According to boxoffice.com AVTAK made $156 million & LTK made $152 but in the USA there was a HUGE difference. AVTAK made $50 million and LTK made $35 million. Losing out on at least $15 million is a ton of money and which is why MGM did not want him back and why I find it hard to buy your argument that he was successful as Bond. Think about it-if he did another Bond in 1991 and the box office results would probably be the same that is a total of $30 million in lost revenue.
Well, what difference does it make where the money came from? I suppose it does matter if overseas markets return a significantly smaller cut of their ticket sales than the US does, but even then the overall difference is probably slight.
Anyway, if money is that important, you'd think profit mattered above all else -- and the Dalton films, though less profitable than those before (a trend that had held from the beginning anyway, however), were more profitable than the Brosnan ones.
You can make the numbers say a lot of different things. And I hope you read my previous post. I think Dalton was more a victim of timing, among other things, even if he wasn't the most personable guy in the world. Hell, that might have even been an asset in the right time period.
Thunderball People don't think Dalton does humor well, but I disagree. He doesn't do SILLY humor well, but when I see Thunderball I can easily picture Dalton saying, "I think he got the point," and delivering that kind of line even better than Connery did. He'd be funny, but have that dangerous edge that makes him so great. Just a hint of anger and irritation at the guy he just killed - it would be a hell of a lot of fun to watch!
Yeah, I've thought about that one before for just that reason. Which makes it even more of a shame IMO that Dalton didn't get a chance to do Warhead 2000 or whatever McClory was calling it back then. I can see hints of how he'd do in such an (at least physical) environment in LTK.
