123 replies to this topic

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
Ghostbusters 2...LOL...Did anyone actually see that.

The whole competition argument is a smokescreen.

US box office for Ghostbusters II......$112.5 Million

US box office for Licence To Kill........$ 34.7 Million

Looks like enough people saw it. The "competition argument" is not the only "smokescreen" in this thread....

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

The reason LTK underperformed in the US can be summed up in two words

Timothy Dalton.  

Interesting.

So, then, what's your explanation for the Stateside box office success of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS? The fact that Joe Don Baker was in it?

LTK underperformed due to, as Sensualist puts it, **extremely stiff** competition, and also because MGM did an absolutely atrocious marketing job. I'm even willing to concede that the tone and content of the film may have put many viewers off (although people were lapping up extremely violent action movies at the time, such as DIE HARD and LETHAL WEAPON 2). But if Brosnan had starred in LTK, exactly as it was, promoted in the same way, I very much doubt that it would have done better. You think the then 36-year-old (and still babyfaced) Brosnan would have been any match for Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Mel Gibson as Martin Riggs and Bill Murray as Venkman in 1989? That Brosnan could have caused the Bond franchise to stand up to the Batman phenomenon?

Blame the competition. Blame MGM. Blame Eon. But it would be wrong, not to mention unfair, to blame Dalton.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Loomis
So, then, what's your explanation for the Stateside box office success of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS? The fact that Joe Don Baker was in it?

Blame the competition. Blame MGM. Blame Eon. But it would be wrong, not to mention unfair, to blame Dalton.

It's wholly moronic to lay the blame on LTK's relatively weak US Domestic box office performance on Timothy alone. That type of statement lacks intelligence.

MGM and competition played a significant hand in it. Eon, however, did a good job and had every reason to believe it had a hit(*) on its hands. (The test screening figures were meteoric.)


(*) It WAS indeed a hit "Internationally";)

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


Interesting.

So, then, what's your explanation for the Stateside box office success of THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS? The fact that Joe Don Baker was in it?

As director John Glen put it at the ITV premiere show for LTK there is always an audience for a new James Bond out of general curiosity to see how the new man does. He then went onto state that the real test of a new James Bond is their second movie because only then will you see if people will return to see him as 007.

Blaming competition is moronic because the summer of 1989 was no more heated than any of the other Roger Moore summer releases. One must remember that in 1983 the theaters were packed with people going to see "Return of the Jedi", "Wargames" and "Superman III".

Also, even if there was heated competition in 1989 there is always the philosophy of a tentpole movie environment which helped Die Another Day become such a successful movie in spite of the "Harry Potter" (which made roughly $100 million more than the 007 movie) opening only one week prior. The theory goes that people will go to the theater to see a movie and when they find that one sold out they look to the other choices and pick one.
In that way two popular movies can feed off each other. One can also point to the most successful movie in history "Titanic" opening on the same night as Pierce Brosnan's second movie Tomorrow Never Dies along with Johnny Depp's "Sleepy Hollow".

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
One can also point to the most successful movie in history "Titanic" opening on the same night as Pierce Brosnan's second movie Tomorrow Never Dies along with Johnny Depp's "Sleepy Hollow".

Really?

I do remember seeing 'Tomorrow on opening night. Titanic was released then as well. Sleepy Hollow, however, was no where to be found. Anywhere.

I suppose one had took around two years later to find it.

I do recall seeing The World Is Not Enough on opening night. There was a movie called Sleepy Hollow staring dear old Johnny THAT particular night.

[DLibrasnow]

Oops. yes I was getting my Bond releases mixed up.....but I kinda ignored TWINE when it was released anyway.

But yes "Titanic" was released on the same night as Tomorrow Never Dies so my point still stands.

And the tentpole theory does stand and has been acknowledged by Barbara Broccoli of EON as having helped there 007 movies in the past. This (along with your posts Sensualist) must mean that LTK should have been the most succesasful 007 movie in history.

Thank you for helping me make the point that Timothy Dalton was the cause for the movies lackluster Stateside performance. I appreciate it...

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
I kinda ignored TWINE when it was released anyway.

Really?

A member with 7000 posts who "ignored" the theatrical realease of a James Bond motion picture?

Shocking. Positively Shocking.

[DLibrasnow]

My dislike of TWINE has well been well documented on this site....Just ask anyone

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow
My dislike of TWINE has well been well documented on this site....Just ask anyone

I'd rather not. Too many other trivial and meaningless things to do, i'm afraid.

'TWINE', however, did have a rather engaging first 20 minutes, among other interesting things. The producers decided to take an artistic risk that some appreciated while others did not.

Each to their own, as they say.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

As director John Glen put it at the ITV premiere show for LTK there is always an audience for a new James Bond out of general curiosity to see how the new man does.  

That didn't seem to apply to George Lazenby, did it?

So your view is that Dalton was a terrible Bond, but THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a hit in America purely because there's always huge excitement surrounding a new Bond? And that, while people paid to see TLD, everyone immediately decided that they didn't like Dalton and resolved to steer clear of his next Bond film?

But if that were true, then reviews and word of mouth for TLD would have been appalling. They weren't. Quite the reverse, actually.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

And the tentpole theory does stand and has been acknowledged by Barbara Broccoli of EON as having helped there 007 movies in the past. This (along with your posts Sensualist) must mean that LTK should have been the most succesasful 007 movie in history.

I wrote the book on "Tentpole Effects";)

You are only taking bits and pieces to conveniently add weight to you extremely biased argument against Timothy.

The theory only works for certain movies and does not for others. If it worked for all movies then, as a case in point, Solaris, Treasure Planet and the last Star Trek picture would have been extremely successful having been tentpoled by Harry Potter, James Bond and The Two Towers last year at this time.

They, as you may or may not know, were not.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

John Glen ... then went onto state that the real test of a new James Bond is their second movie because only then will you see if people will return to see him as 007.

May I remind you, Darren, that your man Rog's second Bond movie tanked. With LIVE AND LET DIE and THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, Moore was nothing less than the Dalton of his day. And yet I've never read any statements from you along the lines of: "The reason TMWTGG underperformed in the US can be summed up in two words: Roger Moore."

If we're going to come crashing down on Dalton for the failure of LICENCE TO KILL, why are we letting Moore get off scot-free for the underwhelming performance of TMWTGG?

What was Sensualist saying about bias?

Now, who's to say that BOND 17 with Dalton, if it had had the excellent production values, mindblowing stunts and superb promotion (and maybe also the story) of GOLDENEYE, wouldn't have been Dalton's THE SPY WHO LOVED ME?

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Loomis

What was Sensualist saying about bias?

It is clear that people have their 'opinions' based on their 'preferences'.

Dlibrasnow is as entitled to his/her 'opinion' as anyone else. The glaring difference, in this case, comes in when he/she erroneously cites points that deviate from the 'facts'.

I have had to correct him/her on 3 or 4 'facts' in this thread (ranging from Octopussy's **direct summer** competition, to Ghostbusters II's box office, to Sleepy Hollow's release year, to "Tentpole" effects).

He/she, however, seems entrenched in his/her 'opinions' no matter what the 'facts' may be.

Tsk, tsk! Naughty girl/boy... It's wholly clear that she/he is relishing the idea of "yanking the chains" of all you Timothy Dalton lovers on these boards.

(*Sensualist making arrangements for said member to be escorted to nearest B&D club for spankings*)

[uvhadyrsix]

I think Dalton did a good job for what he had to work with,if they had let
him do as the title suggest (LICENCE TO KILL) time and time again you see Dalton pull his gun and never use it,felix house when he finds stella
dead no chase the scene fizzles,loses his gun in Krest place and kills with a electric eels,fair enough don't use gadgets but hold onto your bloody gun.Kills Killifer with a suitcase and sharks what a terrible waste
you can say that again.
In Hemmingways place a scene good idea but no
chase what MI 6 hasn't heard of the silencer yet.Compliments of Sharky
again good scene,good action,this is what they were up against Indy
good action,Lethal a body count and action they wanted Dalton's Bond
to be politically correct and he suffered for it.Don't get me wrong i wanted Dalton to continue with Bond for as long as he could and still
hope he does something with his films other than looney tunes and villians about rockets,but still he misses the spot a little like Brosnan's
early films not enough action a stupid american accent Brosnan tried
to do and not much else,maybe thats why i got excited with Brosnan
as Bond because he wanted to make him a darker character just like
Dalton but the difference is Mike and Barb are working for that although
the last one has me worried when they have a scene where Bond has killed 5 or 6 people and it turns out to be a training exercise so they can
show the audience they have yet another gadget.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Sensualist



They, as you may or may not know, were not.

They were all bad movies, just like LTK. Yet again you continue to help my argument...

Of course I know, I wouldn't be very good at my real life occupation if I didn't now would I.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Loomis


Now, who's to say that BOND 17 with Dalton, if it had had the excellent production values, mindblowing stunts and superb promotion (and maybe also the story) of GOLDENEYE, wouldn't have been Dalton's THE SPY WHO LOVED ME?

Good point, except all my US friends in 1989 were talking about how boring Dalton was.

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Sensualist


Tsk, tsk! Naughty girl/boy... It's wholly clear that she/he is relishing the idea of "yanking the chains" of all you Timothy Dalton lovers on these boards.

But I am personally a Timothy Dalton fan

It's a well known fact on this board that I like Timothy Daltons performance and interpretation as James Bond and furthermore I have stated on many occassions that I think The Living Daylights is a well plotted, great paced, wonderfully acted and exciting 007 picture.

Loomis I am surprised at because I am sure he already knew this but Sensualist can be excused since she is a relative newcomer to CBN....

[Tarl_Cabot]

So, you just hate LTK and his performance in that film but otherwise accept him as Bond?

[DLibrasnow]

Don't even dislike his performance in LTK, I just believe his presence as the actor playing the lead role was the reason the movie under performed in the US - and that's what this thread is about after all!

On a purely personal level I love Dalton as 007.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Ok How much is the ransom for Dlibrasnow?? Where is he? You kidknapped him!?

[Tarl_Cabot]

Are you watching Octopussy? Great scene on now!

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

Don't even dislike his performance in LTK, I just believe his presence as the actor playing the lead role was the reason the movie under performed in the US - and that's what this thread is about after all!  

On a purely personal level I love Dalton as 007. ... Loomis I am surprised at because I am sure he already knew this....  

Well, I've read on many occasions assertions you've made on these forums like "two Dalton films was two too many", "the Bond series ended with A VIEW TO A KILL", and so on, so forgive me if I don't exactly put you in the Jaelle/Bondpurist/myself league.

Besides, "The reason LTK underperformed in the US can be summed up in two words: Timothy Dalton" is a strange statement to come from a self-proclaimed Dalton fan.

Dalton fans, on the whole, concede that he wasn't a super-commercial, populist Bond in the Connery/Moore/Brosnan sense, but they also look at other factors why LTK underperformed, factors which you, Darren, seem strangely willing to dismiss completely, such as the way it was marketed and the competition it faced in the summer of 1989.

Now, I'm sure that if I wrote that "THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN was a box office disappointment because no one wanted to see Roger Moore", you'd fiercely contest that claim. You'd cite, I don't know, the relatively low budget and less-than-wonderful production values, the fact that it was released so soon after LIVE AND LET DIE, Tom Mankiewicz's script, Guy Hamilton's direction, the marketing, and heaven knows what else, but I very much doubt that you'd be prepared to pin all the blame on Moore.

And, in truth, I don't think Moore should cop all the blame for TMWTGG. But that's not why you'd let him off - you'd let him off because you're the number one Moore supporter on CBn.

I also don't believe that Dalton ought to take all the heat for LTK. It's obvious that there were quite a few problems with the film that hampered it in the marketplace that were the fault of MGM/Eon (I haven't mentioned the budget - where exactly did that $30 million or so go? - and the relative lack of amazing action setpieces), and nothing to do with Dalton, yet in your eyes Dalton must take all the blame.

It wasn't Dalton who decided that LTK would stray so far from the fun-for-all-the-family formula and incorporate so much genuinely unsettling violence that the film would be almost unrecognisable as a Bond outing. It wasn't Dalton who insisted on a title change from LICENCE REVOKED, rendering early promotional material useless. It wasn't Dalton who felt that LTK could do well in the summer of 1989 and didn't need to be moved to November. Et cetera.

So, to recap: you believe that Dalton's presence as the actor playing the lead role was the reason LTK underperformed in the US, and that TLD performed well in the US only because people were interested in checking out the new Bond actor?

[Loomis]

With

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

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.

and

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

The reason LTK underperformed in the US can be summed up in two words

Timothy Dalton. ... I just believe his presence as the actor playing the lead role was the reason the movie under performed in the US

you're contradicting yourself.

[DLibrasnow]

A man is allowed to change his mind isn't he??

[DLibrasnow]

Originally posted by Tarl_Cabot
Ok How much is the ransom for Dlibrasnow?? Where is he? You kidknapped him!?

I may have poked gentle fun at Timothy Dalton before, but I have been a long time fan of the movie The Living Daylights

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

A man is allowed to change his mind isn't he??  

Well, yes, but you got it absolutely right the first time: "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." No need to change your mind.

[DLibrasnow]

But then I remembered the disdain with which people in the summer of 1989 greeted a Bond movie with Timothy Dalton. I went to see LTK more than once at the theater myself and liked the gritty tone of it but I was not under any illusion that the reason why it failed was Timothy Dalton in the lead role.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I was not under any illusion that the reason why it failed was Timothy Dalton in the lead role.  

I'll concede that Dalton was one of the reasons why LTK underperformed - there's no getting away from it: he just wasn't a massively popular Bond, although that doesn't mean that he was universally hated.

However, there were other reasons. It's way too simplistic to pin all the blame on Dalton. You mention "the disdain with which people in the summer of 1989 greeted a Bond movie with Timothy Dalton", but I don't buy it. If he was that disliked as Bond, The Powers That Be would have had more than an inkling of it from critics' and audiences' reactions to THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, and they would have given him the push, hiring Brosnan (or someone else) for LTK.

[DLibrasnow]

I don't mean to imply he was disliked or hated but there was no excitement for a Bond movie with Dalton in the lead role in 1989.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by DLibrasnow

I don't mean to imply he was disliked or hated but there was no excitement for a Bond movie with Dalton in the lead role in 1989.  

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there was no excitement for a Bond movie (full stop) in 1989. You think there was excitement for a Bond movie with Moore in the lead role in 1985? Check the US grosses of A VIEW TO A KILL and think again. By 1989, the Bond series had been running out of steam for years, and had become a joke, thanks in no small part to Moore's decision to cling on to the role until he was two steps away from the nursing home. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS created a brief flurry of excitement in 1987, but by 1989 audiences were burned out on Bond. They wouldn't have cared even if they'd been given another MOONRAKER. It's quite amazing, IMO, that, having delivered a film every two years, regular as clockwork, ever since 1977, the franchise hadn't hit the rocks, and viewers hadn't become thoroughly sick and tired of Bond, long before 1989. Even the angelic Mr Brosnan couldn't have hooked them in in '89. The subsequent six-year break was terrible for us fans, but in many ways it was a necessary rest for the people who make the Bond films.