79 replies to this topic

[DLibrasnow]

LOL....Good one hrabb

[GreggAllinson]

Then again, when I was growing up and Roger was making Spy and Moonraker and big box office and people missed Sean, I kept George and OHMSS to myself because everyone said it was a crap film and made no cash and George was garbage. And suddenly every Tom, Dick and Harry likes it now and, of course, they always knew that...

No one involved with Licence EVER needs to apologise. Goldeneye, DAD? Well there's another thing.

Exactly. I grew up in the Moore era and thought Bond was this smug invincible superagent who made jokes that would've made the folks behind the Adam West Batman grimace. I didn't see what the fuss about Bond was. But LTK...LTK showed Bond as a real live human being. LTK's Bond is, indeed, the "Fleming Bond", and while the movie does have its problems (like Wayne Newton and a low budget), it's perhaps the most "literary" Bond this side of OHMSS.

[trevanian]

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...

... is a magnificent attempt to capture the WORLD of James Bond (as written in Fleming's novels), with all its dangers and gritty horrors.

As such, LTK (except for act 3 concessions to modern audiences) delivers the goods in spades, and occupies the exalted space just to one side and beneath FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE on my Bond film pantheon.

I agree that the MGM campaign was pathetic, but Eon should have slugged it out with them and made them hold the film over to winter (which is what Paramount should have done with TREK 5 as well, so they could have bought some decent fx), which would have allowed time for a proper campaign to be organized and for the film to release against lesser competition.

Note that all of the Brosnan Bonds have been winter releases (and all the trekfilms since 1989 have been winter releases as well) ... at least they learned THAT lesson from the summer of 89.

Edited by trevanian, 15 January 2005 - 05:05 PM.

[trevanian]

Star Trek V did well with 52 million, but not crazy business.

Trek V cost at least 30mil, so the 52 figure doesn't even come close to the 2.5 rule for breakeven. Since Trek films do badly overseas, this number is especially damning. Wish to Hell they'd held it back to xmas and redid the fx.

[Loomis]

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...

... is a magnificent attempt to capture the WORLD of James Bond (as written in Fleming's novels), with all its dangers and gritty horrors.

As such, LTK (except for act 3 concessions to modern audiences) delivers the goods in spades, and occupies the exalted space just to one side and beneath FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE on my Bond film pantheon.

LICENCE TO KILL is an excellent Bond film. I may have been too harsh on it a few posts ago on this thread ("...but, really, they might just as well have hired, say, Derek Jarman to cobble a Bond movie together on Super 8 - would have been more or less as commercial and audience-friendly as LTK (not to mention much cheaper)").

To Eon and MGM, it must have seemed just what audiences were looking for in 1989. If I'd seen a rough cut or attended a test screening, I'm sure I'd have said: "This film will be huge, possibly the biggest Bond ever, and, what's more, the critics are going to praise it to the skies." Like many Bond fans, I've done a lot of theorising as to why it "flopped", blaming Dalton, then blaming the film, then blaming the marketing, and then blaming a combination of those factors and other ones (such as the strong competition it faced, and the possibility that people were tired of Bond by that point), but, really, I still don't know why it "failed".

[David Schofield]

[
quote=GreggAllinson,15 January 2005 - 13:37]


Exactly. I grew up in the Moore era and thought Bond was this smug invincible superagent who made jokes that would've made the folks behind the Adam West Batman grimace. I didn't see what the fuss about Bond was. But LTK...LTK showed Bond as a real live human being. LTK's Bond is, indeed, the "Fleming Bond", and while the movie does have its problems (like Wayne Newton and a low budget), it's perhaps the most "literary" Bond this side of OHMSS.

[/quote]

Dalton made Brosnan for just that reason. It takes an actor, not a TV star or action man to change Bond's direction (note to EON about Bond 6). Brosnan had he done Daylights would have doen Remington Steele as Roger Moore as James Bond - Dalton, and ONLY Dalton gave Bond the Flemingesque image he should always have and which Brosnan now has tried to tap into.

[Kingdom Come]

Will Glen also 'explain' his cronic directing?

[Turn]

Like many Bond fans, I've done a lot of theorising as to why it "flopped", blaming Dalton, then blaming the film, then blaming the marketing, and then blaming a combination of those factors and other ones (such as the strong competition it faced, and the possibility that people were tired of Bond by that point), but, really, I still don't know why it "failed".

I've been mystified by this ever since LTK's opening weekend in 1989. I remember buying a USA Today newspaper, about the only place to find weekend box office results back then, and taking it to my university class. I was stunned to see how little it pulled in. It gave me a really weird feeling and still does. Although it's nice to see the film is building a decent following.

[Bondian]

I've been mystified by this ever since LTK's opening weekend in 1989. I remember buying a USA Today newspaper, about the only place to find weekend box office results back then, and taking it to my university class. I was stunned to see how little it pulled in. It gave me a really weird feeling and still does. Although it's nice to see the film is building a decent following.

I agree Turn.

It's really incredible why this great film lacked in public interest.

OK, the 'Producers' decided to make this one very 'American' like a kind of 'lethal Weapon' meets 'Indian Jones' and 'Die Hard', but it was a step in the right direction, and made Bond more interesting and deep.

What do we have here?. a REAL nasty powerful baddie, a good down-to-earth script, some great action sequences, and two gorgeous lovelies.

Dalton, was a real bad- with his employers, the henchmen, and was even forced to share a bed with Q.

In reflection, the lukewarm reception in the United States just proves how important the USA is to whether a movies successful or not.

It's really good news that this movies getting the attention it so richly deserves.

Cheers,


Ian

[Roebuck]

LTK needed a larger threat and more action to carry it along. Audiences expect Bond to be playing for high stakes. If Sanchez had intended fund a bloody coup d

[trevanian]

[quote name='Roebuck' date='16 January 2005 - 00:45']LTK needed a larger threat and more action to carry it along. Audiences expect Bond to be playing for high stakes. If Sanchez had intended fund a bloody coup d

[Roebuck]

The larger threat thing just doesn't wash for me. That sounds like the guy I wen to high school with who dismissed FRWL as "Bond goes out to steal a russian typewriter." The macguffin doesn't matter, what matters is the emotional import, what is invested by the principals (on both sides.)

I think it's fair to say that people had come to expect different things from Bond circa 1989 than they had back in 1963. A generation had grown up watching this man avert one potential Armageddon after another. Watching him face off against (comparatively) small time hoodlums just didn't float many peoples boat.

[trevanian]

The larger threat thing just doesn't wash for me. That sounds like the guy I wen to high school with who dismissed FRWL as "Bond goes out to steal a russian typewriter." The macguffin doesn't matter, what matters is the emotional import, what is invested by the principals (on both sides.)

I think it's fair to say that people had come to expect different things from Bond circa 1989 than they had back in 1963. A generation had grown up watching this man avert one potential Armageddon after another. Watching him face off against (comparatively) small time hoodlums just didn't float many peoples boat.

[shrug]
Principals of what constitutes good drama haven't changed a whole lot since Plato, and he dates back a long ways before FRWL.

But to put it in a different, more contemporary context, making it bigger don't make it better. The hook that got Paramount to greenlight the first trekpic (after YEARS of rejected storylines and development) was to threaten earth, which was 'big enough' for Michael Eisner. Nearly a quarter century later, trek is still coughing up the threat to earth with TREK X ... and that AIN'T ENOUGH to make a difference, you GOT to have something going on besides saying, 'its the biggest' (otherwise Emmerich's GODZILLA would still be trampling on summers with sequels.)

[Roebuck]

you GOT to have something going on besides saying, 'its the biggest'

Doesn't have to be the biggest, but it has to be a significant enough threat for audiences to care whether Bond succeeds or not. If Sanchez had murdered Felix (instead of Della, who the audience has no emotional attachment to) the personal revenge storyline might have had more resonance. As it is the film badly lacks some kind of ticking clock to add urgency.

[DLibrasnow]

which would have allowed time for a proper campaign to be organized and for the film to release against lesser competition.

But, more competition should have ensured a greater success for Licence To Kill.

Really this whole fuss about the movie failing because there was competition is so much BS, because even people with only half a brain are aware of the "tentpole" factor, that dictates that you increase your chances of success by releasing your movies in a busy market.

Hmmm... let's see what was playing in the theater at the same time as Die Another Day. We had the second Harry Potter movie, the tenth Star Trek movie and the second Lord of the Rings movie, also he Leonardo DiCaprio movie "Catch Me If You Can" was around. So quit crying about Licence To Kill having competition. If that was the case it should have made more money.

The reason Licence To Kill failed is because Timothy Dalton was a piss-poor excuse for a 007.

[brendan007]

Havent posted a good buffy quote in a while, but this one seems appropriate, its from Buffy's final season:


ANDREW License to kill, huh? (nods) Pretty cool. You know, Timothy Dalton never got his props 'cause he came in at the end of an old regime, but he had it goin' on. He went rogue with the Broccolis. They were just treading water, stylistically.

DAWN (shakes head) Is there a language that you're speaking?

ANDREW (pouts and sits on the couch) I'm so alone.

[boggles]

Yes I remember that quote form Buffy as well!

[Loomis]

But to put it in a different, more contemporary context, making it bigger don't make it better. The hook that got Paramount to greenlight the first trekpic (after YEARS of rejected storylines and development) was to threaten earth, which was 'big enough' for Michael Eisner. Nearly a quarter century later, trek is still coughing up the threat to earth with TREK X ... and that AIN'T ENOUGH to make a difference, you GOT to have something going on besides saying, 'its the biggest' (otherwise Emmerich's GODZILLA would still be trampling on summers with sequels.)

There's a hilarious account of a writers' meeting for STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE in Stephen King's "Danse Macabre" (a nonfiction book about the horror genre that's well worth checking out):

"....I really must pause and tell two more Harlan (Ellison) stories, one apochryphal, the other Harlan's version of the same incident.

The apochryphal, which I first heard at a science fiction bookstore, and later at several different fantasy and science fiction conventions: It was told that Paramount Pictures had a preproduction conference of Big Name Science Fiction Writers prior to shooting on Star Trek: The Movie. The purpose of the conference was to toss around ideas for a mission that would be big enough to fly the Starship Enterprise from the cathode tube to the Silver Screen ... and BIG was the word that the exec in charge of the conference kept emphasizing. One writer suggested that the Enterprise might be sucked into a black hole (the Disney people scoffed that idea up about three months later). The Paramount exec didn't think that was big enough. Another suggested that Kirk, Spock, and company might discover a pulsar that was in fact a living organism. Still not big enough, the writer was admonished; the writers were again reminded that they should think BIG. According to the tale, Ellison sat silent, doing a slow burn ... only with Harlan, a slow burn lasts only about five seconds. Finally, he spoke up. 'The Enterprise,' he said, 'goes through an interstellar warp, the great-granddaddy of all interstellar warps. It's transported over a googol of light-years in the space of seconds and comes out at a huge gray wall. The wall marks the edge of the entire universe. Scotty rigs full-charge ion blasters which breach the wall so they can see what's beyond the edge of everything. Peering through at them, bathed in an incredible white light, is the face of God Himself.'

A brief period of silence followed this. Then the exec said, 'It's not big enough. Didn't I just tell you guys to think really BIG?'"

[trevanian]

which would have allowed time for a proper campaign to be organized and for the film to release against lesser competition.

But, more competition should have ensured a greater success for Licence To Kill.

Really this whole fuss about the movie failing because there was competition is so much BS, because even people with only half a brain are aware of the "tentpole" factor, that dictates that you increase your chances of success by releasing your movies in a busy market.

Hmmm... let's see what was playing in the theater at the same time as Die Another Day. We had the second Harry Potter movie, the tenth Star Trek movie and the second Lord of the Rings movie, also he Leonardo DiCaprio movie "Catch Me If You Can" was around. So quit crying about Licence To Kill having competition. If that was the case it should have made more money.

The reason Licence To Kill failed is because Timothy Dalton was a piss-poor excuse for a 007.

I think you are out of your mind if you think greater competition creates better ticketsales for more pics. ESPECIALLY IN THE ERA OF HOME VIDEO! Your tentpole statement just doesn't hold water.

To use your example, you might consider the films YO mentioned and how they did. STAR TREK 10 did worse than any trek film ever here, making 10 mil less than ST V, grossing just under the COST of the first film. Granted, the film was awful (Stuart Baird has no business directing movies, proven three times now), but if they'd dumped it out in October, they'd have made at least half again as much, just because there wasn't anything else around (which in part accounts for STARGATE's modest success in 1994; it came out a month ahead of STAR TREK 7 and did quite well with that avoid-the-blockbuster strategy.) Spielberg's was a little under expectations, and you have LOTR and Bond doing good biz. You also have other films being slaughtered that go unmentioned. That doesn't sound like a prosperous holiday season for too many studios and films to me.

Back to the video era matter. You MIGHT get somebody to see three movies instead of two in a cinema IF they figure that is the only chance to catch it before waiting for ABC to show it four years later, but when you can rent or buy the thing in a few months, there is next to zero incentive to see something theatriclaly unless you are totally devoted to it or it is shot by somebody whose work benefits enormously from being seen widescreen ... and face it, while Bond has had some cinematic directors, none of them are a Kubrick or Welles or Frank Schaeffner.

And IMO Roger Moore was a piss poor Bond (I'd have preferred a 15 yr Bond hiatus to having to see anything between OHMSS and TLD), but that didn't stop him from being enormously popular with the masses. So 'piss poor' is apparently no standard for criticalANDfinancial success or failure, just another subjectively applied adjective.

[trevanian]

There's a hilarious account of a writers' meeting for STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE in Stephen King's "Danse Macabre" (a nonfiction book about the horror genre that's well worth checking out):

I've always kept a copy of this book and of DIFFERENT SEASONS, cuz i think these are the two tickets King could use for admission to heaven (the rest of the stuff, good or bad, just ain't all that special to me, but these two are terrific, each in their own way.)

I've seen this Ellison story repeated in various forms down through the years, I just wish he'd've included a chapter on his mis-involvements in the trek films as an appendix to his CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER book. Apparently he was involved at least twice during the development of the first film, and was approached to write at least two or three of the sequels featuring the original cast.

Have you ever heard what happened to Ellison's intended directorial debut, for the 80s revival of TWILIGHT ZON?. It was a Donald Westlake story called NACKLES, and would have had Ed Asner as a tenement owner who tells the minority children that Santa doesn't come for them, that they get visited by Nackles instead. Would have been the most awesome and nasty xmas story ever, but the network folk at CBs killed it just prior to shooting AND MADE THE SHOW EAT ALL PRODUCTION COSTS!