519 replies to this topic

[Jim]

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?

Oh, but there's such a glittering prize to play for in this internet argument, being... er... um.

[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?

Oh, but there's such a glittering prize to play for in this internet argument, being... er... um.

Oooh, glittery.

Now, Jim, would you like to comment on the initial post? I know it was a long time ago, but I'm sure this chap Nick should be made well aware that he's incorrect in his facts.

[Harry Fawkes]

As the saying goes: Never say die until you're dead!
Released in competition with such heavyweight summer fare as Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indiana Jones, the US Box Office for LTK fell considerably from the previous film to $35 million. Internationally, however, the film proved more durable, grossing a worldwide total of 156 million. 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.

A very sizable hit = The opposite of flop.

Sizable Hit - Flop / Flop - Sizable Hit

Conclusion?

LTK was indeed a Box Office disappointment for its makers however it was not, repeat, not, a FLOP by any yard stick!

As for Timothy Dalton, he succeeded in reintroducing the much needed serious tone and fresh Fleming touch. The other guys had it easy from then on!

Tim Dalton - Nobody Did It Better!

[Mr. Blofeld]

Tim Dalton - Nobody Did It Better!

Makes Me Feel Sad for the Rest...

[Harry Fawkes]

[Tybre]

Dalton acted like he was too good for such publicity stunts or antics.

Acted like he was too good? Okay, I wasn't alive at the time, but I've read a lot of interviews with Dalton from the start of his career forward. There's a guy who's made a big online archive of them. Dalton makes it expressly clear in several of the interviews he does not like doing interviews because interviews invariably stray into his personal life and he likes his personal life to stay separate from his public life. Simply put, the man enjoys his privacy. Now, okay, I will grant Dalton's lack of interviews (in fact there are only two in that archive for TLD and one for LTK) and public appearances and things definitely would have hurt things, but "acting like he was too good" for them seems a bit harsh.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

So you clearly don't remember Dalton abseiling down the front of the Odeon Leicester Square in June 1987 on the ocassion of the Royal Premiere for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (it was a stuntman, Simon Crane - but the television illusion was that it was the new Bond)? Nor the Japanese ads Dalton did in the guise of Bond to inavertently promote his new films? Nor the bevvy of girls that surrounded Dalton for the numerous press calls (I haven't seen Craig go down that route just yet - not that he should). And whilst we are on the subject of Craig loving the publicity, it is now part of the Bond circus and a necessary whirlwind of promotion - as were ALL the Bonds before. Dalton was no exception and did a vast variety of promo interviews and lengthier interviews about Fleming and Bond than Craig's little two minute soundbites on turgid ITV1 "behind the scenes" er "documentaries".

WHY WOULD DALTON COMPLAIN ABOUT THE MOORE BONDS?!!! That doesn't make any sense - to even say he didn't. Has Craig complained about the Brosnan films? No, of course not. Timothy Dalton is a VERY close family friend of Eon and its extended family. I can give evidence of that.

That's interesting about SUPERMAN, but Bond films "prepping" are not bankrolled by the studios (or at least that is how I have been led to believe it). Those funds are no doubt found at Eon and Danjaq who have enough funds to fall back on, believe me. These mythical American monolithic studios that some are alluding to here bankroll the production costs and have involvement in marketing but every Bond film is different in that respect).

And you still haven't really explained how a film that by your words "bombed" made 4 times its "intial investment". Enlighten me. Changing the sentiment of the statement doesn't give it further credence when someone suggests you are wrong.

[jaguar007]

Dalton did not do as many as Moore, but he did do interviews. The problem is he was not as charismatic and entertaining in his interviews as Roger Moore was.

I have several old magazines around from 87-89 with Dalton interviews and he also hit the TV circuit as well.

[Dekard77]

Dalton acted like he was too good for such publicity stunts or antics.

Acted like he was too good? Okay, I wasn't alive at the time, but I've read a lot of interviews with Dalton from the start of his career forward. There's a guy who's made a big online archive of them. Dalton makes it expressly clear in several of the interviews he does not like doing interviews because interviews invariably stray into his personal life and he likes his personal life to stay separate from his public life. Simply put, the man enjoys his privacy. Now, okay, I will grant Dalton's lack of interviews (in fact there are only two in that archive for TLD and one for LTK) and public appearances and things definitely would have hurt things, but "acting like he was too good" for them seems a bit harsh.

Maybe the words are a bit harsh but to some extent it was true. My brother and cousins all whom are Bond fans never warmed to Dalton in the 80's. Once when I did ask them all of them claim the little they saw of him wasn't to their interest. I guess mostly cos they grew up with Moore and his charm would have thought Dalton not good enough replacement due his seriousness. I liked Dalton from LTK then went on to watch TLD. Found it fresh. Recently when I asked some of my friends who has seen a few Bond movies claimed that while Brosnan and Craig are more Bond, they didn't like Dalton.
Brosnan scored heavily when he was starting to prop up on Magazines/TV interviews. You need that pull to promote Bond. Actors might hate giving the same interview over and over again but at times it helps to get the message across.

[Zorin Industries]

Dalton did not do as many as Moore, but he did do interviews. The problem is he was not as charismatic and entertaining in his interviews as Roger Moore was.

Says who? Dalton not "charismatic"...??!!

[jaguar007]

Dalton did not do as many as Moore, but he did do interviews. The problem is he was not as charismatic and entertaining in his interviews as Roger Moore was.

Says who? Dalton not "charismatic"...??!!

I said "in his interviews", not onscreen.

Roger Moore is one of the most entertaining interviews out there PERIOD, not just of Bond actors. He is the type that is humourous and has fun with his interviewer. Dalton was a bit more serious and did not really seem like he enjoyed giving interviews (at least in the 80s, I think he has lightened up a bit now).

[Tybre]

Dalton did not do as many as Moore, but he did do interviews. The problem is he was not as charismatic and entertaining in his interviews as Roger Moore was.

Says who? Dalton not "charismatic"...??!!

I said "in his interviews", not onscreen.

Roger Moore is one of the most entertaining interviews out there PERIOD, not just of Bond actors. He is the type that is humourous and has fun with his interviewer. Dalton was a bit more serious and did not really seem like he enjoyed giving interviews (at least in the 80s, I think he has lightened up a bit now).

Yeah, in the archive I mentioned earlier, there's an interview from when he was doing Jane Eyre, and all of his responses just scream, at least to me, "Just shut up and let me go home".

[Zorin Industries]

Has anyone had to talk to the press about something they have worked on, but had to say the same thing over and over with the nagging hunch no-one is listening anyway? I have.

The fee these actors get does include monies for the promotion circuit. And Daniel Craig is not innocent of looking bored and generic in some of his interviews too. I don't blame him, Dalton or anyone else. But I would hold back from saying Dalton is a bad interviewee until anyone here has interviewed him.

[volante]

I thought LTK was an excellent film, tough gritty and just right for the climate.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Mmm
I persoanlly don't think there is any escape from the conclusion that Dalton was a publicity shy actor. I also think it was hard for him promotion and publicity wise to take over from Moore who was a superb veteran in interviews by '85 (and a producers dream because of this I imagine).
However, writing as a UK Bond fan (with no claim as to what Dalton did publicity wise overseas) I think history is again being rewritten a bit. If there is a perception Dalton did not do his bit promotion wise, this was not the case as far as I remember it. Dalton did enough interviews to make the films work, and furthermore IMO Dalton knew the importance of this to the circus that is Bond.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 13 July 2009 - 07:30 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Mmm
I persoanlly don't think there is any escape from the conclusion that Dalton was a publicity shy actor. I also think it was hard for him promotion and publicity wise to take over from Moore who was a superb veteran in interviews by '85 (and a producers dream because of this I imagine).
However, writing as a UK Bond fan (with no claim as to what Dalton did publicity wise overseas) I think history is again being rewritten a bit. If there is a perception Dalton did not do his bit promotion wise, this was not the case as far as I remember it. Dalton did enough interviews to make the films work, and furthermore IMO Dalton knew the importance of this to the circus that is Bond.

Exactly. Let's not rewrite history AGAIN. I have a lot of Dalton interviews from the day and he LOVED being Bond, working on them AND talking about them.

[jaguar007]

Has anyone had to talk to the press about something they have worked on, but had to say the same thing over and over with the nagging hunch no-one is listening anyway? I have.

The fee these actors get does include monies for the promotion circuit. And Daniel Craig is not innocent of looking bored and generic in some of his interviews too. I don't blame him, Dalton or anyone else. But I would hold back from saying Dalton is a bad interviewee until anyone here has interviewed him.

I agree. Zorin, you seem to think I said Dalton was uncharismatic. I simply said that he was not as charismatic of an interviewee as Roger Moore was. I do not mean this as a diss to Dalton as Bond, he is my third favorite Bond (behind Connery and Craig). I really wish he had done more films.

He followed Roger Moore's Bond and the press was used to the great interviews Moore gave. Dalton came across as less humourous and more guarded in the interviews than his predecessor. That is all I said.

[Zorin Industries]

So you clearly don't remember Dalton abseiling down the front of the Odeon Leicester Square in June 1987 on the ocassion of the Royal Premiere for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (it was a stuntman, Simon Crane - but the television illusion was that it was the new Bond)?

So clearly you don't remember Dalton famously turning down a $1 million dollar offer from AMERICAN EXPRESS to play 007 in a series of commercials that not only would promote their line of credit cards, but would also help promote THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

I can do tit for tat also.

And you still haven't really explained how a film that by your words "bombed" made 4 times its "intial investment".

I did explain it; you're just choosing to ignore the facts because they don't bolster your argument. I hate to pick nits, but when you say LICENSE REVOKED "made 4 times its initial investment", what are you referring to? Gross? Or net profit? Either way you're wrong. Discounting for a moment Hollywood's bizarre accounting methods and just using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), LICENSE REVOKED grossed slightly more than twice the initial investment and, at best, netted an $8 million dollar profit against a $70 million dollar investment.

I'm not an accountant nor a particularly good mathematician, so I'll let others try and determine what the percentage ratio is/was for a film that had to spend $70 million to earn a profit of $8 million. That actually doesn't sound too bad, but that's only if the $8 million dollar figure is correct, and only if there were no other extraordinary costs. And even if that $8 million dollars is pure profit, it really doesn't represent a whole lot of money for either the studio or the production company to use to reinvest in the series. My guess is that the producers fees were not included in the overhead costs, but more than likely the director's were.

Again, going back to formula here: a typical film will only get back 50% of what it GROSSED at the box office. If LICENSE REVOKED earned $156,000,000 worldwide, the studio would likely only see $78 million of that. Once you factor in the initial budget (rumored to be between $32-35 million) and the marketing costs that Michael Wilson was willing to admit to ($35 million, but remember, studios always try and downplay how much they actually spent; chances are they spent more than $35 million), we're now down to $8 million dollars of mad money. Once you subtract the producers fees and a certain amount to reinvest in the series, you'll find that LICENSE REVOKED probably broke even at best. That's not 'making 4 times its initial investment'.

Tit for tat? Which one of us is missing the "w"...? (I jest). And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Danjaq / Eon's finances, costs, monies owed, investments, fees and grosses are in a world of their own. Taking what others have written doesn't always get close to the reality. How the producers "make" their cut is not strictly the same as how other films would operate. And I can say that with confidence based on experience.

[Mike00spy]

But then you have merchandise, product placement, sales from video rentals, TV deals, VHS sales, DVD sales, Blu Ray Sales...

Surely those numbers bump up the film as well?

[Zorin Industries]

But then you have merchandise, product placement, sales from video rentals, TV deals, VHS sales, DVD sales, Blu Ray Sales...

Surely those numbers bump up the film as well?

Yes. Of course they do. And they are factored in from the start. But not in "box office figures" people glean from the internet (which wasn't even operating in 1989 - hence everything is in blinkered hindsight) to back up naff old claims that LICENCE TO KILL "bombed" all-round.

I think I might start an Edinburgh Fringe comedy show called LICENCE TO KILL DIDN'T BOMB OKAY? There's certainly enough material here...

[Dekard77]

So you clearly don't remember Dalton abseiling down the front of the Odeon Leicester Square in June 1987 on the ocassion of the Royal Premiere for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS (it was a stuntman, Simon Crane - but the television illusion was that it was the new Bond)?

So clearly you don't remember Dalton famously turning down a $1 million dollar offer from AMERICAN EXPRESS to play 007 in a series of commercials that not only would promote their line of credit cards, but would also help promote THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

I can do tit for tat also.

And you still haven't really explained how a film that by your words "bombed" made 4 times its "intial investment".

I did explain it; you're just choosing to ignore the facts because they don't bolster your argument. I hate to pick nits, but when you say LICENSE REVOKED "made 4 times its initial investment", what are you referring to? Gross? Or net profit? Either way you're wrong. Discounting for a moment Hollywood's bizarre accounting methods and just using generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), LICENSE REVOKED grossed slightly more than twice the initial investment and, at best, netted an $8 million dollar profit against a $70 million dollar investment.

I'm not an accountant nor a particularly good mathematician, so I'll let others try and determine what the percentage ratio is/was for a film that had to spend $70 million to earn a profit of $8 million. That actually doesn't sound too bad, but that's only if the $8 million dollar figure is correct, and only if there were no other extraordinary costs. And even if that $8 million dollars is pure profit, it really doesn't represent a whole lot of money for either the studio or the production company to use to reinvest in the series. My guess is that the producers fees were not included in the overhead costs, but more than likely the director's were.

Again, going back to formula here: a typical film will only get back 50% of what it GROSSED at the box office. If LICENSE REVOKED earned $156,000,000 worldwide, the studio would likely only see $78 million of that. Once you factor in the initial budget (rumored to be between $32-35 million) and the marketing costs that Michael Wilson was willing to admit to ($35 million, but remember, studios always try and downplay how much they actually spent; chances are they spent more than $35 million), we're now down to $8 million dollars of mad money. Once you subtract the producers fees and a certain amount to reinvest in the series, you'll find that LICENSE REVOKED probably broke even at best. That's not 'making 4 times its initial investment'.

Tit for tat? Which one of us is missing the "w"...? (I jest). And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Danjaq / Eon's finances, costs, monies owed, investments, fees and grosses are in a world of their own. Taking what others have written doesn't always get close to the reality. How the producers "make" their cut is not strictly the same as how other films would operate. And I can say that with confidence based on experience.

O.k taking that into consideration I guess they made the money back, but it still has not helped the fact that certain media and critics still manage to say LTK in America was a failure. I know mags like Premier and Empire not the full authority but when they do report things the public is given a certain impression. I am quite curious to why Dalton left the part considering he always wanted to find steady work like his fellow actors Patrick Stewart. Finally the documentary to LTK also ends with film not meeting expectations etc.....
Also I do believe that within a period of time with video and tv deals the film can go on to add more money.
All I can say is that this discussion lead me to buy LTK on Blu and hop it's a true upgrade from UE dvd. I really do.

Edited by Dekard77, 14 July 2009 - 06:08 PM.

[Dekard77]

But then you have merchandise, product placement, sales from video rentals, TV deals, VHS sales, DVD sales, Blu Ray Sales...

Surely those numbers bump up the film as well?

Sometimes, but not with LICENSE REVOKED. There wasn't much in the way of merchandise for sale related to LICENSE REVOKED unlike, say, THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER.

Product placement goes towards bringing costs down or generating extra, or "free", publicity; it does not count towards box office. The Z3 from GOLDENEYE helped the production save several hundred thousand dollars in costs by providing the filmmakers with several cool cars, and obviously the association with 007 helped both BMW's Z3 sales and helped bring attention to the film through tv spots, print ads, and the film itself.

GOLDENEYE for Nintendo64 is a good example; I think it sold over a million units, is considered a classic game, but it did nothing for the films box office profitability. The game may have received added boosts in sales because the film did well, or perhaps vice versa, but in accounting terms the video games extraordinary success does not count towards GOLDENEYE's (the film) balance sheet.

With LICENSE REVOKED there wasn't a lot of particularly useful product placement to begin with.

Interesting points about the home entertainment market....I'm assuming that these are separate divisions, and each division is responsible for staying within budget and turning a profit. I've said it before, and it is worth repeating, that those in power at MGM and their home video partners at the time may have had access to sales data on cassette sell-throughs and rentals for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENSE REVOKED and may have actually taken a loss on those two films. The loss would be incurred in the home video divisions and not against the theatrical run of the movie, but if the videos weren't selling, or renting, and broadcast networks were telling the studio they weren't going to pay a premium price for the broadcast rights to Dalton's Bond films, that had to weigh heavily on the decision to rehire him.

This may be something and it may be nothing, but when THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS debuted on American broadcast television, it was on ABC (then one of the "Big Three" networks), and I believe it was in February of 1990. When LICENSE REVOKED debuted on American broadcast television, it was on the FOX network, back in 1992 I believe. Back then FOX wasn't the ratings force that it is today. It was still a fledgling network only 5 years old, and didn't have 24, AMERICAN IDOL, HOUSE, or the NFL. It was a distant fourth place competitor. It was also at that time (1990 and afterward) that the older films were repackaged and sold to TBS, which began repeating them every 3 months as to render the value of a broadcast almost worthless.

When I was "growing up" in the late 70's and 80's, the ABC Sunday Night movie was the place to see some of the best movies if you didn't have cable. In 2009 the prestige of a broadcast network showing your movie has waned considerably, with many big movies debuting on basic cable instead, but 20-odd years ago it was still something of an honor to be on the ABC Sunday Night Movie.

Anyway, the Brosnan/Craig films have certainly been better leveraged than the Dalton films were. We can debate endlessly about why it turned out that way, but it is what it is, and it was what it was.

And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Because I never accepted EON's name change. I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant, or would confuse it with a movie about driving. Clearly changing the title didn't help any. LTK is a generic film title; I could cull through the list of the B-movie shelves at Blockbuster and find a half-dozen films with an equivalent title. It sounded like something out of an Andy Sidaris production.

Danjaq / Eon's finances, costs, monies owed, investments, fees and grosses are in a world of their own. Taking what others have written doesn't always get close to the reality. How the producers "make" their cut is not strictly the same as how other films would operate. And I can say that with confidence based on experience.

People trying to defend LICENSE REVOKED against the label of being a "flop" or a "bomb" always walk a very fine line, because the numbers don't add up to much more, at best, than a film that barely broke even. But the real numbers that matter about the Dalton films aren't always on the final balance sheet, but the VALUE that other companies (theater owners, home video retailers, bankers, industry writers, film producers, screenwriters, etc..) place on the Bond series between 1985 - 1994. By almost any reasonable standard, the general consensus was that the brand had been further diminished under Dalton's watch. People don't come to that conclusion when a film has been a raging success.

I haven't really cared for LICENSE REVOKED since 1990, so it's no secret that I'm biased. However, my beef is with people who excuse away failure. 'It was BATMAN's fault'...'the movie was poorly marketed'...'there was too much competition'...'it wasn't a bomb; just an incomplete success'. I don't begrudge people for liking the film (though I can't really understand that either), but instead it is with people who blindly defend a film that did poorly in terms of actual ticket sales, poorly in terms of overall box office, and had its clock cleaned by a chick flick that opened the same weekend as LICENSE REVOKED, but in only 81 theaters, and went on to make $92 million compared to REVOKED's paltry $36 million. Now, if that's a hit I'd sure hate to see what a failure is.

As Bond fans we tend to understand/defend the franchise better but for the common/general audience Dalton's era wasn't
Hit they were hoping for with Bond.

[Jim]

And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Because I never accepted EON's name change. I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant

Or how to spell the word "licence", one would also have to assume.

It's not a particularly good film and I fear that you're paying it far more attention than it deserves.

[Safari Suit]

Does no one think it's significant that it was a whopping 24 places higher in the international chart than it was in the US chart? No one? Not significant or interesting at all?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Because I never accepted EON's name change. I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant, or would confuse it with a movie about driving. Clearly changing the title didn't help any. LTK is a generic film title; I could cull through the list of the B-movie shelves at Blockbuster and find a half-dozen films with an equivalent title. It sounded like something out of an Andy Sidaris production.

People trying to defend LICENSE REVOKED against the label of being a "flop" or a "bomb" always walk a very fine line, because the numbers don't add up to much more, at best, than a film that barely broke even. But the real numbers that matter about the Dalton films aren't always on the final balance sheet, but the VALUE that other companies (theater owners, home video retailers, bankers, industry writers, film producers, screenwriters, etc..) place on the Bond series between 1985 - 1994. By almost any reasonable standard, the general consensus was that the brand had been further diminished under Dalton's watch. People don't come to that conclusion when a film has been a raging success.

The tautologous thread that will not die!
I had always understood the name change was nothing to do with EON at all, but solely the studio's because of worry that American's would not know what revoked meant.
I accept there may have been different reactions to Dalton in the US and in the UK. I have read your recollections about what happened in America and I would not dispute them as I am in no position to do so. But there was no general consensus, (as you put it), in the UK that I remember of to support any idea that the brand had been further diminsihed under Dalton, the situation was more the reverse in fact. To suggest otherwise is the stuff of legend as far as I am concerned. People liked Dalton in the UK, and as I said before there was no idea as far as the UK public was concerned that the series was gonna come to the hiatus it did.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 14 July 2009 - 08:03 PM.

[Mr. Blofeld]

And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Because I never accepted EON's name change. I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant

Or how to spell the word "licence", one would also have to assume.

It's not a particularly good film and I fear that you're paying it far more attention than it deserves.

Indeed; I see that nothing much positive is coming out of this thread, which is a shame, since when I started it, it was in a spirit of positive inquiry.

[Dekard77]

Because I never accepted EON's name change. I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant, or would confuse it with a movie about driving. Clearly changing the title didn't help any. LTK is a generic film title; I could cull through the list of the B-movie shelves at Blockbuster and find a half-dozen films with an equivalent title. It sounded like something out of an Andy Sidaris production.

People trying to defend LICENSE REVOKED against the label of being a "flop" or a "bomb" always walk a very fine line, because the numbers don't add up to much more, at best, than a film that barely broke even. But the real numbers that matter about the Dalton films aren't always on the final balance sheet, but the VALUE that other companies (theater owners, home video retailers, bankers, industry writers, film producers, screenwriters, etc..) place on the Bond series between 1985 - 1994. By almost any reasonable standard, the general consensus was that the brand had been further diminished under Dalton's watch. People don't come to that conclusion when a film has been a raging success.

The tautologous thread that will not die!
I had always understood the name change was nothing to do with EON at all, but solely the studio's because of worry that American's would not know what revoked meant.
I accept there may have been different reactions to Dalton in the US and in the UK. I have read your recollections about what happened in America and I would not dispute them as I am in no position to do so. But there was no general consensus, (as you put it), in the UK that I remember of to support any idea that the brand had been further diminsihed under Dalton, the situation was more the reverse in fact. To suggest otherwise is the stuff of legend as far as I am concerned. People liked Dalton in the UK, and as I said before there was no idea as far as the UK public was concerned that the series was gonna come to the hiatus it did.

True if legal issues weren't in the way then Dalton would have come back at least to fulfil his 3 picture deal. The issue here is American audience/MGM's reaction to the series after LTK could have been a bit too harsh. Plus with the new wave of action films from Joel Silver/Lawrence Gordon and Kassar/Vajna it would have been best to steer away for a while and start fresh.

[Zorin Industries]

But then you have merchandise, product placement, sales from video rentals, TV deals, VHS sales, DVD sales, Blu Ray Sales...

Surely those numbers bump up the film as well?

Sometimes, but not with LICENSE REVOKED. There wasn't much in the way of merchandise for sale related to LICENSE REVOKED unlike, say, THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER.

Rubbish. Deals with the Kenwood trucks firm, a range of toys to name just two off the top of my head, a high selling Patti Labelle closing track, one of the legends of Motown performing the title track... .

Product placement goes towards bringing costs down or generating extra, or "free", publicity; it does not count towards box office.


Yes. And LICENCE TO KILL has as much or as little as any other Bond of the time... Just because you don't recognise the brands (the numerous boats, helicopters, planes, tankers, named beers in the shoot-out bar, some of the clothing, sunglasses, various champagne brands, the luggage and suitcases, all of KREST's underwater equipment, Nikon...)

The Z3 from GOLDENEYE helped the production save several hundred thousand dollars in costs by providing the filmmakers with several cool cars, and obviously the association with 007 helped both BMW's Z3 sales and helped bring attention to the film through tv spots, print ads, and the film itself.

GOLDENEYE for Nintendo64 is a good example; I think it sold over a million units, is considered a classic game, but it did nothing for the films box office profitability. The game may have received added boosts in sales because the film did well, or perhaps vice versa, but in accounting terms the video games extraordinary success does not count towards GOLDENEYE's (the film) balance sheet.

Why would it? I believe the game emerged nearly two years after the film.

With LICENSE REVOKED there wasn't a lot of particularly useful product placement to begin with.

Again - that YOU noticed.


Interesting points about the home entertainment market....I'm assuming that these are separate divisions, and each division is responsible for staying within budget and turning a profit. I've said it before, and it is worth repeating, that those in power at MGM and their home video partners at the time may have had access to sales data on cassette sell-throughs and rentals for THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENSE REVOKED and may have actually taken a loss on those two films. The loss would be incurred in the home video divisions and not against the theatrical run of the movie, but if the videos weren't selling, or renting, and broadcast networks were telling the studio they weren't going to pay a premium price for the broadcast rights to Dalton's Bond films, that had to weigh heavily on the decision to rehire him.

What side of the Planet Lunacy does that come from? The TV rights are signed and sealed before the film is often shot.

This may be something and it may be nothing, but when THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS debuted on American broadcast television, it was on ABC (then one of the "Big Three" networks), and I believe it was in February of 1990. When LICENSE REVOKED debuted on American broadcast television, it was on the FOX network, back in 1992 I believe. Back then FOX wasn't the ratings force that it is today. It was still a fledgling network only 5 years old, and didn't have 24, AMERICAN IDOL, HOUSE, or the NFL. It was a distant fourth place competitor. It was also at that time (1990 and afterward) that the older films were repackaged and sold to TBS, which began repeating them every 3 months as to render the value of a broadcast almost worthless.

When I was "growing up" in the late 70's and 80's, the ABC Sunday Night movie was the place to see some of the best movies if you didn't have cable. In 2009 the prestige of a broadcast network showing your movie has waned considerably, with many big movies debuting on basic cable instead, but 20-odd years ago it was still something of an honor to be on the ABC Sunday Night Movie.

Anyway, the Brosnan/Craig films have certainly been better leveraged than the Dalton films were. We can debate endlessly about why it turned out that way, but it is what it is, and it was what it was.

And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Because I never accepted EON's name change.

And here lies the dilemma of debate and argument on this thread. And probably why I should give up now as there is no point in arguing with ignorance - especially when it wears its credentials on its sleeve so erroneously as you do here with your statements plucked from the clouds.

I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant, or would confuse it with a movie about driving.

You reckon? (insert irony where applicable).

Clearly changing the title didn't help any. LTK is a generic film title; I could cull through the list of the B-movie shelves at Blockbuster and find a half-dozen films with an equivalent title. It sounded like something out of an Andy Sidaris production.

Some would argue that Bond Movies are B-movies with a budget. But that is another thread for other times.

Danjaq / Eon's finances, costs, monies owed, investments, fees and grosses are in a world of their own. Taking what others have written doesn't always get close to the reality. How the producers "make" their cut is not strictly the same as how other films would operate. And I can say that with confidence based on experience.

People trying to defend LICENSE REVOKED against the label of being a "flop" or a "bomb" always walk a very fine line, because the numbers don't add up to much more, at best, than a film that barely broke even.

I don't tread a fine line anywhere - certainly not on CBN when people are wanting to rewrite history to suit what they have either read, want to believe or, worst still, what others have written because they want to believe it too.

But the real numbers that matter about the Dalton films aren't always on the final balance sheet,

And how many Bond balance sheets have you got on your desk now?

but the VALUE that other companies (theater owners, home video retailers, bankers, industry writers, film producers, screenwriters, etc..) place on the Bond series between 1985 - 1994.

You clearly haven't a clue about how Bond films are financed.

By almost any reasonable standard, the general consensus was that the brand had been further diminished under Dalton's watch. People don't come to that conclusion when a film has been a raging success.

So how come GOLDENEYE was bankrolled by these monolithic "studios" that everyone seems to know so much about when Dalton was still Bond?
No, they appear to come to that conclusion individually and assume that was the reality.

I haven't really cared for LICENSE REVOKED since 1990, so it's no secret that I'm biased. However, my beef is with people who excuse away failure. 'It was BATMAN's fault'...'the movie was poorly marketed'...'there was too much competition'...'it wasn't a bomb; just an incomplete success'. I don't begrudge people for liking the film (though I can't really understand that either), but instead it is with people who blindly defend a film that did poorly in terms of actual ticket sales,

It didn't do "poorly". But as you have the balance sheets there with you, you can clarify that, yes?

poorly in terms of overall box office,

What is "overall box office" to you? How many territories and global regions are listed on that balance sheet?

and had its clock cleaned by a chick flick that opened the same weekend as LICENSE REVOKED, but in only 81 theaters, and went on to make $92 million compared to REVOKED's paltry $36 million. Now, if that's a hit I'd sure hate to see what a failure is.

Oh please. Let it go. This is deluded fanboy nonsense. Well intentioned, but utterly deluded, inaccurate, all over the place statistically and blinkered to the point of insanity.

Your passion is commendable James. But that is all.

HEAD

BANGING

BRICK

WALL

[Dekard77]

And why are you calling LICENCE TO KILL some other title?

Because I never accepted EON's name change. I refuse to call that film L****** T* K*** (anymore). It will always be LICENSE REVOKED. EON/MGM took a perfectly good name and changed it because they assumed the American audience would be too stupid to know what "revoked" meant

Or how to spell the word "licence", one would also have to assume.

It's not a particularly good film and I fear that you're paying it far more attention than it deserves.

Indeed; I see that nothing much positive is coming out of this thread, which is a shame, since when I started it, it was in a spirit of positive inquiry.

Don't say that. 20years later people are still talking about the movie with some passion. Maybe we all don't agree on certain issues but I managed to learn a bit. Who else will take the time off to talk about Bond films to this extent than in forums like this???
I started like Bond films again cos of LTK in '89. The discussion I had with Zorin alone takes me back to my arguments with my bro about the movie. In reverse roles I was Zorin and my bro was well Dekard. I managed to learn more than I remembered at that time and seriously speaking it was one of the most fun threads yet. Gravity , Jaguar and Tybre Thanks again for keeping the thread alive with fun facts or fan views.

[Zorin Industries]

Rubbish. Deals with the Kenwood trucks firm, a range of toys to name just two off the top of my head, a high selling Patti Labelle closing track, one of the legends of Motown performing the title track... .

OH God. You're dragging the corpse of Patti Labelle's career into this argument? Thank YOU!!!! You've just proven my point that the entire film was creative anorexia. When you're signing Patti Labelle and Gladys Knight to warble your title and theme songs, you, as a producer, are giving up any and all hopes of keeping your series fresh and relevant in 1989.

Product placement goes towards bringing costs down or generating extra, or "free", publicity; it does not count towards box office.


Yes. And LICENCE TO KILL has as much or as little as any other Bond of the time... Just because you don't recognise the brands (the numerous boats, helicopters, planes, tankers, named beers in the shoot-out bar, some of the clothing, sunglasses, various champagne brands, the luggage and suitcases, all of KREST's underwater equipment, Nikon...)

I never said I didn't recognize the brands. I said the product placement was nowhere near as relevant, outstanding, or integral to the publicity machine of LICENSE REVOKED as it was for other Bond films, particularly films such as THUNDERBALL, MOONRAKER, or GOLDENEYE. I doubt very seriously that the average moviegoer will remember the Kenworth print ads in TRUCKER MAGAZINE that tied their product into the release of LICENSE REVOKED .

You couldn't escape the product placement, sweepstakes, and free publicity that was generated by the dozens of corporations that lined up to help promote GOLDENEYE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE. Point me to a similarly effective campaign for LICENSE REVOKED please.

Again - that YOU noticed.

I notice QUITE A BIT. I've been collecting Bond, watching Bond, reading Bond, blogging about Bond, and writing about Bond probably longer than you've even been alive.


And here may lie the problem.

Well good luck to you. I on the other hand have had Bond in my family since before I was born and count myself fortunate to be privy to a few more personal insights about the series, its challenges, development and the reality of making James Bond films and just how they need to be received to be classed as a success than some people who cannot think outside the boxset. Films and film making also pays my bills and my agent's bills - so I also have an additional insight into producing films and television which is not based on what I have read or what others have written.

If you can point me to an ad campaign that seeped into the public consciousness as much as the ones for MOONRAKER or GOLDENEYE please, by all means, show me the error of my ways.

I've got more important things to ponder than what posters went where for a thirty year old film that - like all the Bond films - are not made or broken by a sodding poster campaign. People don't go and see James Bond films because of the ad campaign alone anyway. Sorry - but what is the point of arguing about an ad campaign for a Bond film??!!

Some would argue that Bond Movies are B-movies with a budget. But that is another thread for other times.

Oh, so now you've taken to dissing the entire series in order to prove your point about LICENSE REVOKED? Wow. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.



If you had a slightly wider perspective on cinema, you would at least understand the sentiment of that statement. But as your starting point for discussing LICENCE TO KILL is by refusing to call it anything other than its working title there is no point trying to illuminate that discussion right here. By the way, why don't you call some of the other films by their working titles?

I don't tread a fine line anywhere - certainly not on CBN when people are wanting to rewrite history to suit what they have either read, want to believe or, worst still, what others have written because they want to believe it too.

LICENSE REVOKED takes in less admissions than THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, makes less money than AVTAK OR TLD, and *THIS* is somehow a sign of success

None of those titles were ever flops for Eon Productions and Danjaq plus their other affiliated companies.

It didn't do "poorly". But as you have the balance sheets there with you, you can clarify that, yes?

Well, if it didn't do poorly, then tell me: where was the third Dalton film? If LICENSE REVOKED was such a spectacular achievement at the box office and Dalton's interpretation was so well liked, why didn't he come back for GOLDENEYE? Why didn't John Calley move heaven and earth to make Dalton an offer he couldn't refuse? I doubt you can answer that without resorting to any of that "fanboy" nonsense about Dalton walking away from the role because he'd been Bond for 8 years and was ready to move on.

Dalton left for a variety of reasons and circumstances - some of which you clearly don't have a clue about.

and had its clock cleaned by a chick flick that opened the same weekend as LICENSE REVOKED, but in only 81 theaters, and went on to make $92 million compared to REVOKED's paltry $36 million. Now, if that's a hit I'd sure hate to see what a failure is.

This is deluded fanboy nonsense. Well intentioned, but utterly deluded, inaccurate, all over the place statistically and blinkered to the point of insanity.

"Deluded fanboy nonsense"? So what are you saying? Are you suggesting that WHEN HARRY MET SALLY didn't really open on July 14th, 1989 and earn only $1 million dollars that weekend? Are you saying that the film didn't go on to earn $92 million at the box office, while LICENSE REVOKED, which opened on about 1500 more screens than WHMS, tanked, and only earned $36 million? Is this all just an illusion? Are we just being kept alive by machines that are programmed to feed us this "reality"?
Because if my history is correct, and I lived through 1989, WHMS opened up the same weekend as LICENSE REVOKED, and went on to beat LICENSE REVOKED down like a red-headed step child.

Tell me, which part of the above paragraph is not factual? Did WHMS not open on July 14th, 1989? Was it, and the reissuance of Peter Pan, not the only competition LICENSE REVOKED had that weekend? Did WHMS not go on to make almost three times as much money in the U.S. as LICENSE REVOKED? WHERE? Where are the factual inaccuracies? Where are the lies?

[color="#006400"]The lies? It is not about truths and lies? It is about your blinkered interpretation and weirdly placed enthusiasm to dismiss a film you make great pains to prove your knowledge about. I personally wouldn't be so obsessed about renaming a film (which is a bit laughable) that I didn't like and was scorning at every opportunity. James Bond films are not made or broken in the US theatrical box office markets.