that?
They went with a budget that was not nearly high enough and the whole thing looks T.V. movie like and every scene cries out -compromised. That word is the word that sums up the film in a nutshell.

Compromised.

[algernon]

To each his or her own, of course. But when I saw Licence To Kill, I thought the movie was great--the antithesis of an airplane emerging from a horse's rear end, mindless car chases and animals doing double-takes. It was unique in the Bond series, it took chances and screwed with the formula-- commercially probably not the best move, but artistically a success, I think.
When I saw GoldenEye, I thought the plot was overfamiliar, the puns predictable and the ending tiresome & predictable. But computer-generated Bond is better than no Bond at all, I guess.
Ironic, by the way, that the movie so many people trash was written by Michael G. Wilson, who also got kudos for "resurrecting" the series in '95. He seems to have gotten all the credit but none of the blame.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Triton
Don't forget that in the summer of 1989 Licence to Kill had the following competition at the box office:

Batman

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Lethal Weapon 2

I just think it was clobbered by these other films. Although I have never understood its appeal, Batman was the monster hit of that summer.  I would have to say that the explanation for the poor box office performance of Licence to Kill was that the other studios had bigger guns. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier was also a flop that summer.

But the competition facing Licence to Kill was no greater than that which faced the other Bond movies of the late 1970s and the rest of the 1980s.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Jaelle
Now...let's consider this point for a moment.  Just like any other production company, for years EON had been relying on these test screenings as a measure of what to expect for their newest Bond film.  The results of these test screenings would sometimes cause EON to go back and make some needed changes on the final cut, tweak it for what those test audiences said they didn't like.  Accordingly, very few changes were made on LTK after these highly successful test screenings.  And the majority of these test screenings were conducted in the most important market:  the US.

For the most part, these test screenings had been pretty reliable in the past.  The Bond series had, after all, suffered few failures.  And even those failures were never *box office* failures.  Films like AVTAK, TMWTGG, DAF and OHMSS did not lose money, and certainly preformed better than many other more prestigious films that came out the same years they were released.  They just made less money than the more successful Bond films.  And none of the above weaker-performing Bond films performed as weak as LTK did.  EON had no reason to believe that LTK would perform as poorly as it did in the US.  (BTW, let's remember that LTK did not *lose money.*  No Bond film ever has.)

Not to get off the subject, but the results of test screenings for Bond films would be interesting to see. It would be a great thread if anybody outside EON knew anything about them.

I still think LTK's biggest problem was without strong marketing, EON was basically coasting on the response of the test audience and the Bond reputation. The character going against the new breed of action hero, the John MacClanes and Martin Riggs just wasn't as appealing. But those franchises lost steam with each successive entry. This was just the Bond franchise's turn for the rut.

[SeanValen00V]

The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill was released in a more competitive film environment then most of the Moore films. Also LTK marketing was poor. Dalton was big internationally, afterall were talking a British Spy here, the americans were probably jealous and wished for a american Bond.

Overall, since Blade Runner didn't do well when released, Dalton's films have been described as ahead of their times, you will find more fans of these films now then before, LTK is growing in bond circles, now the Brosnan films are sacificing character and story for more visuals, people appreciate what Daltons films did, so this box office talk is a waste of time, once again, Blade Runner is the perfect example, cult status after many years.


THE BIG QUESTION HERE ALSO IS: DON'T ANY OF YOU THINK AUDIENCES TASTE CHANGE, WILL FANS GROWING UP NOW THINK ABOUT THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES OF LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENCE TO KILL WHEN ENJOYING THESE FILMS? Thats whats happening, what happened to Blade Runner, if a films good, and someone likes it, we'll be getting more positive reviews of LTD and LTK in dvd releases, especially the ones my site R2 has done, but describing LTD and LTK as some of the best of the series and underatted.

box office talk now is pointless, times have changed, people will pop in Dalton's Bond films as dvds, and enjoy it without needing to know specifics of US's box office when they released, old news, the quality of the films though will last, given their loyality to the spirit of ian flemming.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by SeanValen00V
THE BIG QUESTION HERE ALSO IS: DON'T ANY OF YOU THINK AUDIENCES TASTE CHANGE, WILL FANS GROWING UP NOW THINK ABOUT THE BOX OFFICE FIGURES OF LIVING DAYLIGHTS, LICENCE TO KILL WHEN ENJOYING THESE FILMS? Thats whats happening, what happened to Blade Runner, if a films good, and someone likes it, we'll be getting more positive reviews of LTD and LTK in dvd releases, especially the ones my site R2 has done, but describing LTD and LTK as some of the best of the series and underatted.
box office talk now is pointless, times have changed, people will pop in Dalton's Bond films as dvds, and enjoy it without needing to know specifics of US's box office when they released, old news, the quality of the films though will last, given their loyality to the spirit of ian flemming.

Hello SeanV,

Of course I hope you're right. I *do* see more and more examples of people rediscovering Tim's films as well as George in OHMSS. I've also seen a surprising number of columnists out of the blue write complimentary pieces on Tim's efforts as Bond within just this past year.

But on your basic point that box office history does not necessarily indicate the fortunes of how a film is measured years from now, well, that's a truism that no one can deny. Probably the biggest example of this is GONE WITH THE WIND. A massive financial and popular success in its day, it was considered for decades the greatest film of all time. It certainly doesn't have that cache today.

But it's something none of us can predict. I could list you a whole bunch of box office failures from the 30s-60s that have *stayed* failures and have never been discovered by modern audiences and probably never will. Yet many of these films I personally enjoy -- you can't even call them cult films, they're known and enjoyed only by an even tinier circle of film critics, scholars, historians and fanatics like me.

Still, your example of BLADE RUNNER is a very good one. Only time will tell.

[Moore Not Less]

I certainly believe that Timothy Dalton's films are being seen by some in a new light and that they are being appreciated more. Personally, I have always liked both TLD and LTK, and I have always liked Dalton's portrayal of James Bond.

This surprising number of columnists writing complimentary things about Dalton's efforts as Bond. Could it be that there is a certain dis-satisfaction out there about the current direction of the Bond series? Or, has it really taken a surprising number of columnists fifteen years to discover that TLD and LTK are actually pretty darn good films and that Timothy Dalton was actually a pretty darn good James Bond.

[algernon]

I think the Dalton Bonds are a lot like what happened with OHMSS--considered a disappointment at the time, but years later recognized as one of the best. If there's something missing in the Brosnan Bonds, it's emotional authenticity. In DAD, Brosnan's hair is down to his shoulders and he's supposedly been tortured by the North Koreans for months, but to me it was about as convincing as the computer-generated glacier melt at the film's ending. By sticking rigidly to what audiences expect, the Brosnan films have brought unpredented riches to the filmmakers and MGM, but at a loss, I think, to what made the character so unique in the first place.
The scene at the end of DAD where Moneypenny is cavorting with 007 turns out to be just a virtual reality hoax. Much like the direction of the series, lots of sound and fury but pretty empty in the final equation.
Anyway, I wonder if LTK had been released in the late fall of '89 (like GoldenEye was in the late fall of '95) if it would have found an audience? I understand from reading John Cork's James Bond: The Legacy book that GoldenEye originally was supposed to come out in the summer of '95 but was delayed for further refinement.

[Tarl_Cabot]

LTK failed because UA's poor marketing, only one trailor,an over crowded summer,America was white trash hero obsessed at the time and so much attention/hype directed at Batman...I thought of all the franchise pics LTK was the best. I hated Indy 3, LW2,Star Trek V and thought Batman was just ok...good taste does not run rampant in America.

[ray t]

Originally posted by Jaelle


No, not really.  The studios release their big guns (meaning those films they want for Oscar consideration) all at the end of the year.  That's why in the last 15 years or so you almost never see any film nominated for an Oscar that was released at the start or middle of the year.

with one exception....Gladiator, released in may, 2000. i saw it 7 times and each time i came out of the theatre i thought it was going to sweep the 'awards':)

[Robinson]

Originally posted by ray t


with one exception....Gladiator, released in may, 2000. i saw it 7 times and each time i came out of the theatre i thought it was going to sweep the 'awards':)

Damn, I usually see films I really like about three times on the big screen but 7...

One could place SAVING PRIVATE RYAN in this category as well. It wasn't popcorn fare(sorta like FULL METAL JACKET or HAMBURGER HILL) but nonetheless a serious film that found a summer audience.

One could look at LTK as just being another "summer sequel" whereas INDY 3 & LW2 were more anticipated due to the previous film's audience appeal. I won't talk about STV: THE FINAL FRONTIER. It's too painful to discuss though it does have it's merits.

Remember, Datlon, though successful in TLD was still not the "choice" for Bond in many American's eyes. A crowded summer film slate and relative disinterest in Dalton could've kept folks away.

That being said, I don't remember seeing a trailer for LTK in the theaters. I remember seeing the teaser poster in the theater and making a mental note that the film was coming out. The music video for LTK was as close as I came to a trailer for that film.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Robinson
That being said, I don't remember seeing a trailer for LTK in the theaters. I remember seeing the teaser poster in the theater and making a mental note that the film was coming out. The music video for LTK was as close as I came to a trailer for that film.

I well remember looking out for trailers on TV and saw *none*. There may have been a trailer or promo on TV but I saw *none.* I saw *one* small poster on a bus kiosk in Boston that was quickly replaced by a poster for another movie the following week. I saw *no* trailers in the movie theater. By the time LTK finally came out, I'd given up looking for promos anywhere. I flew to London on an assignment just in time to see the film during its first week there. And I don't recall seeing very much PR for it in London either.

[J J]

Why the fascination for USA Boxoffice to determine the success of LTK? Traditionally, the Bondproducers have always proven they are experts at what INTERNATIONAL audiences want to see. American Studios and producers often seem to forget there is a whole world outside the USA where a lot of money can be made. A 50-50 split between international and domestic grosses is usually considered (very) good. Until the 1990s, the international piece of the Box Office pie was often closer to 40% than to 50%. Nowadays, more and more films have an international Box Office take that is outgrossing the US (got a lot to do with the international professionalization of exhibition from the 1990s onwards). Look at some figures below (of 80s Bondfilms and some 'American Blockbusters'), and you decide how much of a failure Dalton or LTK was, and why. (or how succesful any of the other films was, for that matter: fact and fiction?)...

NSNA (83): international= $82.5 million
US= $55.5 million
OCTO (83): international= $115.8 million
US= $67.9 million
AVTAK (85): international= $102.1 million
US= $50.1 million
TLD (87): international= $140 million
US= $51.2 million
LTK (89): international= $121.5 million
US= $34.7 million
BATMAN (89): international= $162 million
US= $251.2 million
DIE HARD (88): international= $56 million
US= $81.3 million
LETAL WEAPON 2: international= $80 million
US= $147.3 million
BACK TO THE FUTURE 2: international= $83.6 million
US= $118.5 million
INDIANA JONES LAST CRUSADE: international= $297.6 million
US= $197.2 million
BATMAN RETURNS (90): international= $120 million
US= $162.8 million
DIE HARDER (90): international= $120.2 million
US= $117.5 million

*international gross= excl. USA; all figures are non inflation adjusted (source: IMDB)

[algernon]

I agree that a film's U.S. box office isn't the end-all, be-all indicator of its success. But as I understand it from reading various accounts, LTK's poor showing in the U.S. was a key factor in prompting Cubby Broccoli to put Danjaq up for sale in 1990, and MGM's pressure on Broccoli after legal issues with the studio were settled in 1992 to replace Dalton with Brosnan.
So whether it's a legitimate concern or not, the U.S. box office did figure prominently in perceptions of the movie's showing, in terms of Broccoli's confidence in the franchise and the studio's confidence in Dalton's ability to attract movie-goers.

[Triton]

Originally posted by algernon
I think the Dalton Bonds are a lot like what happened with OHMSS--considered a disappointment at the time, but years later recognized as one of the best.

But you are forgeting the most basic and important fact that most moviegoers are not James Bond fans or movie buffs in general. Most moviegoers will attend a film and then forget about. They aren't going to read the literature of film criticism and analysis years later or purchase the film later on video tape or DVD. I would say that Licence to Kill has a cult following which Patrick Macnee defined as film which is watched often by a small group of people.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by Triton
But you are forgeting the most basic and important fact that most moviegoers are not James Bond fans or movie buffs in general. Most moviegoers will attend a film and then forget about. They aren't going to read the literature of film criticism and analysis years later or purchase the film later on video tape or DVD. I would say that Licence to Kill has a cult following which Patrick Macnee defined as film which is watched often by a small group of people.

I can agree with this. A general definition of a cult film would be one which did poorly when it was first released (ignored or dismissed by the public at large and/or mainstream film critics) but which finds a small devoted audience. With time, it's possible that audience may grow to insane proportions, as with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, but that audience is still small in proportion to the numbers required for the kind of financial success generated by, say, DAD. Cult films, however, do usually *start out* with a small group of people and critics who appreciate it and they stay the course throughout, helping in the creation of an eventual cult audience for it.

(The above helps to explain why most of the films mentioned in the current "Fave cult films" thread can't be considered cult films in any sense of the word).

It's also possible for a cult film to step over into full-blown mainstream respectability, as with Hitchcock's Vertigo or the now-classic It's a Wonderful Life. OHMSS, I think, has stepped into that category.

[4 Ur Eyez Only]

It is as simple as this...

Timothy isnt and will never be Roger Moore!

Timothy & Pierce can't hang with the big boys oin the Summer!!

BUT Roger could..

They put Roger's 007 films out agianst George Lucas,Speilberg, Sly Stallone movies ALL these guys at their peak... and STILL Roger's 007 films made boat loads of money.

Is Timothy a great 007.. YES! He is the only true actor to ever play the role.. but guys who ran the movies made a mistake and thought the public would just keep going to summer 007 movies without Roger.

they made that mistake with Timothy.. they were NOT and will NOT ever do that with Pierce.. because he would bomb to in the summer.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by SeanValen00V
The Living Daylights and Licence to Kill was released in a more competitive film environment then most of the Moore films.

Completely fals Sean. I draw your attention to 1983. I think that summer was the most competitive film environment that any Bond film has faced.

Not only did Octopussy have to deal with the likes of

'Return of the Jedi',

'Wargames',

'Trading Places',

'Sudden Impact'

'Superman III',

'Jaws 3-D'

to name just a few examples, but there was another James Bond movie in the theaters in the guise of Never Say Never Again.

There was also other (though not very successful) diversions such as 'High Road to China' (an entertaining Indiana Jones clone) and 'Krull'.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow


Completely fals Sean. I draw your attention to 1983. I think that summer was the most competitive film environment that any Bond film has faced.  

Not only did Octopussy have to deal with the likes of  

'Return of the Jedi',  

'Wargames',  

'Trading Places',  

'Sudden Impact'

'Superman III',  

'Jaws 3-D'

to name just a few examples, but there was another James Bond movie in the theaters in the guise of Never Say Never Again.

The gentleman did say "most of the Moore films". Not ALL. In essence, his statement is NOT "completely fals ()".

In addition, Never Say Never Again was NOT a summer release. It was released on October 10th. That was a full FOUR months after the June 10th release of Octopussy. (I was there...on both occassions.)

Further, Sudden Impact was NOT released in the summer either. (It was a December release)

Lastly, the Superman and Jaws series were on the downside, as they say. They were no longer serious "competition" for James Bond.

The gentlemen is correct in citing LTK's strong competition. Batman, The Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters II, etc. were **extremely stiff** competition. (All were summer releases) Stiffer than what Octopussy **directly** faced in 1983.

[DLibrasnow]

Ghostbusters 2...LOL...Did anyone actually see that.

The whole competition argument is a smokescreen. The reason LTK underperformed in the US can be summed up in two words

Timothy Dalton.

[Genrewriter]

I did, loved the whole darn thing.