79 replies to this topic

[Chaotician]

Here's a direct quote from John Glen as he explains the real reason LTK's box-office was disappointing. The reason WASN'T Dalton:

Q. What happened with Licence to Kill? Box office returns were disappointing despite an engaging story and a top-notch performance from Timothy Dalton.

A. The thing is that MGM was going through absolute turmoil at that point. We had, I think, three or four different people on publicity during the course of making it -- they were changing every few weeks. So what happened was that they didn

Edited by Chaotician, 11 February 2004 - 04:56 AM.

[Agent 76]

makes sense to me.

[zencat]

Good for Glen! I agree with him. For years the official spin was that Batman and Indy Jones provided just too much competition that summer...B.S! The reality was that MGM did a TERRIBLE job promoting LTK (and for those of us who were around experienced this first hand). LTK could have been GoldenEye (or Batman) if it had been promoted like GoldenEye (or Batman).

Welcome to CBn, Chaotician.

[SnakeEyes]

Where did that come from?

I agree of course.

[Genrewriter]

Good for Glen! I agree with him. For years the official spin was that Batman and Indy Jones provided just too much competition that summer...B.S! The reality was that MGM did a TERRIBLE job promoting LTK (and for those of us who were around experienced this first hand). LTK could have been GoldenEye (or Batman) if it had been promoted like GoldenEye (or Batman).

Welcome to CBn, Chaotician.

I agree. They just threw it out there and expected it to take out the competition. Tomorrow Never Dies held its ground against the Titanic the first weekend not because of the quality (though TND is so much better than Titanic it's disgusting), but because the marketing of the film was superbly done.

Also, welcome to the site Chaotician, cool user name.

[Jim]

Nice to see Mr Glen not taking any responsibility. Yes, it was poorly marketed, but given what they were marketing...well...I wouldn't have bothered either.

[brendan007]

LTK's box office was low because it was cheap. Bond fans and general movie goers expect big things from a bond film, and this time the producers didnt deliver.
Instead of putting up the money up on the screen, they pennypinched. It went against everything Cubby had done in the past.
It was not what audiences wanted from their Bond film, so they stayed away.

[IndyB007]

Good for Glen! I agree with him. For years the official spin was that Batman and Indy Jones provided just too much competition that summer...B.S! The reality was that MGM did a TERRIBLE job promoting LTK (and for those of us who were around experienced this first hand).

In total agreement with you on MGM screwing up again... but Batman & Indy III did play a role in 007 box office demise, at least where I was. The local theater had, at that time, four screens I believe. As with some studios, you must sign a contract to have the film when it first comes out to run in your cinema for a predetermined length of time. With this theater having Indy III, Batman, Lethal Weapon & Star Trek V throughout that summer, LTK only arrived for a paltry 1 week showing. That was it.. we only had 1 week to catch the newest James Bond film before it got replaced with something else. This was rather dissappointing news for us 007 fans up there.. as it turned out, I was unable to see LTK until it was available to purchase on Betamax....

[Loomis]

Curious that the director of BORE YOUR EYES ONLY, OCTO-let's-totally-kick-the-****-out-of-everything-Fleming's-works-ever-stood-for-PUSSY and A VIEW TO A RETIREMENT COMMUNITY should be asked to provide any kind of apology or explanation for.... LICENCE TO KILL.

[Robinson]

LTK's box office was low because it was cheap. Bond fans and general movie goers expect big things from a bond film, and this time the producers didnt deliver.
Instead of putting up the money up on the screen, they pennypinched. It went against everything Cubby had done in the past.
It was not what audiences wanted from their Bond film, so they stayed away.

I believe Brendan and Glen's comments have merit. It seems that MGM wanted a sequel made but on-the-cheap. It's a mindset that followed the film from pre thru post-production. Having to do virtually everything in Mexico really limited the scope of the film. Bond fans are used to the movies passing thru at least three countries (TB being an exception). I'm not ragging on Mexico City but let's try to spead things out a bit.

I think the casting was done solely by someone out of Los Angeles. While I've no complaints, there was a familiarity with the supporting cast as well as bit players. Half, if not most of the participants in the Barrellhead barfight sequence were LA based stuntpeople.

LTK was a good Bond film- not great but very entertaining and a bold chance to take. The film still did well outside the US which is a testimony to the series considering all the other sequels and summer blockbusters that were out at the time.

[Kingdom Come]

What Glen has said is the truth but other truths had more of an influence in its weak showing. The certificate, which they knew they would run the risk of getting before the film went into production, lessened a sizeable portion of the available audience. The poster was the pits and looked like it was a send up of Bond cliches.
The script was terrible; the film looked rushed; a hugely disappointing pre-title sequence; Binders worst titles etc etc

Glen would have been wise to have left on a high - TLD - and would have helped his own dip as a director as seen by industry insiders.

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree that it was poorly marketed. It was easily the weakest marketing campaign of any Bond film in the series.

I also agree that the strong competition harmed it. Yes, TND had competition with Titantic - but the films are in 2 different genres. LTK was up against Indy, Lethal Weapon, Star Trek, and Batman - all action franchises.

However, even if the film had the most brilliant marketing campaign and zero competition in the action genre - it still would not have done that well IMHO.

There are so many things wrong with the film:

1) Dalton's Dracula Haircut

2) No European feel at all - just tropical locations

3) Music is abyssmal

4) Women are sub-par. While the two leads are attractive, they are too one sided. Soto is too weak and just helpless. Lowell is too strong, almost masculine - and the bar scene is just disturbing. Tsk Tsk about Bond's weapon? She insults his manhood. Later in the boat she derides the "out of gas" excuse.

I do not go to see Bond films where his masulinity and seduction technique are criticized by a dykey looking woman.

5) Bond is about class and elegance. Wayne Newton does not connotate either.

6) Production was moved to Mexico to save money. It shows.

7) Villains are too stereotypical. Oooh he has an iguana.

8) Climax is more appropriate for a Smokey and the Bandit movie.

I can't believe the same team that gave us the brilliance of The Living Daylights would drop the ball so badly on License to Kill.

[Jim]

I can't believe the same team that gave us the brilliance of The Living Daylights would drop the ball so badly on License to Kill.

In a manner too lucid for me to achieve, you hammer the nail home, dns.

The Living Daylights is a magnificent James Bond film

Licence to Kill...








isn't

[marktmurphy]

I think the story's not bad though. And I like the way the (very Bond-like) water-skiing sequence is actually quite relevant to the plot i.e. Bond's theft of the money finances his operation and puts suspicion on Krest, thereby getting him in with Sanchez.

[Loomis]

LICENCE TO KILL is the only James Bond film. Well, there's also THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and DIE ANOTHER DAY, but I digress. Anyhow, to take a leaf out of Jim's book, if not his opinions:

A is for Acapulco, where the mansion of a billionaire Broccoli cohort was used for hands down the most impressive villain's lair ever seen in a Bond flick.

B is for Bond, Fleming's. The hero of this film is so close to Ian's creation you can almost smell the fag smoke and the antiquated attitudes.

C is for COR! Carey Lowell! Especially sexy with short hair.

D is for Dalton, the most hardcore thesp ever to play 007. A Yoda among actors - just ask Jaelle.

E is for entertainment, exceptional.

F is for "**** me, that was fantastic, never have two hours of my life passed by so entertainingly."

G is for GOLDENEYE, the disappointing followup to LICENCE TO KILL.

H is for "High Time to Kill" - if that's your idea of a perfect Bond adventure, you probably won't like LTK. Your loss.

I is for iguana - where is it now, I wonder?

J is for just watch the bloody thing with an open mind.

L is for "Love James so much, I."

M is for Moore era, mashed into a thousand tiny pieces.

N is for ninjas, used in a hugely exciting action scene.

O is for Oregon, State of, which apparently is a smaller market for chainsaws than Key West.

P is for "Please, MGM/Eon, ask Timothy Dalton and John Glen to come back for BOND 21."

Q is for Desmond Llewelyn's finest hour.

R is for the rating it nearly got. Not for the kiddies. Fleming's Bond, this is - the real deal. Strong, punch-packing stuff.

S is for south of the border, where it's a man's world.

T is for Talisa Soto, the loveliest Bond girl of all time.

U is for underrated, which LTK most certainly is.

V is for violence. If you like a lot of violence with your Bond films, join our club.

W is for winking stone fish, a lovely little touch that's like the cherry on the top of this wonderful film. What a winker.

X is for X-rays. Oh yes, this terrific movie even has X-rays in it. Xcellent!

Y is for "You'll never see a better Bond film."

Z is for "Zees film ees amazing" (yep, LTK has an especially high reputation in France).

[SnakeEyes]

I love LTK, I really do. But i'm not blind. I can't mindlesly say it's brilliant, its flaws not glaring, but I can say that what it stood for, what it wanted to achieve, was Bond brilliance and it comes close, sometimes, if you look past the cheapness.

Dalton plays basically Flemings Bond, so authentic, so real, so great...but is let down by not being in a film that contributes to those realitys.

LTK was 'hyped' (of course it wasn't hyped) as being a hard edged thriller type of Bond, and yet includes such sh!te as the entire end sequence of cuddly nature, the Q rubbish and gadget time wasting and all that 'nless your heart' bull from Newton and his daft little meditation center.
I'm sorry, but that's all a load of crap and so is most of the pretitles.

But when you look past that, you see the greatness - a reality based story where Bond, operating outside his 'zone' must ultimatly rely on himself and a few allies to pull off his revenge and put down a nasty peice of work, Sanchez.

There's only one other Bond film that tried to 'be Fleming' and that's obviously OHMSS. Another example of brilliance in the face of odds against them. However, OHMSS had plenty to rely on, such as an already good story by Fleming and plenty of cash and exotic locations etc. LTK was, as been said, too bland, too 'cheap' looking.

I like to think OHMSS is the most unsuitable Bond in the best film, and LTK as the best Bond in an (generally) unsuitable film.

"Don't use the flash!"
Please god, aim that thing at the person who put that scene in the film.

[Jim]

D is for Dalton... A Yoda among actors

You mean his syntax is shot to hell, he has an absurd voice and he is a small green sock with a man's fist rammed up him?

Interesting view

Most entertaining post, there.

[Jaelle]

Loomis:
<D is for Dalton... A Yoda among actors>

Jim:
<You mean his syntax is shot to hell, he has an absurd voice and he is a small green sock with a man's fist rammed up him?
Interesting view>

Thank you guys for giving me a great giggle! Tim = Yoda! One of the greatest bizarro equations I've ever seen!

BTW, Tim *does* wield a sword with the same skill that Yoda wields a lightsaber....!

Back to the topic...

On the reasons for LTK's failure, I've always taken the *marketing* issues that Glen discusses more seriously than the competition factor. Maybe there was something to the latter but I've always believed that films live and die by virtue of their MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING.

And I keep pointing out to you guys that LTK was the most successful Bond film among test audiences -- the same audiences whose responses had influenced the final cut of every Bond film.

[Panavision]

Bond markets itself, you really don't know have to spend millions and millions.

The 1989 competition was just too much, this was a time that multiplexes was in its infancy; now there are 14-20 screens' cinemas.

The 6 year gap certainly helped Goldeneye, people were very hungry for Bond.

[Jaelle]

Bond markets itself, you really don't know have to spend millions and millions.

The 1989 competition was just too much, this was a time that multiplexes was in its infancy; now there are 14-20 screens' cinemas.

The 6 year gap certainly helped Goldeneye, people were very hungry for Bond.

<Bond markets itself, you really don't know have to spend millions and millions.>

Really?

Then why does MGM feel the need to spend millions and millions on promoting/marketing all of Brosnan's films?

I disagree with your complacency. It is *precisely* that complacency of the Bond producers that "Bond sells itself" in the late 80s that was in question. It was true for previous years when it did not have so much competition, when sfx budgets were not so astronomical and competitive. But by the time of LTK, Bond had fierce competitors. That's why the Bond producers felt the need to make something like LTK, to make a film they saw as competitive with the type of film that was popular in that period. But neither they nor MGM worked all that hard on the film's promotion at a time when MARKETING was becoming far more important than it ever was.

The two issues--marketing and competition--go together. But of the two, I feel marketing is more important. That's how you beat the competition.

[Turn]

I too thought they were just coasting on the Bond reputation and thought that alone would sell the film. I think the same sort of mistake was made with TMWTGG when Moore was still new in the role. Dalton was still fairly new, it was a different sort of approach and it was released after many of the blockbusters preceded it.

Think back to the summer of '89 and all the hype that went into Batman. There were bats everywhere. How could LTK not seem smaller in comparison? Also count in Lethal Weapon II was still a new, hip brand at the time and closer to Die Hard, which was a new breed of action film the previous summer and the fact that Indy III kicked off the summer season and it's easy to see why a lot of people probably saw Bond as an also-ran at the time.

It may be a stretch, but people may also have been sick of sequels by that time as Star Trek V was also out before LTK. The disappointment of seeing something like that may have soured some people from seeing the new Bond, seeing it as more of the same.

[Robinson]

It may be a stretch, but people may also have been sick of sequels by that time as Star Trek V was also out before LTK. The disappointment of seeing something like that may have soured some people from seeing the new Bond, seeing it as more of the same.

STAR TREK V- Oh no you didn't!

Yes, outside of Batman, '89 was the "Summer of Sequels." However, each sequel had a marketing campaign that allowed a film to stand out. INDY III had the whole "Keeping up with the Joneses," LW II just needed a simple poster and a great trailer. LTK had neither. Granted, I loved the whole "His Bad Side is a Dangerous Place to Be" one-sheet but that was all I saw in terms of marketing. I read a couple of magazine articles and saw something on HBO but that was it.

I think the most significant thing the folks at MGM had done since LTK was moving the film's release to the Fall/Holiday season. Summers have become too crowded and people expect sequels(if not dread them) to dot those months. As much of a "world-beater" Bond films have been, It's too risky to place a Bond film in direct competition with the likes of SpiderMan, X-Men and StarWars.

However, I thought all the product placement and tie-ins would allow the film to be promoted without MGM having to do it all themselves. Why are the marketing and promotional costs for DAD so high?

[Panavision]

<Bond markets itself, you really don't know have to spend millions and millions.>

Really?

Then why does MGM feel the need to spend millions and millions on promoting/marketing all of Brosnan's films?

Why? 'Cos of the 6 year gap, it was time to re-engage the audience; that I can understand.
I don't feel MGM has to go out of their way to heavily promote the next Bond film, the usual trailers, TV appearances and poster is enough. No need to go over-the-top, the audience don't need it pushed down their throat.

I disagree with your complacency. It is *precisely* that complacency of the Bond producers that "Bond sells itself" in the late 80s that was in question. It was true for previous years when it did not have so much competition, when sfx budgets were not so astronomical and competitive. But by the time of LTK, Bond had fierce competitors. That's why the Bond producers felt the need to make something like LTK, to make a film they saw as competitive with the type of film that was popular in that period. But neither they nor MGM worked all that hard on the film's promotion at a time when MARKETING was becoming far more important than it ever was.

I can't remember the marketing campaign of 89, but I don't think the summer was the right time to show the film; it would've made so much more money in the U.S. if it came out in the winter. I'm sure the audience was fully aware of LTK but I reckon there were not enough screens to show all the blockbusters around the same time.

Edited by Panavision, 18 February 2004 - 07:48 PM.

[Alex Zamudio]

First off, I love LTK, an exciting, ultraviolent, real and serious thriller a' la OHMSS and FRWL, without the glamour of the 60's as James Bond is out on his own, I don't know why fans say it's cheap, what about the casino scenes? the villians house? even the city doesn't look like a dirty desert or a salvage jungle, the way Latin American countries are always depicted in movies.
The Q scenes are priceless, Carey Lowell's Pam is very beautifil, resourceful and femenine, Robert Davi is a cool and slick villian and of course Mr. Timothy Dalton was an amazing 007, you could always believe this guy was a dangerous Spy...

This one was a gritty, violent movie, the way the real world of drugs traffic is...

BUT HERE IS THE BIG QUESTION:

DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT IF PIERCE BROSNAN WOULD'VE BEEN 007 AT THOSE TIMES, THE BOND SERIES WOULD'VE BEEN VERY POPULAR AND COMPETITIVE??? AND BOND MOVIES RELEASES BIG EVENTS AS BATMAN???

I DO, AS MUCH AS I LOVE DALTON'S BOND, PIERCE WAS A VERY POPULAR CHOICE FOR 007 WITH THE PUBLIC, at least at the States as I recall.
Pierce face in the billboards and in people minds would've made the 007 films as trendy as Die Hard or Lethal Weapon, well that's what I think, I must point out I'm not talking quality as a factor but popularity...

Edited by Alex Zamudio, 18 February 2004 - 09:13 PM.

[SnakeEyes]

Money over quality makes me sick.

I'm glad Cubby wasn't a cheap sell out type and stood behind Tim to the end.

Cubby is Bond.

[Loomis]

Pierce face in the billboards and in people minds would've made the 007 films as trendy as Die Hard or Lethal Weapon

I disagree. I reckon Brosnan would have been more successful than Dalton, but only slightly more successful - his Bond wouldn't have challenged the popularity of Gibson, Schwarzenegger and Willis. Apart from anything else, at the time MGM/Eon weren't spending enough money on the series to create all-conquering action blockbusters.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I loved LTK and I agree with Loomis's praise for the most part but I have to tell you the truth about something that happended while I saw it in a theater the first time: I counted FIVE people that walked out of the movie. Yep, F-I-V-E!!!! Now, I've never noticed anyone walking out before(because I like the 5th row usually but my friend wanted to sit farther back and I caved in). So, I loved the film and saw it 3 more times but I had an ominous feeling afterwards when I saw it the first time that it was over for Dalton's tenure. My fears were confirmed in early 1990 when the E channel ran a "story" about Dalton being dumped for Pierce brosnan...and then no advanced publicity for the '91 film...

John Glen could have done things better to service his great actor. how about introducing Bond to Talisa Soto at the BJ table for starters? Lupe: "To find out more about you.... Bond:"My name is Bond, James Bond..."

[SnakeEyes]

M G Wilson's ineptitude is the cause of poor lines etc. Who ever let him near the script! Back to your cage...

[Blofeld's Cat]

M G Wilson's ineptitude is the cause of poor lines etc. Who ever let him near the script! Back to your cage...

It wasn't his choice nor was it planned. A writers strike very close to production start date forced Maibaum out of the production so MGW stepped it as best he could.

Also, it was decided very early on to base the production in Mexico so the whole script was written around that edict set down by the producers, thus hamstringing creative flow. So I think anyway.

[ChandlerBing]

As much as I don't care for Dalton's Bond, I was still saddened that LTK didn't do well at the BO that year. As a Bond fan and a Trekker at the time, it was NOT a good year in 89.