519 replies to this topic

[tim partridge]

http://www.skillset....icle_4677_1.asp

[Mr. Blofeld]

http://www.skillset....icle_4677_1.asp

The link's not working for me, tim; what does it say?

[tim partridge]

Type DRAUGHTSMAN SCREEN into google.

Edited by tim partridge, 09 July 2009 - 12:21 AM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Type DRAUGHTSMAN SCREEN into google.

None of the links on the first page have anything to do with the cinema directly.

[Harry Fawkes]

This is just my humble opinion of course and I don't want to get anybody's knickers in a twist but I think LTK is one of the best Bond movies of them all.

TD is ‘F’ING great as Bond. He is simply stunning!

The film was a fresh expression of Ian Fleming's Bond (true, a lot of fans wished for the return of the so-called cinematic Bond).

There are so many factors that led it to be a 'Box Office' disappointment. The ad campaign, the key changes to the formula, the violence and lack of humor, the grim story line, etc, etc.

The film, as most know, did test better with preview audiences than any other Bond film and, ultimately, held its own against the vast competition out there at the time, breaking records throughout the world and earning critical praise in most places.

Just because it missed, again thanks mostly to the poor ad campaign, the bus to be a major blockbuster in the U.S doesn't mean it was a flop.

Harry

[Tybre]

Type DRAUGHTSMAN SCREEN into google.

None of the links on the first page have anything to do with the cinema directly.

Only thing I find when I go hunting like that is set designer.

[Harry Fawkes]

The film, as most know, did test better with preview audiences

An almost pointless fact. I could name a half-dozen box office blockbusters that were written off as dead because they tested so poorly before being released.

breaking records throughout the world and earning critical praise in most places.

What positive records did LTK break? Where?

From the authorised guide to the world of 007 by Lee Pfeiffer & Dave Worrall. Quote: 'Internationally, the film proved more durable, grossing a world wide total of $156 million, down $35 million from the Living Daylights but still marginally ahead of A View To A Kill. Cynics quickly proclaimed the Bond series to be out of touch with audiences and out of steam, ignoring the fact that LTK was still a very sizable hit'.


From The incredible World of 007 by Lee Pfeiffer & Philip Lisa. Quote Pg 139: '...Cynics who speculated that perhaps Bond had seen his day were quickly silenced when the international grosses came in. The film broke records throughout the world and earned critical praise in most quarters, proving 007 was indeed a thriving enterprise.'


As for your question as to: 'Where?' To name but a few places: South America, Taiwan, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Malta G.C, Spain, Switzerland... I could name a few others but I'm sure you got the point.

[Harry Fawkes]

Which in the end leads me to my ultimate point: LTK, in my opinion, is a great Bond film and stands up there with the best of them. Again Dalton is fantastic as Bond. The whole product was daring and fresh for its time but not a lot of people 'got it' then.

To say it was a flop is I think untrue or incorrect or whatever. It was a hit!

[Harry Fawkes]

By the way, Roger Ebert gave the film 3 1/2 stars out of 4, saying "the stunts all look convincing, and the effect of the closing sequence is exhilarating... Licence to Kill is one of the best of the recent Bonds."

[Harry Fawkes]

Oh my God I can't bloody stop!

Sorry about this, but this just in from EON: Budget of LTK = $32,000,000. Worldwide gross = $156,200,000!!!!

Flop?

I don't think so! (Or did I say that?)

[Zorin Industries]

Truth is that it was a complete bomb in the U.S. and that's all that matters, because unless you're famous in the U.S. you're a nobody. The U.S. can make you or break you. It's the single largest, richest moviegoing demographic, and if a movie can't make a buck in the States it's probably not going to do much better anywhere else.

Utter rubbish.

And for your information the country that has the largest film watching and film making "demographic" is India.

LICENCE TO KILL made money for everyone involved in it. "Complete bomb" is utter fan spin.

[Loomis]

Truth is that it was a complete bomb in the U.S. and that's all that matters, because unless you're famous in the U.S. you're a nobody. The U.S. can make you or break you. It's the single largest, richest moviegoing demographic, and if a movie can't make a buck in the States it's probably not going to do much better anywhere else.

Gravmeister, LICENCE TO KILL was hardly "a complete bomb" in the United States.

$35 million was actually a pretty respectable gross way back in 1989. LTK more or less earned back its budget on its Stateside take alone.

I won't pretend that American audiences were just gagging for Dalton in the summer of '89, or that LTK was one of the biggest supersmashes in the history of Eon, but neither did the film die on its the way its haters would have one believe (and, for the record, neither is it a MIAMI VICE ripoff).

[Harry Fawkes]

I assure you, Gravity's Silhouette, that I didn't hold up the 'box office receipts from Malta (G.C please) as a new standard bearer' but simply to point out that indeed LTK broke the box office in that country too.

As for a film not doing much better anywhere else being a complete 'bomb' in the US, I beg to differ:

In LTK's case it didn't do well in the US(due no little to the fact that it was released without the usual extravagant ad campaign in a blood bath of summer competition with films like Indiana Jones and TLC, Lethal Weapon II and Batman) but went on to make 156, 200, 000 dollars which means that your statement, Gravity's Silhouette, is a complete exaggeration of major proportions (or as we say where I come from complete and utter Bull[censored]!).

You ask for specifics but then you failed to notice that I did, in fact, provide them. Again then, the film went on to make 156, 200, 000. Therefore, it made 5 times more than it actually cost. It also did better than AVTAK and TMWTGG.

If that isn't making mony for the makers then I don't know what is!

As for Lee and Dave trying to be upbeat and positive about the film, if you don't take their word for it kindly read James Bond The Legacy by John Cork and Bruce Scivally which is where I got the statement that it was a box office hit in South America, Taiwan, France, Italy, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Malta G.C, Spain and Switzerland.

But I'm sure you get the point now.

Having said that, may I ask from where you got the idea or information that LTK was a 'flop'? As you can see I have substantiated my arguments with hard facts yet you, as far as I am aware and with all due respect, have not.

Regards

Harry Fawkes

[Zorin Industries]

I think the stats for it being a "bomb" came out of the box marked "I don't like the film".

[Zorin Industries]

And for your information the country that has the largest film watching and film making "demographic" is India.

Just because the country has a billion people in it doesn't mean all of those people can go line up and see a film. Until Bollywood makes movies that earn the same amounts of money as THE DARK KNIGHT or TITANIC or QUANTUM OF SOLACE, they're non-entities.

ENGLAND, UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, CHINA...those are significant countries with potential box office revenues. Somehow I don't think Malta's box office was the tipping point that kept LTK from being the total bomb you think it wasn't.

Actually yes - a great proportion of India does indeed "line up and see a film". It is part of the culture. It is also the country with the most cinemas per person which ain't bad when you think of the population of India. It is not prudent, very savvy or even actually very nice to claim Bollywood titles are "non entities" just because your thoughts on cinema are based on what the internet and film fans tell you.

And I don't know if there is much point in arguing with such idiocy as your comments here, but THE DARK KNIGHT et al did not make ALL their monies in the US, which sort of dampens your thoughts even more than reality does.

And the takings in regions such as Malta, Germany and Japan are indeed very important for a Bond film. Just sit in on some of their territory targets meetings.

[Harry Fawkes]

And for your information the country that has the largest film watching and film making "demographic" is India.

Just because the country has a billion people in it doesn't mean all of those people can go line up and see a film. Until Bollywood makes movies that earn the same amounts of money as THE DARK KNIGHT or TITANIC or QUANTUM OF SOLACE, they're non-entities.

$35 million was actually a pretty respectable gross way back in 1989. LTK more or less earned back its budget on its Stateside take alone.

No, not really. LTK opened in 4th place the first weekend it was out. It dropped to 7th place the next weekend, and was out of the Top 10 by the third weekend. AVTAK and TLD grossed more than LTK in the US. LTK finished #36th in the US for movies released in 1989; that's an abysmal showing.

You ask for specifics but then you failed to notice that I did, in fact, provide them. Again then, the film went on to make 156, 200, 000. Therefore, it made 5 times more than it actually cost. It also did better than AVTAK and TMWTGG.

No, I saw what you wrote, but you didn't provide any specific examples of what records LTK broke. You said the movie broke records in Malta, but what record? Was Malta's box office prior to LTK significant?

ENGLAND, UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, CHINA...those are significant countries with potential box office revenues. Somehow I don't think Malta's box office was the tipping point that kept LTK from being the total bomb you think it wasn't.

I am sorry Gravity's Silhouette but I truly can't understand where your argument is going, mate. You keep on saying that LTK was a 'flop' but, again, as the figures show it most certainly wasn't.

Now you can certainly go to the end of the world with your argument (that is your right of course) but it won't change the raw facts.

LTK made a 'healthy profit' (John Cork and Bruce Scivally THE LEGACY OF JB), so pray, how can it be judged a 'Flop' if it made almosr 5 times it's cost?

That it was a disapointment to what the producers expected it would make I can go with (having said that, there were so many undermining factors against the film during its release; even Cubby said so) but to call it a flop is taking it way too far. It wasn't, as we have proven.

As for Malta G.C, come on mate you're either trying to mock the fact that a country like Malta even has a box office or I don't know. i hope you are not and that I am misunderstanding such comments.

James Bond is very popular there and yes, it broke the box office record there. In other words it made more money than the bloody rest of the films that were released at the time.

Significant or not, it shows that the Maltese took to the film and enjoyed it despite the fact that it was rated PG 13 (another factor against it).

Oh, and another thing, LTK proved beyond a doubt that the James Bond series can and did survive without the American 'market'. If it didn't we would not have had Brosnan and Craig would we?

And please don't tell me that because of LTK the Bond series halted because it didn't. There were other aspects, legal ones involving MGM, which I am not going into.

But again, where did you get your information that LTK was a flop from or is this just your humble opinion?

Harry Fawkes

[Dekard77]

And for your information the country that has the largest film watching and film making "demographic" is India.

Just because the country has a billion people in it doesn't mean all of those people can go line up and see a film. Until Bollywood makes movies that earn the same amounts of money as THE DARK KNIGHT or TITANIC or QUANTUM OF SOLACE, they're non-entities.

ENGLAND, UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, CHINA...those are significant countries with potential box office revenues. Somehow I don't think Malta's box office was the tipping point that kept LTK from being the total bomb you think it wasn't.

Actually yes - a great proportion of India does indeed "line up and see a film". It is part of the culture. It is also the country with the most cinemas per person which ain't bad when you think of the population of India. It is not prudent, very savvy or even actually very nice to claim Bollywood titles are "non entities" just because your thoughts on cinema are based on what the internet and film fans tell you.

And I don't know if there is much point in arguing with such idiocy as your comments here, but THE DARK KNIGHT et al did not make ALL their monies in the US, which sort of dampens your thoughts even more than reality does.

And the takings in regions such as Malta, Germany and Japan are indeed very important for a Bond film. Just sit in on some of their territory targets meetings.

Regarding Indian cinema. Please note that up until very recently English movies hardly made any impact that contributed Hollywood films.If a movie like Speed or Jurassic Park and Titanic were released after they've become success would be promoted there but I doubt it would make an impact on the movie like in USA. They are one of the biggest cinema audiences in the world your right but that is mostly for Bollywood (Hindi/Tamil) films only. Over 70% of them are flops. Too many movies with too little time to watch I guess. Piracy is also rampant and most flicks are watched on video or dvd's(which includes English films). In '89 I had copies of Indiana Jones TLC and LTK from India only a week of after it was released worlwide.

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie. Please before bombarding understand that it was the norm back then,hence the criticism in America. Internationally film made money but at the end of the day studios look at the maximum impact and profits they can make in America. Today with all the competition they take in the worldwide grosses to enhance a movies success in figures. If I am not mistaken it started out with Spiderman series... I could be wrong . Matrix sequels also given the same treatment. Stallone's movies like The Specıalıst, Daylight, Judge Dredd and Assassins were all international hits but in America didn't manage to cross the $50million and was not considered bank-able. I could never understand that mentality or agree but that is how it's looked at.

Edited by Dekard77, 12 July 2009 - 06:42 PM.

[jaguar007]

I have to disagree, and agree with Gravity. The $$ return on LTK was not as good as many other films released at that time and yes, it did bomb in the US.

On the plus side, the % return on LTK was in line with most modern Bond films. It made almost 4 times it's initial investment. While the $$ return was less, the % return was pretty significant.

% return on investment
TLD approx 4.77
LTK approx 3.71
GE approx 5.9
TND 3.0
TWINE 2.67
DAD 3.03
CR 5.84
QoS 2.5

of course none of these % line up with the older Bond films like GF which had a 41% return on investment.

source listed LTK budget at 42 million
http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

[jaguar007]

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie. Please before bombarding understand that it was the norm back then,hence the criticism in America. Internationally film made money but at the end of the day studios look at the maximum impact and profits they can make in America. Today with all the competition they take in the worldwide grosses to enhance a movies success in figures. If I am not mistaken it started out with Spiderman series... I could be wrong . Matrix sequels also given the same treatment. Stallone's movies like The Specıalıst, Daylight, Judge Dredd and Assassins were all international hits but in America didn't manage to cross the $50million and was not considered bank-able. I could never understand that mentality or agree but that is how it's looked at.

Good post. To answer your question as to why most international grosses were not considered, it is because it was/is common practice for the producing studio to finance films for the US market, and selling international distribution rights to other studios. Therefore the producing studio is really only interested in US box office totals. If I am correct, Bond is a bit different because they are partially financed by UK studio, not just US.

[Dekard77]

And for your information the country that has the largest film watching and film making "demographic" is India.

Just because the country has a billion people in it doesn't mean all of those people can go line up and see a film. Until Bollywood makes movies that earn the same amounts of money as THE DARK KNIGHT or TITANIC or QUANTUM OF SOLACE, they're non-entities.

$35 million was actually a pretty respectable gross way back in 1989. LTK more or less earned back its budget on its Stateside take alone.

No, not really. LTK opened in 4th place the first weekend it was out. It dropped to 7th place the next weekend, and was out of the Top 10 by the third weekend. AVTAK and TLD grossed more than LTK in the US. LTK finished #36th in the US for movies released in 1989; that's an abysmal showing.

You ask for specifics but then you failed to notice that I did, in fact, provide them. Again then, the film went on to make 156, 200, 000. Therefore, it made 5 times more than it actually cost. It also did better than AVTAK and TMWTGG.

No, I saw what you wrote, but you didn't provide any specific examples of what records LTK broke. You said the movie broke records in Malta, but what record? Was Malta's box office prior to LTK significant?

ENGLAND, UK, FRANCE, SPAIN, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, CHINA...those are significant countries with potential box office revenues. Somehow I don't think Malta's box office was the tipping point that kept LTK from being the total bomb you think it wasn't.

I am sorry Gravity's Silhouette but I truly can't understand where your argument is going, mate. You keep on saying that LTK was a 'flop' but, again, as the figures show it most certainly wasn't.

Now you can certainly go to the end of the world with your argument (that is your right of course) but it won't change the raw facts.

LTK made a 'healthy profit' (John Cork and Bruce Scivally THE LEGACY OF JB), so pray, how can it be judged a 'Flop' if it made almosr 5 times it's cost?

That it was a disapointment to what the producers expected it would make I can go with (having said that, there were so many undermining factors against the film during its release; even Cubby said so) but to call it a flop is taking it way too far. It wasn't, as we have proven.

As for Malta G.C, come on mate you're either trying to mock the fact that a country like Malta even has a box office or I don't know. i hope you are not and that I am misunderstanding such comments.

James Bond is very popular there and yes, it broke the box office record there. In other words it made more money than the bloody rest of the films that were released at the time.

Significant or not, it shows that the Maltese took to the film and enjoyed it despite the fact that it was rated PG 13 (another factor against it).

Oh, and another thing, LTK proved beyond a doubt that the James Bond series can and did survive without the American 'market'. If it didn't we would not have had Brosnan and Craig would we?

True but it's American studios that finance Bond movies and promote them. They want to maximise the profits in America. Also Highlander movies successful worldwide never got noticed in America. Now the series is almost in dismal state. I am not saying Eon is that bad in making judgements but without USA it's not going to be that good financially. Understanding also foreign distributors sometimes get the better of the release leaving out the studio. Half of Bond movies worldwide grosses comes alone from America. So I guess it's a big market after all.

And please don't tell me that because of LTK the Bond series halted because it didn't. There were other aspects, legal ones involving MGM, which I am not going into.

Legal reasons aside I bet it was the American studio that wanted Dalton out. Eon stuck to thier man. But I guess MGM won. If MGM really wanted Dalton they would have forced him back.

But again, where did you get your information that LTK was a flop from or is this just your humble opinion?

Harry Fawkes

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie. Please before bombarding understand that it was the norm back then,hence the criticism in America. Internationally film made money but at the end of the day studios look at the maximum impact and profits they can make in America. Today with all the competition they take in the worldwide grosses to enhance a movies success in figures. If I am not mistaken it started out with Spiderman series... I could be wrong . Matrix sequels also given the same treatment. Stallone's movies like The Specıalıst, Daylight, Judge Dredd and Assassins were all international hits but in America didn't manage to cross the $50million and was not considered bank-able. I could never understand that mentality or agree but that is how it's looked at.

Good post. To answer your question as to why most international grosses were not considered, it is because it was/is common practice for the producing studio to finance films for the US market, and selling international distribution rights to other studios. Therefore the producing studio is really only interested in US box office totals. If I am correct, Bond is a bit different because they are partially financed by UK studio, not just US.

You could be right. I always thought Amercian Banks and American studios fund the 007 movies. In any case MGM will want a movie they can market to American audience.

[Royal Dalton]

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie.

If doubling the budget at the US box office is the criteria for a hit, then every Bond film since Octopussy can be labelled a flop.

[ChandlerBing]

Not sure if the mods will even accept this, but it is the Bond movie with the fewest # of tickets sold. That, you cannot deny. Sold less than OHMSS and Golden Gun.

[Dekard77]

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie.

If doubling the budget at the US box office is the criteria for a hit, then every Bond film since Octopussy can be labelled a flop.

Well then you could take it that way. But I was talking about the numbers they consider. Those days films were really blockbusters considering they would have cost between $25million to $50million (up until '89). So when a film crossed $50million mark yes it's considered a hit. When the film started to cost $100million to make still they considered $150million to be healthy given only a few movies can actually make beyond that unless your a Cruise,Hanks,Arnie or Carrey. Today I wonder if anyone is upto that challenge. I guess it's also a big question of saying the film was in no.1 spot on opening weekend etc.

[Zorin Industries]

I have to disagree, and agree with Gravity. The $$ return on LTK was not as good as many other films released at that time and yes, it did bomb in the US.

On the plus side, the % return on LTK was in line with most modern Bond films. It made almost 4 times it's initial investment. While the $$ return was less, the % return was pretty significant.

% return on investment
TLD approx 4.77
LTK approx 3.71
GE approx 5.9
TND 3.0
TWINE 2.67
DAD 3.03
CR 5.84
QoS 2.5

of course none of these % line up with the older Bond films like GF which had a 41% return on investment.

source listed LTK budget at 42 million
http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

So how does someone come to the conclusion that a film that "bombed" in the US "made almost 4 times its initial investment"....?

Good post. To answer your question as to why most international grosses were not considered, it is because it was/is common practice for the producing studio to finance films for the US market, and selling international distribution rights to other studios. Therefore the producing studio is really only interested in US box office totals. If I am correct, Bond is a bit different because they are partially financed by UK studio, not just US.

Which UK studio? I'm intrigued...

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie.

If doubling the budget at the US box office is the criteria for a hit, then every Bond film since Octopussy can be labelled a flop.

Well then you could take it that way. But I was talking about the numbers they consider. Those days films were really blockbusters considering they would have cost between $25million to $50million (up until '89). So when a film crossed $50million mark yes it's considered a hit. When the film started to cost $100million to make still they considered $150million to be healthy given only a few movies can actually make beyond that unless your a Cruise,Hanks,Arnie or Carrey. Today I wonder if anyone is upto that challenge. I guess it's also a big question of saying the film was in no.1 spot on opening weekend etc.

I hate to be rude Dekard77. but you are talking out of your hat here.

[Dekard77]

I have to disagree, and agree with Gravity. The $$ return on LTK was not as good as many other films released at that time and yes, it did bomb in the US.

On the plus side, the % return on LTK was in line with most modern Bond films. It made almost 4 times it's initial investment. While the $$ return was less, the % return was pretty significant.

% return on investment
TLD approx 4.77
LTK approx 3.71
GE approx 5.9
TND 3.0
TWINE 2.67
DAD 3.03
CR 5.84
QoS 2.5

of course none of these % line up with the older Bond films like GF which had a 41% return on investment.

source listed LTK budget at 42 million
http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

So how does someone come to the conclusion that a film that "bombed" in the US "made almost 4 times its initial investment"....?

Good post. To answer your question as to why most international grosses were not considered, it is because it was/is common practice for the producing studio to finance films for the US market, and selling international distribution rights to other studios. Therefore the producing studio is really only interested in US box office totals. If I am correct, Bond is a bit different because they are partially financed by UK studio, not just US.

Which UK studio? I'm intrigued...

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie.

If doubling the budget at the US box office is the criteria for a hit, then every Bond film since Octopussy can be labelled a flop.

Well then you could take it that way. But I was talking about the numbers they consider. Those days films were really blockbusters considering they would have cost between $25million to $50million (up until '89). So when a film crossed $50million mark yes it's considered a hit. When the film started to cost $100million to make still they considered $150million to be healthy given only a few movies can actually make beyond that unless your a Cruise,Hanks,Arnie or Carrey. Today I wonder if anyone is upto that challenge. I guess it's also a big question of saying the film was in no.1 spot on opening weekend etc.

I hate to be rude Dekard77. but you are talking out of your hat here.

Well that's your opinion. However I will stick to mine. Try reading about what happened to Terminator Salvation this summer. Don't know if you'd take it seriously though CNN showbizz usually analyse the B.O in America (had a few recorded) and they always talk about crossing the $100million mark to be considered a hit unless it was independant/low budget film. $50million in 80's to cross would have been good for an event film like LTK. Hence why the studio and Eon indicate they could have done better. LTK documentary also closes in with a few comments about the film not making the expected impact. 15cert wouldn't have hit America as much , in fact it would have increased the viewer base of other action films who wanted to see a different Bond film.
The film performed poorly in USA, you also admitted to that.

[Zorin Industries]

I have to disagree, and agree with Gravity. The $$ return on LTK was not as good as many other films released at that time and yes, it did bomb in the US.

On the plus side, the % return on LTK was in line with most modern Bond films. It made almost 4 times it's initial investment. While the $$ return was less, the % return was pretty significant.

% return on investment
TLD approx 4.77
LTK approx 3.71
GE approx 5.9
TND 3.0
TWINE 2.67
DAD 3.03
CR 5.84
QoS 2.5

of course none of these % line up with the older Bond films like GF which had a 41% return on investment.

source listed LTK budget at 42 million
http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

So how does someone come to the conclusion that a film that "bombed" in the US "made almost 4 times its initial investment"....?

Good post. To answer your question as to why most international grosses were not considered, it is because it was/is common practice for the producing studio to finance films for the US market, and selling international distribution rights to other studios. Therefore the producing studio is really only interested in US box office totals. If I am correct, Bond is a bit different because they are partially financed by UK studio, not just US.

Which UK studio? I'm intrigued...

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie.

If doubling the budget at the US box office is the criteria for a hit, then every Bond film since Octopussy can be labelled a flop.

Well then you could take it that way. But I was talking about the numbers they consider. Those days films were really blockbusters considering they would have cost between $25million to $50million (up until '89). So when a film crossed $50million mark yes it's considered a hit. When the film started to cost $100million to make still they considered $150million to be healthy given only a few movies can actually make beyond that unless your a Cruise,Hanks,Arnie or Carrey. Today I wonder if anyone is upto that challenge. I guess it's also a big question of saying the film was in no.1 spot on opening weekend etc.

I hate to be rude Dekard77. but you are talking out of your hat here.

Well that's your opinion. However I will stick to mine. Try reading about what happened to Terminator Salvation this summer. Don't know if you'd take it seriously though CNN showbizz usually analyse the B.O in America (had a few recorded) and they always talk about crossing the $100million mark to be considered a hit unless it was independant/low budget film.
The film performed poorly in USA, you also admitted to that.

CNN? (!). My opinion of CNN is about the same as Ms Dench's in TOMORROW NEVER DIES. And it is worth pointing out that I would imagine that CNN's "box office" stats are very immediate and would hardly start in August 1989 with the sentiment, "right, now that the dust has settled on LICENCE TO KILL let's look at what really happened to its box office".

Just a side thought, it doesn't matter what happened to SALVATION just yet as it is still rolling out across the world. It is not a hit or a flop just yet.

[Dekard77]

I have to disagree, and agree with Gravity. The $$ return on LTK was not as good as many other films released at that time and yes, it did bomb in the US.

On the plus side, the % return on LTK was in line with most modern Bond films. It made almost 4 times it's initial investment. While the $$ return was less, the % return was pretty significant.

% return on investment
TLD approx 4.77
LTK approx 3.71
GE approx 5.9
TND 3.0
TWINE 2.67
DAD 3.03
CR 5.84
QoS 2.5

of course none of these % line up with the older Bond films like GF which had a 41% return on investment.

source listed LTK budget at 42 million
http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php

So how does someone come to the conclusion that a film that "bombed" in the US "made almost 4 times its initial investment"....?

Good post. To answer your question as to why most international grosses were not considered, it is because it was/is common practice for the producing studio to finance films for the US market, and selling international distribution rights to other studios. Therefore the producing studio is really only interested in US box office totals. If I am correct, Bond is a bit different because they are partially financed by UK studio, not just US.

Which UK studio? I'm intrigued...

$32million is a respectable gross but not the figures needed to call it a hit. The film should have at least crossed $50million mark or twice the cost of the movie.

If doubling the budget at the US box office is the criteria for a hit, then every Bond film since Octopussy can be labelled a flop.

Well then you could take it that way. But I was talking about the numbers they consider. Those days films were really blockbusters considering they would have cost between $25million to $50million (up until '89). So when a film crossed $50million mark yes it's considered a hit. When the film started to cost $100million to make still they considered $150million to be healthy given only a few movies can actually make beyond that unless your a Cruise,Hanks,Arnie or Carrey. Today I wonder if anyone is upto that challenge. I guess it's also a big question of saying the film was in no.1 spot on opening weekend etc.

I hate to be rude Dekard77. but you are talking out of your hat here.

Well that's your opinion. However I will stick to mine. Try reading about what happened to Terminator Salvation this summer. Don't know if you'd take it seriously though CNN showbizz usually analyse the B.O in America (had a few recorded) and they always talk about crossing the $100million mark to be considered a hit unless it was independant/low budget film.
The film performed poorly in USA, you also admitted to that.

CNN? (!). My opinion of CNN is about the same as Ms Dench's in TOMORROW NEVER DIES. And it is worth pointing out that I would imagine that CNN's "box office" stats are very immediate and would hardly start in August 1989 with the sentiment, "right, now that the dust has settled on LICENCE TO KILL let's look at what really happened to its box office".

Just a side thought, it doesn't matter what happened to SALVATION just yet as it is still rolling out across the world. It is not a hit or a flop just yet.

CNN/Barry Norman/Tom Brook/Premier/Variety/Entertainment Weekly/Bond Mags/Bond Books. They are all part of my movie diet. Sometimes I don't agree with whats written but at times the writing is on the wall especially with LTK.
Salvation is depending on the International grosses to keep the movie profitable where as in the States it's already under-performed. There is no way you can ignore the barometers used to judge a movies' success when it's said it needs to cross a certain mark to be called a hit in America ($100million minimum to be called a hit today). Internationally it's a different story.
b.t.w I don't think your rude just a bit jumpy.

[Safari Suit]

It was the 34th most popular movie in the US, but worldwide it was 12th.

[Dekard77]

So how does someone come to the conclusion that a film that "bombed" in the US "made almost 4 times its initial investment"....?

Depends, I guess, on how you define "bomb". By 1989 standards? By critical reception? By commercial reception? By profitability?

By 1989 standards License Revoked was #36 amongst its contemporaries at the U.S. box office. That was the worst chart position of any Bond film released in the 80's, and was far worse than any of the entries of the man whom Dalton was hired to replace. What's the point of bringing in a new actor who can do no better, and at times actually does worse, than Roger Moore? When you're an early-40'ish actor whose films can't handily beat an aging, geriatric Roger Moore at the box office, there's a problem.

The critics were generally decent and kind to the film, so no flop there.

Commercially speaking, the film was a severe disappointment and underperformed; it sold fewer individual tickets than the previous worst two entries, OHMSS and TMWTGG. That's pretty close to being a "flop", if not an outright disaster.

Finally, was the film profitable. Not so much. If you accept that the budget was $32-35 million as stated in reports at the time, and you accept that the marketing budget was $35 million as Michael G. Wilson stated, and you accept that MGM was probably getting the standard 50% return for each ticket sold as is customary for all studios, then it's hard to find where there was much profit for the film to be earned because your upfront costs are already at $70 million. A film that earns $156,000,000 is generally only going to give back to the studio $78 million since the studios and major theater chains already have a formula in place that stipulates what kind of percentage is taken out of the receipts and sent back to the studios each week. *At best* LICENSE REVOKED earned a profit of $8 million dollars, but I'm quite sure that the studio had other costs that got buried in the total figures. For example....

...apparently all the prep-work, the pre-production work...the art design and pre-viz, etc...done for SUPERMAN REBORN back in 1996/97 is rolled into the negative costs for a film like SUPERMAN RETURNS. So even though they appear to be almost two separate projects and were separated by nearly 10 years or more, SUPERMAN RETURNS' profit-to-loss ratio appears to be a lot worse than it really is. The film carried a lot of negative costs over from the abandoned SUPERMAN REBORN project, making it appear to be a critical flop and a commercial failure, when that's not really the case.

LICENSE REVOKED didn't really have those kinds of burdensome, negative costs associated with it, and I'm sure we weren't given the full scope of the budget problems because Hollywood uses vastly different accounting methods than most of us are familiar with or able to understand.

I'm just not sure that, even with a very conservative estimate, that LICENSE REVOKED made a lot of money. The profit margin window was very narrow, and if there was a weak dollar or pound in a foreign market, or if some box offices got more than 50%, REVOKED's profit margin may have been even slimmer.

There's also another angle to consider: the overall re-sell value of the Dalton films to cable, standard television broadcast, and home-video rights. How much did MGM think those properties would be worth, or continue to be worth, with Dalton as Bond? And home video may very well be considered an entirely separate division with their own budgets, and if the home video division is telling corporate that the Dalton films weren't renting very well and were likely to sell even worse, it's possible that such considerations could factor into Calley's decision to drop Dalton back in 1994.

When you're brought in to right a listless ship, you can only get away with blaming the previous captain for so long before the excuses run thin and the crew gets impatient. Once you get on board, you accept the problems you inherit and fix them. To Dalton's credit he never complained about the Moore films or the sad state of the studio at the time, or the downward trend that the films were taking in the 80's. On the other hand, I don't think he was anywhere near the publicity game player that Craig, Brosnan, or Moore were, and that kind of actor is invaluable when trying to sell a film. I'm sure if Barbara Broccoli asked Daniel Craig to descend from a ceiling in nothing but a jock strap and stick his in EMINEM's face, Craig would do it, because he knows how to drum up publicity and sell a film. I think I remember him saying he preferred to let the films speak for themselves and wanted to avoid as much publicity as he could. Dalton acted like he was too good for such publicity stunts or antics. Too bad...he could've been a rich, successful Bond, instead of a poor, unemployed one.

Great actor though.

Yep!

Edited by Dekard77, 13 July 2009 - 04:02 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Lot of vitriol everybody's swinging around in this thread; I didn't expect so much of a response when I started it, so let's try to all be civil here, shall we?