519 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Hey, folks; it's me, again.

Anywho, I've been scanning the 'net, and this has caught my eye: It's an opinion espoused on Licence to Kill by a user called Nick from a website known as the agony booth.

To give a little background, Nick apparently loves every single Bond movie unconditionally, even the ones generally believed to be noxious (YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR, etc...). On a thread about the Bond films in general, the subject of LTK came up; when it was alleged that it had been a "flop", Nick responded, giving a couple of points as to why it wasn't technically a commercial flop:

To clear up a point about Licence To Kill: It wasn't a flop in commercial terms. No Bond movie has ever lost money at the box office. It did underperform by United Artists' standards and Bond fans (and experts) put the blame down to 3 factors:

1. A really poor marketing campaign which saw very few trailers for the movie hitting the theatres and virtually no supporting materials for publicity.

2. The beginning of the UA/Kevin McClory/Eon lawsuits which cast a shadow over the production and lasted for another 6 years, preventing any new Bond movies being made.

3. Knee jerk criticism. Because of reason #1, LTK didn't do that well in its first week at the box office so what did the press do? Blame the problem on the "dark tone", lack of humour and, eventually, Timothy Dalton himself. Forget the fact that LTK actually surmounted its problems and went on to do good business, in the media's eye the movie was a flop and audiences hated Dalton...which seems an odd conclusion seeing that The Living Daylights was a huge success.

So no Bond movies were made for 6 years and yet some movie critics still attribute that to LTK "bombing" and the public going off James Bond...convieniently forgetting that it was actually a lawsuit holding things up. A 3rd Dalton movie was being planned just after LTK to be released for 1991. One UA exec didn't like Dalton and apparently wanted him off future Bond movie but the truth is Eon plus the majority of the UA board wanted to keep him on.

It's funny how at the time of LTK, the press and some of the audience (I won't say "fans" because they clearly weren't James Bond fans; more like Roger Moore era fans) complained about the rawness of the movie, the violence and Bond being hard assed and yet these critics now praise Daniel Craig's interpretation. Moore fans are still seething though...they mutated into the "Craig Not Bond" nutters via an unhealthy obsession with Pierce Brosnan.

My question pertains to point #2: I thought it was a lawsuit with Pathe that stalled the Bond movies for six years. Also, didn't most of the UA executives want Dalton gone (I like the man, myself)?

It seems Nick has gotten some of his facts wrong... or have I? Perhaps you could correct me?

Here's the original thread; Nick's comment is on page 5: http://www.agonyboot...?g=posts&t=1855

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Reading what you have posted I think McClory had little to do with the litigation in the early 90's.
The gist of the lawsuit was, as I understand, the taking over/buying of MGM and Bond film rights being sold under value in order to enhance the sale of MGM. Danjaq were unhappy with this undervalue and thus sued, despite being advised only 50% chance of success.
As to what the execs thought of Dalton I have no authority on this. I believe a third film would have been made with Dalton, but for the lawsuit.
I also think one reason for the 'failure' of LTK was the fact it had a 15 certificate, which stopped families and kids seeing the film, plus the change of title didn't help either.
1989+ was a very interesting time in the Bond legacy, one would hope MGW will write all the facts from his perspective in a autobiography one day.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 06 December 2008 - 09:24 PM.

[Royal Dalton]

My question pertains to point #2: I thought it was a lawsuit with Pathe that stalled the Bond movies for six years.

MGM-Pathe, yes.

Also, didn't most of the UA executives want Dalton gone (I like the man, myself)?

Only when John Calley took over as the head of United Artists in August 1993. Which, unfortunately, was also when GoldenEye (which Dalton was still going to star in at that point) was being prepped.

[jaguar007]

Throughout the 80s, the Bond movies really became run of the mill. The public had grown tired of them like a long running once popular TV show that was destined for cancellation. By the end of the 80s nobody cared much about Bond no matter who played him. I think the 6 year break helped the series revival just as much as the changing of actors in the role.

While it did pretty poorly in the US, I hesitate to call any movie that grosses almost 4 times its production cost (word wide) a failure.

[Double-Oh Agent]

The marketing (or lack thereof) was atrocious. On top of that, you had (at that time and arguably still) the absolute worst final poster of the series--one that was incredibly bland and generic and resembled nothing of past 007 posters except for the logo and the star. How could you get excited about the new film when seeing the poster gave you little to no indication that one was forthcoming?

[doublenoughtspy]

I agree Jaguar.

People love to put the blame squarely on Dalton's shoulders, and that isn't fair or accurate.

Bond film ticket sales in U.S. declined for every film after Moonraker until Goldeneye.

Moonraker US Admissions: 24.9 million
FYEO US Admissions: 22.4 million
Octopussy US Admissions: 21.5 million
NSNA US Admissions: 17.5 million
AVTAK US Admissions: 14.1 million
TLD US Admissions: 13.1 million
LTK US Admissions: 8.7 million

So while LTK was the least successful Bond film of the 80s - a bigger admission drop happened between Octopussy & AVTAK.

(and before anyone accuses me of only quoting U.S. numbers - I do so because they are admission numbers - and are not affected by inflation or currency valuation).

As Jaguar said, the film made money. For the megabucks Bond series - that apparently isn't good enough - because films that easily turn a profit but aren't as successful as the film that follows - ala OHMSS or LTK - are labeled flops.

Another important thing to consider here is that Bond budgets in the 80s were pretty stagnant - increasing only slightly, and with inflation, probably a wash.

But even if it didn't look as cheap, i.e. hadn't been filmed in Mexico, and didn't have as strong a competition, and had a decent marketing campaign instead of a lame one, I doubt LTK would have set the box office world on fire.

[Double-Oh Agent]

But even if it didn't look as cheap, i.e. hadn't been filmed in Mexico, and didn't have as strong a competition, and had a decent marketing campaign instead of a lame one, I doubt LTK would have set the box office world on fire.

True, but it would have done a bit (much?) better and probably would not be considered the "flop" it is now by so many. (Of course, the six-year gap between films also plays a big role in that line of thinking.)

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

1989+ was a very interesting time in the Bond legacy, one would hope MGW will write all the facts from his perspective in a autobiography one day.

Why was 1989 an interesting time in the Bond legacy? I find it to be just another year. It was the end of the 80's, which turned out to be perhaps the least profitable decade for the AGING Bond series, but that's about it. People in denial love to speculate that there was too much competition for Bond in the summer of 1989, but when had he not had competition? THE LAST CRUSADE had been out 7 weeks before LTK opened; BATMAN had been out four weeks before LTK opened. Lethal Weapon 2 opened the week before. There was no reason for LTK to not have a better box office return had the film been any good. It was a crap film with a crap marketing effort. In fact, WHEN HARRY MET SALLY opened on the same weekend as LTK, opened in a fraction of the theaters that LTK opened in, and went on to make 90+million in the United States. What did LTK make? $37 million? Pathetic.

The Bond films since have gone up against Pixar releases, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Titanic....and all made money and became big hits. LTK-apologists need to just accept the film for what it is and not try and excuse away the film's dismal performance with pseudo facts and reasoning.

I agree it was a poorly made film, but the question for me is why? TLD was a classic entry to the series IMO, and Dalton was excellent in it.
I always wonder what was going on (if indeed anything) between the producers and the studio's at the time. The studio did not seem to nurture the series by the end of the eighties, as they have done since, and do now. For example:

Why was there such a lame marketing campaign for LTK?

Why did the films budgets not rise during the eighties (forcing the predominantly British crew of veterans to relocate to Mexico to film LTK). Would higher budgets have enabled the film-makers to create a more lavish expensive production for LTK and consequently would it have done better business at the box office? Can we blame everything on Dalton? Is he to blame at all? Was it because cinema at the time just wasn't into the suited hero?

Why was another screenwriter not hired after Maibaum's departure to the writers guild picket line? Was this to save on the budget, or was it due the writers guild strike per se?

What direction would the series have gone for Tim's third film, following the poor performance of LTK. Would the budget have risen for that film? How interested were the studio in Bond at that time? Would Bond have disappeared into obscurity in the wake of dwindling box office performance?

Did Cubby Broccoli really intend to sell the series, as per the statements of the Sunday Express article in the early 90's?

How close did Broccoli come to loosing the lawsuit?

I'm not suggesting there are any clear answers to these questions, or equally perhaps some answers may be very obvious to some of those who read this post. Its just a time of Bond film-making that fascinates me.

[Turn]

I really think Eon was coasting in the late 1980s. Cubby knew he was aging and couldn't handle the day-to-day operations and longer. He had to have known changes were in the air and he was likely grooming MGW and Barbara at the time.

Cubby's loyalty to people and not fixing what wasn't broken were part of it. The films were making money although other series were breaking new ground and doing better box office (Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Rambo, Schwarzenegger films) and Bond films were pretty much the same formula, although maybe being a bit different hurt LTK.

LTK was just yet another Bond film at a time when fresher products were out there. Thus there was less advertising and expectations when things were changing.

It wasn't as if they were too far removed from what was going on. I remember the AVTAK video being played in heavy rotation on MTV and the 56-year-old Roger Moore doing what was essentialy TRL at the time. They got a-ha and The Pretenders for the TLD soundtrack. But LTK was something of a step back.

It just seemed like they thought they could put out a Bond film with a still somewhat untested Bond, a darker theme and dropping it in the middle of a huge action-film schedule and expect it to do the old business when it wasn't as in step as other things were.

[Publius]

Moonraker US Admissions: 24.9 million
FYEO US Admissions: 22.4 million
Octopussy US Admissions: 21.5 million
NSNA US Admissions: 17.5 million
AVTAK US Admissions: 14.1 million
TLD US Admissions: 13.1 million
LTK US Admissions: 8.7 million

Interestingly, the nadir in overseas admissions was actually with AVTAK. TLD did better than NSNA and almost as well as Octopussy.

Anyway, I've always wondered why LTK gets so much blame when Moore's swan song performed almost as poorly worldwide (and actually did worse when you just look at raw dollar totals). Were they just looking for a scapegoat, but knew nobody would buy that Roger Moore is what sunk the series (which would have also been a lie)?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I really think Eon was coasting in the late 1980s.

It wasn't as if they were too far removed from what was going on. I remember the AVTAK video being played in heavy rotation on MTV and the 56-year-old Roger Moore doing what was essentialy TRL at the time. They got a-ha and The Pretenders for the TLD soundtrack. But LTK was something of a step back.

It just seemed like they thought they could put out a Bond film with a still somewhat untested Bond, a darker theme and dropping it in the middle of a huge action-film schedule and expect it to do the old business when it wasn't as in step as other things were.

I agree I think that is right, I think they were coasting and LTK was something of a step back. However, whilst perhaps Eon were coasting, it is interesting in '89 they were trying very hard NOT to coast. The tone and formula changed somewhat from TLD to LTK, (but arguably with less commercial success as a result).

[dogmanstar]

I'm going to blame something else--and no one else. I remember a lot of talk in 1989 about Bond being a character that was not needed any longer. Remember 1989 was the same year the Berlin Wall fell (just a few months after LTK was released in the US). And US/USSR relations had thawed significantly. I remember many people saying that Bond was through--as was the Cold War--as was Bond's sexism, etc, etc. When you combine that with the newish crop of action movies around at the time--The Terminator, The Abyss, Die Hard, The Batman Francise, True Lies (which could have been a Bond movie)--all of which were doing real cutting edge things, Bond seemed, well, a little 'quaint.' It would take some time and re-thinking to get Bond back to where he needed to be. I think Judi Dench's speech in Goldeneye was cribbed directly from those detractors who were all over LTK.

[Brent]

Now how about Dalton in Casino Royale circa 1981 and made even closer to the book with SMERSH as the background organization. Or consider TLD and LTK done the the same manner as CR and QOS, no Q, no Moneypenny,no signature gun, no bad puns, no laser gun wheels, no rockets behind the license plate, no Wayne Newton or Truman Lodge.

The problem with the 2 Dalton films is that they changed but not enough. There was too much concern about going too far away from the established formula so both of the films are somewhat schizophrenic as a result, especially LTK. If Craig had done LTK in 1989(assuming we was the same age as he is today)it would have gotten the same reception. It is not the actors fault, it is the script and the production and the marketing..

That brings up the core reason Dalton is such a divisive subject among Bond fans. I believe his acting and characterization is the closest to the literary Bond Fleming created. I believe both of his films are flawed. Most people have trouble separating the actor from the film. If LTK was a poor film then the fault was Dalton. He nearly killed the franchise and thank God for Pierce. Or LTK is a great film and Dalton would have been great in Goldeneye. Reality is a little less cut and dried. LTK is a mixed bag as a film with standout moments and some painful ones like Pam crying or the X ray laser camera. Had the producers gone all the way with the change to be as radical as it was for CR it might be a different story. Instead we have a film that is both serious enough to earn a PG 13 rating with gruesome deaths yet still have those gimmicky formula items that detracted from the seriousness of the film

[DR76]

Are you speaking of LTK's U.S. box office? Because that is the only country that I can recall where it had "flopped".

That brings up the core reason Dalton is such a divisive subject among Bond fans. I believe his acting and characterization is the closest to the literary Bond Fleming created. I believe both of his films are flawed.

Just about every Bond film in existence is flawed. Personally, I consider Dalton's films to be among the top 11 films.

Edited by DR76, 08 December 2008 - 06:20 AM.

[jaguar007]

If Craig had done LTK in 1989(assuming we was the same age as he is today)it would have gotten the same reception. It is not the actors fault, it is the script and the production and the marketing..

I agree with you to a certain point. While I really like Dalton as Bond, the public as a whole did not bond with him (pun intended) the way they did with Craig. One common complaint I hear about Dalton was his lack of sexiness and poor delivery of one liners (and I can agree with that). Craig has the sexiness in spades and is far better than Dalton with the humor. I think the public would have accepted Craig as Bond in 89 just as much as they do today.

That brings up the core reason Dalton is such a divisive subject among Bond fans. I believe his acting and characterization is the closest to the literary Bond Fleming created. I believe both of his films are flawed. Most people have trouble separating the actor from the film. If LTK was a poor film then the fault was Dalton. He nearly killed the franchise and thank God for Pierce. Or LTK is a great film and Dalton would have been great in Goldeneye. Reality is a little less cut and dried. LTK is a mixed bag as a film with standout moments and some painful ones like Pam crying or the X ray laser camera. Had the producers gone all the way with the change to be as radical as it was for CR it might be a different story. Instead we have a film that is both serious enough to earn a PG 13 rating with gruesome deaths yet still have those gimmicky formula items that detracted from the seriousness of the film

I agree with you 100%. Personally I would have liked to see Dalton in GE.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Most people have trouble separating the actor from the film. If LTK was a poor film then the fault was Dalton. He nearly killed the franchise and thank God for Pierce. Or LTK is a great film and Dalton would have been great in Goldeneye.

I'm actually a mixture of both camps. I think Licence To Kill is a great film, but I also am/was thrilled that Pierce Brosnan became James Bond in GoldenEye. (I like Timothy Dalton too, but I always wanted Brosnan as 007.)

[DR76]

LTK-apologists need to just accept the film for what it is and not try and excuse away the film's dismal performance with pseudo facts and reasoning.

What do you mean by we "have to just accept the film for what it is"? What exactly do fans of the movie have to accept?

[Double-Oh Agent]

Someone asked what might've happened had Dalton done a third Bond film, but my belief is that Dalton dodged a bullet. The original story ideas for Bond17 were pure crap...

I really agree with this sentiment. Of the overview I read for the third Dalton film, The Property Of A Lady, it's a good thing this never came to light. It is really, really bad. I am willing to concede that it may have been a first draft and would have been drastically changed--if so, then good, because that script, android and all, would have been the nadir of the series.

Still, I wouldn't have minded a third Dalton 007 film (different from above, of course).

[HH007]

Interestingly, the nadir in overseas admissions was actually with AVTAK. TLD did better than NSNA and almost as well as Octopussy.

Anyway, I've always wondered why LTK gets so much blame when Moore's swan song performed almost as poorly worldwide (and actually did worse when you just look at raw dollar totals). Were they just looking for a scapegoat, but knew nobody would buy that Roger Moore is what sunk the series (which would have also been a lie)?

Well, LTK is what precipitated the 6.5 year gap. People who haven't researched what happened, and have only a casual understanding of the series, automatically assumed that LTK's failure at the box office was due to Dalton. But I'll tell it to you straight because you are a Bond aficionado: Dalton's films get a bulk of the blame because they were meant to shore up and reverse the trend and the damage done by allowing Moore to stay in the role as long as he did, and they didn't.Not only did Dalton's films not reverse the trend or even stop the bloodletting, they actually performed worse than Moore's last 3 films.


As another poster mentioned, we had an aging British spy going up against much younger, buffer leading-man stars such as Stallone, Schwarzenegger, Gibson, Murphy, and Willis. The success of BATMAN in 1989 disproves the theory that audiences weren't ready to accept a darker, more serious, more lean 007 film.

Someone asked what might've happened had Dalton done a third Bond film, but my belief is that Dalton dodged a bullet. The original story ideas for Bond17 were pure crap, and had EON chosen to try and lighten up the series in order to make Dalton more palatable it would've made Dalton uncomfortable and it would've shown on screen. Dalton just did not make the connection with audiences, and there was no material that was going to change that.

Something else occurred to me...something I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention before, and it's this: the audience had no connection and no investment with Felix Leiter. A week ago someone told me that EON need not bother being true to Fleming's version of Felix Leiter (as opposed to hiring Jeffrey Wright, who is nothing like what Fleming wrote) because Leiter was a "minor character". Okay, then why base an entire film upon Bond avenging Leiter's maiming?

EON clearly didn't give a rat's a** about the integrity of the Leiter character, or else they would've stuck with John Terry when casting LTK. EON was frivilous and cavalier about Leiter. They gave the character three brief scenes in TLD, then replaced the actor (John Terry) with an actor (David Hedison) whose previous portrayal of Leiter last occurred during THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION. On top of that, Hedison is 17 years older than Dalton, when in actuality the two characters are supposed to be contemporaries in age and in career path. EON didn't give a spit about the Leiter character, so why should the audience? It was a WEAK plot from the get go.

Not to mention the fact that aside from LIVE AND LET DIE, Leiter did not appear in any of Roger Moore's other films. He was only reintroduced in TLD (some fourteen years and six movies later), and rather briefly at that.

[Publius]

Not only did Dalton's films not reverse the trend or even stop the bloodletting, they actually performed worse than Moore's last 3 films.

Well, TLD did 15% better in admissions than AVTAK, and performed comparably in dollar terms to both FYEO and OP. LTK also grossed more than AVTAK. So while I don't doubt that Dalton wasn't able to significantly reverse the trend, I do wonder if Brosnan or anyone similar could have made a major difference in TLD (certainly LTK wouldn't have even been made). If the return of Connery in NSNA was only marginally more successful (in ticket sales) than Dalton's TLD, I'm not sure a change in lead actor was enough to revitalize the series.

The success of BATMAN in 1989 disproves the theory that audiences weren't ready to accept a darker, more serious, more lean 007 film.

Batman '89 was only dark and serious in comparison to what audiences expected of Batman back then (and nowadays, in comparison to Schumacher's two flicks). Die Hard is still far and away the better example to use against LTK, and for what it's worth still the only inspiration I see in LTK from contemporary movies, television, etc.

Anyway, the success of Batman '89 only disproves the theory (if anyone is making it) that audiences weren't ready to accept a darker, more serious, more lean Batman, or maybe superhero in general. That doesn't mean they were ready for the same from 007, though, and I think that was a big strike against LTK.

Okay, then why base an entire film upon Bond avenging Leiter's maiming?

Clearly it was a semi-adaptation of the literary LALD, the same way OHMSS stuck so closely to the novel that it ignored continuity problems with the cinematic YOLT before it. Also, the unsettling similarities to Bond's own experiences in OHMSS was meant to reinforce his motivations in LTK.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Well, TLD did 15% better in admissions than AVTAK, and performed comparably in dollar terms to both FYEO and OP.

Well, 15% better than pitiful is still just 15% better than pitiful. In the U.S. the two films did about the same, and then LTK came along and tanked. And I believe that MGM had market research that showed viewers dropped off very fast from TLD because they didn't seem to like Dalton, and then they didn't bother to show up for LTK because they already knew what they had. Even a lesser film such as QOS still has gotten a box office boost because audiences like Craig.

LTK also grossed more than AVTAK.

Huh? Shirley you've made a typo. Under no box office accounting methods have I ever seen LTK declared the winner over AVTAK, even when adjusting for inflation. LTK was a bomb in every sense of the word.

Furthermore, FYEO was #8 at the U.S. box office in 1981, OP was #6 (a mild aberration, as it seemed the film was much more popular in the U.S. than the rest of the world, for once), and then the slide really begins: AVTAK #13, TLD #19, LTK #36. There's your menage-o'box-office-death right there.

Clearly it was a semi-adaptation of the literary LALD, the same way OHMSS stuck so closely to the novel that it ignored continuity problems with the cinematic YOLT before it. Also, the unsettling similarities to Bond's own experiences in OHMSS was meant to reinforce his motivations in LTK.

I think my bigger point was, though, that if EON had plotted out the films in the sort of story-arcs that they are now doing, they may have planned better for how best to use the Leiter-maiming storyline, and made moves that would've given the storyline much more emotional weight. The audience didn't like Dalton, didn't know Leiter, and didn't give a spit about what happened.

As I've said before, the script was terribly weak for what it was trying to accomplish. I've seen other films cover similar territory and do it better (THE DARK KNIGHT for example).

Agreed about your box office figures. Always got the impression all receipts good up to and including OP, blip with AVTAK, up again with TLD and downturn again with LTK. Yes the script was very weak for LTK, but it was a very good story though.

[plankattack]

I'm with Gravity in all of this. I do feel that 82-83, with NSNA and OP was, while perhaps a not creative or financial highpoint for the series, an emotional one. Both Bonds (Laz gets forgotten, that's just the way it is) with films out at approximately the same time. Make your comparisons, pick your favourite, have your SC or Sir Rog debate, and then move onto the next thing. You can make a narrative case for winding up the franchise right there. EON, though, moved on to AVTAK - not a great entry, with a leading man now clearly past his Bondian prime, and there is a sense that the series is pushing on for the sake of pushing on.

TD comes along in TLD - there is a spike because there is a curiousity factor, but ultimately it's more of the same. Yes, all of us know that there is a huge difference between TLD and AVTAK, but at the end of the day, to the mass audience, it's another deliberately paced, filmed at Pinewood, no-one in the cast we really know, Bond movie. And '87 was the year that Hollywood really committed to the action flick in it's modern form. And for better or for worse, TD didn't have the star power that you need for modern blockbuster cinema - the US entries for LTK prove that, and at the end of the day, Hollywood (and the only market they care about) is the centre of the business and UA knew that they didn't have the "star" that they needed, in what was becoming a open-huge, short-run, star-driven marketplace.

Would Brozza have saved the series. His familiarity with US audiences through Remington Steele might have increased TLD's numbers, but even in LTK, I'm not sure he would have made a big enough difference. He just would have been the latest star of another deliberately paced, filmed at Pinewood etc etc.

I do feel Brozza should get some credit for the success of the series' revival in '95, but I think he gets it for doing a good job, rather than being than bringing with him a chunk of the audience. What I mean is Brozza got some starpower for doing Bond, rather than his starpower (which, let's be honest, pre-95 he didn't really have in Hollywood terms) being the reason for GE's success. The 6yr-gap, Campbell, and Babs & MGW taking control, were all more important.

Whatever one thinks of EON over the years, I think Babs especially, has proved that she has the acumen. The box office since '95, the reboot, and the casting of DC, all things that she should get the lion's share of the credit. But I'll try to make that case, when you all shoot me down!!!!

[The ides of Mark]

I'm going to blame something else--and no one else. I remember a lot of talk in 1989 about Bond being a character that was not needed any longer. Remember 1989 was the same year the Berlin Wall fell (just a few months after LTK was released in the US). And US/USSR relations had thawed significantly. I remember many people saying that Bond was through--as was the Cold War--as was Bond's sexism, etc, etc. When you combine that with the newish crop of action movies around at the time--The Terminator, The Abyss, Die Hard, The Batman Francise, True Lies (which could have been a Bond movie)--all of which were doing real cutting edge things, Bond seemed, well, a little 'quaint.' It would take some time and re-thinking to get Bond back to where he needed to be. I think Judi Dench's speech in Goldeneye was cribbed directly from those detractors who were all over LTK.

Exactly, the films didn't stand out anymore. IMO this had more to with the creative team as a whole behind these films (the John Glenn hegemony, the script and cinematography). I think eventually Dalton would have won over the public, he just needed his own TSWLM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I'm with Gravity in all of this. I do feel that 82-83, with NSNA and OP was, while perhaps a not creative or financial highpoint for the series, an emotional one. Both Bonds (Laz gets forgotten, that's just the way it is) with films out at approximately the same time. Make your comparisons, pick your favourite, have your SC or Sir Rog debate, and then move onto the next thing. You can make a narrative case for winding up the franchise right there. EON, though, moved on to AVTAK - not a great entry, with a leading man now clearly past his Bondian prime, and there is a sense that the series is pushing on for the sake of pushing on.

TD comes along in TLD - there is a spike because there is a curiousity factor, but ultimately it's more of the same. Yes, all of us know that there is a huge difference between TLD and AVTAK, but at the end of the day, to the mass audience, it's another deliberately paced, filmed at Pinewood, no-one in the cast we really know, Bond movie. And '87 was the year that Hollywood really committed to the action flick in it's modern form. And for better or for worse, TD didn't have the star power that you need for modern blockbuster cinema - the US entries for LTK prove that, and at the end of the day, Hollywood (and the only market they care about) is the centre of the business and UA knew that they didn't have the "star" that they needed, in what was becoming a open-huge, short-run, star-driven marketplace.

Would Brozza have saved the series. His familiarity with US audiences through Remington Steele might have increased TLD's numbers, but even in LTK, I'm not sure he would have made a big enough difference. He just would have been the latest star of another deliberately paced, filmed at Pinewood etc etc.

I do feel Brozza should get some credit for the success of the series' revival in '95, but I think he gets it for doing a good job, rather than being than bringing with him a chunk of the audience. What I mean is Brozza got some starpower for doing Bond, rather than his starpower (which, let's be honest, pre-95 he didn't really have in Hollywood terms) being the reason for GE's success. The 6yr-gap, Campbell, and Babs & MGW taking control, were all more important.

Whatever one thinks of EON over the years, I think Babs especially, has proved that she has the acumen. The box office since '95, the reboot, and the casting of DC, all things that she should get the lion's share of the credit. But I'll try to make that case, when you all shoot me down!!!!

I generally agree with the spirit of your sentiments. What you say about Babs is spot on IMO. However I still think TLD is a great Bond film, far better than the majority of its followers.
I would say your point about about casting in the eighties films is due in part to the fact, for whatever reason, the budgets did not rise.
I think the eighties Bonds (from OP on) can be viewed through the lens of a whole exercise in how to save on the budget. Same crew and technicians, a lot of lesser known actors in the cast etc etc.
I get the impression the studio may have had Bond on the backburner during the eighties, but who knows?

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 09 December 2008 - 08:28 PM.

[plankattack]

I generally agree with the spirit of your sentiments. What you say about Babs is spot on IMO. However I still think TLD is a great Bond film, far better than the majority of its followers.
I would say your point about about casting in the eighties films is due in part to the fact, for whatever reason, the budgets did not rise.
I think the eighties Bonds (from OP on) can be viewed through the lens of a whole exercise in how to save on the budget. Same crew and technicians, a lot of lesser known actors in the cast etc etc.
I get the impression the studio may have had Bond on the backburner during the eighties, but who knows?

Let me clarify - I don't think TLD is a bad film, but do feel that it was in 87, a film ready for a slightly earlier time. The competition was Lethal Weapon, The Terminator etc and by the following year, Die Hard, and consequently the audience's expectations had changed. LTK tried to be edgier, but IMHO it's main creative weakness is that it's neither (up-until-then) traditional EON family-friendly fare, nor blockbuster action film.

I think you're point about budgets etc is true. It wasn't until '95 that the studios/EON were able to use the tentpole attitude of paying for and releasing films. I think another big part of the series' rebirth, was the fact that EON came inside the tent, so to speak. MGM, now Sony/Columbia have perhaps more influence on budget, casting, marketing etc, than was the case with EON's films in the 70s and 80s. While UA was heavily involved in the early 70s (it was UA chairman David Picker who enticed SC back) EON seemed to get to do what they wanted, provided they kept the costs down.

[Turn]

I do feel that 82-83, with NSNA and OP was, while perhaps a not creative or financial highpoint for the series, an emotional one. Both Bonds (Laz gets forgotten, that's just the way it is) with films out at approximately the same time.

Actually, Laz did get in on the action, even if not in an official capacity, in '82-83. He was "JB" in The Return of the Man From UNCLE, even driving an Aston Martin.

[Bondian]

Having just revisited both Dalton's Bond's and reassessed them, I have to say that they're both extremely well executed and enjoyably well made films.

It's funny though. The Living Daylights is "Bond as we know and love". But Licence to Kill tries to be different. With Craig's first outing tends to be different, but Quantum of Solace is (IMHO) back to the old format without the "baggage".

In reflection. Dalton added so much to the franchise.

[plankattack]

Had Brosnan gotten the role back then, TLD would've been slightly different, and LTK would have ceased to exist. It's possible, in retrospect, to think that maybe some of the drama around him not getting the role was subconsciously transferred to Dalton by the audience, who may have been looking at him as an interloper.

I think this is very true. Who knows what that mysterious 'Q' factor is (I think that's what it's called, or maybe I'm confused) that's an indicator of why some actors have star power and some don't. Like it or not, Dalton didn't "take" with mainstream audiences, at least not as Bond. And the fact that he was probabaly perceived, maybe not as an interloper, but definitely second-choice, no doubt was a factor in his failure to catch on.

With that in mind, I remember when GE came out that there were stories in the press that Mel Gibson had been approaced etc etc, but EON were very clear that Brozza was "always their man" - conscious of 86-87 perhaps?

Brozza deserved the reception he got on GE's release - he won me over, that's for certain. But I think the positive reception he got when he was cast was due to notion that he missed out in '86.

But why some people are popular and some aren't is an inexact science. TD is a great actor, as is DC, but the latter clearly has that something (is it as simple as sex appeal?) that clicks with the masses.

[Royal Dalton]

Like it or not, Dalton didn't "take" with mainstream audiences, at least not as Bond.

And yet, both of his Bond films still made more money than Die Hard.

[Publius]

Huh? Shirley you've made a typo. Under no box office accounting methods have I ever seen LTK declared the winner over AVTAK, even when adjusting for inflation. LTK was a bomb in every sense of the word.

Worldwide, LTK grossed a few million more. That point was following up on my point that TLD, in dollar terms, grossed comparably to OP (more, actually) and even to FYEO (only a few million less).

Since there's no question all five or six of the 80s films were profitable, I was making a point about how it must have looked on the surface. In light of that, I was wondering why almost all of the blame was so often conveniently placed at the feet of one man, Timothy Dalton.

Yes, the admissions numbers reinforce the point that every Bond film (including NSNA) after Moonraker did worse than its predecessor, with the exception of TLD. Five of the six (the other being TMWTGG) least attended Bond films worldwide were released '83-'89.

Clearly, something bigger was going on, both outside the franchise and within, and I don't think simply having Brosnan or someone similar in the lead would have made enough of a difference to stop the bleeding.

A clean break of six years (more than 2.5 times the longest gap until then), a new team calling the shots, and an approach that was substantially less set in stone by the template of Cubby's TSWLM all did far more for the health and viability of the series.