519 replies to this topic

[jaguar007]

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.

I don't know if that is really a good example of Dalton not wanting to do publicity for the films. I don't recall previous Bond's doing TV commercials in character of BOnd. Back in 89 I would have thought a TV commercial with Dalton playing Bond would have cheapend the character (of course I did not know about the Japanese Lark commercial at the time).

I think much of this argument may have to do with which side of the pond you are on. Now I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond (although I far prefer TLD) but I have to say, in the US LTK BOMBED! Internationally, if fared better than the US, but was still below expectations.

I also think (and this is what I gathered from import magazines I got my hands on in the late 90s) that in the UK Dalton was more highly regarded as Bond than he was in the US. Of course the US is a much bigger market than the UK, which has some impact as to why Calley did not want Dalton back (you can listen to the EON spin, but it is a pretty well known fact that Calley did not want Dalton back for GE).

[Loomis]

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.

There were no such campaigns for LICENCE REVOKED, for the simple reason that, uh, no film called LICENCE REVOKED was ever released.

Do you also tell people that Brosnan's first Bond film was THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS?

[Royal Dalton]

Now I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond (although I far prefer TLD) but I have to say, in the US LTK BOMBED!

Not really. The film made most of its budget back at the US box office.

TWINE didn't break even in the US either, remember. And it was less profitable worldwide for the studio than LTK was. But I don't see many people going around calling that one a commercial bomb.

[jaguar007]

"Cheapened the character?" Did you see what Bond was driving in Key West? What was it? A Ford? Did you see Bond's cheap haircut, cheap luxury suite, cheap bank, Pam's cheap wig. The only thing that looked cheap and sleazy was the Barrelhead Bar, and it was supposed to.

Yes, it was a Ford product, a Lincoln Mark VII to be exact. The type of car he would have rented from the local Hertz.

I still disagree that doing a TV commercial for AMEX as Bond had anything to do with being publicity shy. As I said earlier, I don't recall Connery or Moore ever doing TV commercials in character as Bond

[jaguar007]

Now I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond (although I far prefer TLD) but I have to say, in the US LTK BOMBED!

Not really. The film made most of its budget back at the US box office.

TWINE didn't break even in the US either, remember. And it was less profitable worldwide for the studio than LTK was. But I don't see many people going around calling that one a commercial bomb.

I think the difference is that TWINE (while a far inferior movie to LTK) still did a somewhat comperable US box office to many other major releases that year. LTK on the other hand grosses were below many other movies considered a bomb (Karate Kid 3 grossed more). All the movies in the US top 10 grossed AT LEAST 3 times the gross of LTK.

BTW, where did the $32million cost come from? Everything I have read shows a $42million budget for LTK

http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php
http://www.universal...nse-theme.shtml

http://www.askmen.co...ce-to-kill.html

Interesting to read what the last link says about the movie
Though the film was actually received fairly well by the critics (Roger Ebert, for example, referred to it as “exhilarating”) Licence to Kill, nevertheless, tanked at the North American box office after failing to recoup its production budget of $42 million (it did, however, manage rake in over $100 million overseas). The film’s disappointing performance was blamed on such wide-ranging factors as its darker tone and the caliber of its competition (i.e., Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, etc), though there’s little doubt that Dalton’s inability to win audiences over contributed heavily to its failure. It’s subsequently not surprising to note that Licence to Kill marked Timothy Dalton’s final stint as 007, with the series taking an unprecedented six-year absence before returning with the hugely successful 1995 blockbuster GoldenEye.

[Mike00spy]

Now I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond (although I far prefer TLD) but I have to say, in the US LTK BOMBED!

Not really. The film made most of its budget back at the US box office.

TWINE didn't break even in the US either, remember. And it was less profitable worldwide for the studio than LTK was. But I don't see many people going around calling that one a commercial bomb.

I think the difference is that TWINE (while a far inferior movie to LTK) still did a somewhat comperable US box office to many other major releases that year. LTK on the other hand grosses were below many other movies considered a bomb (Karate Kid 3 grossed more). All the movies in the US top 10 grossed AT LEAST 3 times the gross of LTK.

BTW, where did the $32million cost come from? Everything I have read shows a $42million budget for LTK

Well, I would suspect that if you use Gravity's calculations for other Bond films (esp the 80s ones) we would find some similiar results. Not 8 million "profit" but not that much more either.

[Dekard77]

Now I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond (although I far prefer TLD) but I have to say, in the US LTK BOMBED!

Not really. The film made most of its budget back at the US box office.

TWINE didn't break even in the US either, remember. And it was less profitable worldwide for the studio than LTK was. But I don't see many people going around calling that one a commercial bomb.

I think the difference is that TWINE (while a far inferior movie to LTK) still did a somewhat comperable US box office to many other major releases that year. LTK on the other hand grosses were below many other movies considered a bomb (Karate Kid 3 grossed more). All the movies in the US top 10 grossed AT LEAST 3 times the gross of LTK.

TWINE was utter garbage compared to LTK but the marketing machine saved the film from its death at b.o. Also TWINE from what I saw somewhere is one of the most expensive Bond movie. Nothing could save that movie.

BTW, where did the $32million cost come from? Everything I have read shows a $42million budget for LTK

http://www.the-numbe...s/JamesBond.php
http://www.universal...nse-theme.shtml

http://www.askmen.co...ce-to-kill.html

Interesting to read what the last link says about the movie
Though the film was actually received fairly well by the critics (Roger Ebert, for example, referred to it as “exhilarating”) Licence to Kill, nevertheless, tanked at the North American box office after failing to recoup its production budget of $42 million (it did, however, manage rake in over $100 million overseas). The film’s disappointing performance was blamed on such wide-ranging factors as its darker tone and the caliber of its competition (i.e., Lethal Weapon 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Batman, etc), though there’s little doubt that Dalton’s inability to win audiences over contributed heavily to its failure. It’s subsequently not surprising to note that Licence to Kill marked Timothy Dalton’s final stint as 007, with the series taking an unprecedented six-year absence before returning with the hugely successful 1995 blockbuster GoldenEye.

My comments are also towards US reaction to UK and Europe. I know Bond is Big in Europe a it's clearly indicated in most Bond books as well. However American media/Studio's are different thing altogether. Some of the facts we do defend movie are not necessarily what the public was lead to believe. Hence why up to now most sites that even write upon the Dalton era talks about the negativity regarding LTK. Is it always correct ? No !!!!! But that is how it's painted and when the general public/casual fans are lead to believe that the new man is not very good it does hurt the movie and the star. When I was in Germany and Rocketeer was promoted Dalton was not sold in full light help promote the movie. I saw him in most prints in small parts only. Considering he was Bond I'd expect a big expose but it didn't happen that way. The US magazines would have had much less(though am not sure).
The rest of what I read about Dalton was how he dropped out remake of Dracula film, Hot Shots 2, Columbus. Granted they may not have been lucrative enough for him as an actor and being in the business he should have created a bit more of attention to himself with his work even if he had to do a few pop corn action films. Being Bond requires that.Brosnan took over Dante's Peak and Craig with Golden Compass. Both still made it to the limelight with their projects. I actually liked Dante's Peak. Dalton had a quiet period where he could have used the Bond clout to do more movies to help the franchise once it was launched again. Maybe the MGM feared that Dalton was mostly forgotten to return as Bond and that being a good reason to ask him to be replaced.
In the public eye who doesn't read much into movies and tends to go with the media and word of mouth they will take in what they think is easiest to understand.This can work well or kill a movie.

Edited by Dekard77, 15 July 2009 - 07:24 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

There were no such campaigns for LICENCE REVOKED, for the simple reason that, uh, no film called LICENCE REVOKED was ever released.

Do you also tell people that Brosnan's first Bond film was THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS?

And if you squint your eyes when watching OHMSS it clearly is Sean Connery in every scene....

[Zorin Industries]

[My comments are also towards US reaction to UK and Europe. I know Bond is Big in Europe a it's clearly indicated in most Bond books as well. However American media/Studio's are different thing altogether. Some of the facts we do defend movie are not necessarily what the public was lead to believe. Hence why up to now most sites that even write upon the Dalton era talks about the negativity regarding LTK. Is it always correct ? No !!!!! But that is how it's painted and when the general public/casual fans are lead to believe that the new man is not very good it does hurt the movie and the star. When I was in Germany and Rocketeer was promoted Dalton was not sold in full light help promote the movie. I saw him in most prints in small parts only. Considering he was Bond I'd expect a big expose but it didn't happen that way. The US magazines would have had much less(though am not sure).

But Dalton was the caddish villain in that film, wasn't he? He was not the young hunny taking centre stage that the film and no doubt its advertising needed to be based on.


The rest of what I read about Dalton was how he dropped out remake of Dracula film, Hot Shots 2, Columbus.

Actors drop out of films all the time.

Granted they may not have been lucrative enough for him as an actor and being in the business he should have created a bit more of attention to himself with his work even if he had to do a few pop corn action films. Being Bond requires that.


Why does he have to create a bit more attention for himself. I'm not trying to nitpick Dekard77, but maybe Timothy Dalton has had exactly the career he wanted. How many popcorn films did Sean Connery film when he was Bond? I don't count THE HILL and MARNIE as "popcorn" fare.

Brosnan took over Dante's Peak and Craig with Golden Compass. Both still made it to the limelight with their projects. I actually liked Dante's Peak. Dalton had a quiet period where he could have used the Bond clout to do more movies to help the franchise once it was launched again.

I don't count a range of very successful plays and stage work in London and the US as "a quiet period". Just because he didn't star in three POLICE ACADEMY films surely doesn't make him "quiet" on the career front, does it?


Maybe the MGM feared that Dalton was mostly forgotten to return as Bond and that being a good reason to ask him to be replaced.
In the public eye who doesn't read much into movies and tends to go with the media and word of mouth they will take in what they think is easiest to understand.This can work well or kill a movie.

[Royal Dalton]

Now I am a big fan of Dalton as Bond (although I far prefer TLD) but I have to say, in the US LTK BOMBED!

Not really. The film made most of its budget back at the US box office.

TWINE didn't break even in the US either, remember. And it was less profitable worldwide for the studio than LTK was. But I don't see many people going around calling that one a commercial bomb.

I think the difference is that TWINE (while a far inferior movie to LTK) still did a somewhat comperable US box office to many other major releases that year. LTK on the other hand grosses were below many other movies considered a bomb (Karate Kid 3 grossed more). All the movies in the US top 10 grossed AT LEAST 3 times the gross of LTK.

Then it's all about perception. But both films still made roughly the same percentage of their budget back in the US.

However, the official studio figures state that Licence To Kill made MGM/UA a net profit of $28,200,000 at the worldwide box office, whereas The World Is Not Enough made them a net loss of $14,100,000.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I am now wondering if some of the mythology of the Dalton era stems from the perception of him as a person. Is it possible people did not like Dalton, because he wasn't really a movie STAR?
Thinking further about Dalton's reception in the UK I don't think he was ever pulled apart for his acting, if he was criticised it was along the lines of whether he was right for the series, or if his approach to Bond was off track etc etc.
I think a lot of criticism Dalton got came AFTER the Danjaq SA v MGM/UA Communications lawsuit - he was blamed (I think wrongly) for the ending of the cinematic Bond.
I think Dalton liked the Fleming character and shared Cubby's perspective of doing something different with Bond - to take it in a new direction. That's what made him sign. I don't think Dalton was interested in doing the next big thing away from Bond, or the next big movie and furthermore making a celebrity of himself. I think he approached his work from an actors point of view.
I, like others, loved what Dalton bought to Bond and his emphasis on character. I liked the mystery about the man and the fact that a Shakespearian actor was playing 007. I just wonder whether people are more comfortable with a movie STAR in the 007 role than a man who is first and foremost an actor.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 15 July 2009 - 12:58 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Good points above me. But Craig is not a movie star - or certainly wasn't pre ROYALE.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Good points above me. But Craig is not a movie star - or certainly wasn't pre ROYALE.

Yeah I did think of Craig when I was writing that post and two things occur to me.
Craig is becoming more of a movie star, or at least showing some willingness in that direction - Golden Compass, Defiance etc. Having said that though he is also returning to the stage with Hugh Jackman. I think Craig is arguably more accessible now than Dalton was and this maybe to do with internet, podcasts and god knows what else we have now that we didn't have in '89.
However, lets speculate and say production of Bond was halted again for six years, through no fault of the lead actor. Would Craig return, probably not I would guess. Would then the media start to go down the "Casino Royale was superb, the best Bond. But that second film, the one with the funny title, that wasn't very good was it" kind of thing. I doubt it would happen to be honest as I think Craig has connected with moviegoers very well, but its food for thought aint it?

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 15 July 2009 - 01:14 PM.

[Dekard77]

[My comments are also towards US reaction to UK and Europe. I know Bond is Big in Europe a it's clearly indicated in most Bond books as well. However American media/Studio's are different thing altogether. Some of the facts we do defend movie are not necessarily what the public was lead to believe. Hence why up to now most sites that even write upon the Dalton era talks about the negativity regarding LTK. Is it always correct ? No !!!!! But that is how it's painted and when the general public/casual fans are lead to believe that the new man is not very good it does hurt the movie and the star. When I was in Germany and Rocketeer was promoted Dalton was not sold in full light help promote the movie. I saw him in most prints in small parts only. Considering he was Bond I'd expect a big expose but it didn't happen that way. The US magazines would have had much less(though am not sure).

But Dalton was the caddish villain in that film, wasn't he? He was not the young hunny taking centre stage that the film and no doubt its advertising needed to be based on.
Yeah true just wanted Dalton to make use of his career with Bond fame thats all. It's nice to see our Bond star in interesting films and maybe even in action films.


The rest of what I read about Dalton was how he dropped out remake of Dracula film, Hot Shots 2, Columbus.

Actors drop out of films all the time.

Agreed what I meant is for him to have taken something. I was looking forward to seeing more Dalton during Bond hiatus. King's Whore and Rocketeer aside.
Granted they may not have been lucrative enough for him as an actor and being in the business he should have created a bit more of attention to himself with his work even if he had to do a few pop corn action films. Being Bond requires that.


Why does he have to create a bit more attention for himself. I'm not trying to nitpick Dekard77, but maybe Timothy Dalton has had exactly the career he wanted. How many popcorn films did Sean Connery film when he was Bond? I don't count THE HILL and MARNIE as "popcorn" fare.
That's the thing with Dalton wish he was a bit more hungry. I read an interview recently where he starred in Miss Maple episode and he said most people didn't think he'd does projects like that etc.... shame. Also he was truly a delight to see in Hot Fuzz. Oh that evil laugh. With regards to Connery I think he completely lived it up with Bond image he would have wanted a different direction. He had the luxury of working with Lumet,Hitchcock Huston to name a few. What a lucky man. Anderson tapes, The Hill , Murder on the Orient Express and man who would be King are some of my favourites. Red tent,Ransom and The Offence are true gems which were not appreciated at that time I feel.Connery is the only actor upto now who managed to fully use Bond to full superstardom due to his breakthrough performance.
Brosnan took over Dante's Peak and Craig with Golden Compass. Both still made it to the limelight with their projects. I actually liked Dante's Peak. Dalton had a quiet period where he could have used the Bond clout to do more movies to help the franchise once it was launched again.

I don't count a range of very successful plays and stage work in London and the US as "a quiet period". Just because he didn't star in three POLICE ACADEMY films surely doesn't make him "quiet" on the career front, does it?
Thank god for no Police Academy movies...hehehe. Just wanted to see the guy more . Framed and Informant being brilliant.

Maybe the MGM feared that Dalton was mostly forgotten to return as Bond and that being a good reason to ask him to be replaced.
In the public eye who doesn't read much into movies and tends to go with the media and word of mouth they will take in what they think is easiest to understand.This can work well or kill a movie.

Since am an action film fan loved seeing Rog in Wild Geese, Ffolkes, Gold and Shout at the Devil. Brosnan did some ok action/suspense thrillers. Is it too much to ask the same from Dalton?????? Sniff sniff.

[Zorin Industries]

Craig isn't a movie star on the back of COMPASS and DEFIANCE. Both were disappointments. I have this nagging suspicion Craig will find his projects and box office tainted by Bond which in turn could terminate his tenure (on his terms) from Bond. But he is having clear fun doing them and that is a vital factor too. And Eon love him.

[Loomis]

Craig isn't a movie star on the back of COMPASS and DEFIANCE. Both were disappointments.

Yeah, he hasn't been lucky with his extracurricular fare - through no fault of his own, of course. And his best films and best acting work, the stuff that really made his name as a thesp (ENDURING LOVE, THE MOTHER, OUR FRIENDS IN THE NORTH, etc.), came prior to CASINO ROYALE. Talk to a hardcore Craig fan and you'll be told that his work as 007, fine though it is, is but a pathetic shadow of the greatness he's shown in the past.

Arguably, Craig's golden age as an actor was yesterday. However, the chances are excellent that he'll have one or two good shots at being a movie star once he's done with Bond. And his Broadway play with Hugh Jackman sounds intriguing (although I'm confident that Jacko will stink up the stage).

[BoogieBond]

However, the official studio figures state that Licence To Kill made MGM/UA a net profit of $28,200,000 at the worldwide box office, whereas The World Is Not Enough made them a net loss of $14,100,000.

So the rough rule of thumb 3 * budget holds true, e.g. 42mill * 3 = 126mill is breakeven point
Leaving the studio roughly 30 mill profit.

Looking at that CR cost 150 mill, broke even at 450 mill and make the fat cats roughly 150 million profit, they could even buy an extra cigar or two on that.

I would think studio execs expect a bond film(any bond film) to be in the top 10 of that year (worldwide and US).

[HildebrandRarity]

I don't know if Craig has the Classic Hollywood Look to be a 'movie star' and I don't know if he even want's such a status.

I think he is interested in good scripts, making some (not piles) of money, and being happy.

Few achieve Harrison Ford/Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt-type 'movie star' status and Craig does not fit that bill.

[Mr. Blofeld]

How did this thread get onto the topic of Daniel Craig's career? We're talking about LTK here, not the current Bond!

[blueman]

Not sure I feel bad for him, but his films do feel rather schizophrenic, not everyone on the same page. And poorly conceived, poorly executed, etc. But it's the movies, happens all the time and kinda to be expected given the films leading up to his tenure. One of the best things to happen to the series was that damnable 6 year break, if only to flush away a lot of rut EON had gotten into. Cubby should've had the balls to switch horses in '80, hire a real director, and do more with Bond than give him a thin shellacking and trot him back out in low fashion. As it is, Dalton's Bond is more of a footnote than Lazenby's. Weird.

[Zorin Industries]

Here we go some more...

Yeah I did think of Craig when I was writing that post and two things occur to me.
Craig is becoming more of a movie star, or at least showing some willingness in that direction - Golden Compass, Defiance etc. Having said that though he is also returning to the stage with Hugh Jackman. I think Craig is arguably more accessible now than Dalton was and this maybe to do with internet, podcasts and god knows what else we have now that we didn't have in '89.

However, lets speculate and say production of Bond was halted again for six years, through no fault of the lead actor. Would Craig return, probably not I would guess. Would then the media start to go down the "Casino Royale was superb, the best Bond. But that second film, the one with the funny title, that wasn't very good was it" kind of thing. I doubt it would happen to be honest as I think Craig has connected with moviegoers very well, but its food for thought aint it?

Those are fair points. It's rare for anyone to come back from a 6.5 year hiatus when the creative team has changed so much. Brandon Routh is unlikely to come back as Superman, George Clooney certainly did not come back as Batman,

He didn't want to. It is well known he did BATMAN because of what Michael Caine would call a "new pool job".[/color]

Nick Stahl didn't come back as John Connor, and I think it's probably a foregone conclusion that Christian Bale won't be back as John Connor either, even though there hasn't been a six year hiatus in his case, but the perception that TERMINATOR SALVATION was a massive disappointment, if not outright bomb.

You really do like saying this and that was a "bomb" without knowing the reality, don't you?

In that respect Dalton is in good company.

However, one thing I think hurt Dalton in the North American markets was the suspicion that he was always "second choice" to play the role after Pierce Brosnan was forced out of it by NBC's last minute renewal of Remington Steele,

Cubby Broccoli and Eon wanted Dalton from the late 1960's. Never has a Bond actor (who was brave enough to wait until he was the right age) been top of the list for so long.

and Cubby's refusal to work TLD's shooting schedule around Brosnan's tv schedule.

No, Mr Broccoli refused to have a Bond pulled back into contract (which was legally possible - though the series was going to be cancelled until Brosnan signed for Bond) and have MTM's then ailing REMINGTON STEELE gain kudos via 007 - which would have happened. Schedules have nothing to do with it.

The press had built up Brosnan as the heir to the throne, and Dalton may have subconsciously been viewed as an interloper who had no right to claim the mantle of 007.

Brosnan was not announced as the next Bond in 1986.

People who hadn't seen a Bond film in a while or may have wanted to get into the series because they knew Brosnan was coming on board may have been turned off at losing him back in '86,

Brosnan was not announced as the next Bond in 1986.

and either never gave Dalton a chance, or did so with such a begrudging attitude that it was almost impossible for Dalton to please people.

Brosnan was not announced as the next Bond in 1986. And Brosnan was hardly a global face that the world felt disappointed by.



The media didn't help matters at all by openly speculating after TLD as to whether Dalton would be invited back,

The press speculate a lot about what they have no idea about. The difference between them and the fans who do the same is that the press make money from it. And where and when did the press speculate that the considerable hit that was THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS which marked the successful silver anniversary of the series needed a new actor?

or whether he'd be -canned by MGM in favor of Brosnan. The media was probably both reflecting the hopes of many people at the time while stoking the flames in order to sell a few more magazines and newspapers.

Dalton bravely plunged into an almost untenable situation, but ultimately its the films that let him down.

Oh please. That is your opinion. Not the reality of the reaction to Dalton.

He wanted to do something fresh and new, but the material he was given, and the crew behind the camera weren't used to that style of Bond movie making,

What "crew" weren't used to making Bond films? John Glen who had been doing them for nearly as long as they started? Or trusted writer Maibaum - the longest serving scribe in the series? Or perhaps you mean Peter Lamont who first worked on GOLDFINGER and had obviously not been able to cut his teeth on those dozen pictures inbetween?



and they failed him. Glen was tired...Maibaum was tired...Wilson missed his writing partner more than he realized at the time....

And how many LICENCE TO KILL production meetings did you attend to come to that conclusion?


the beauty and exotic feel of Mexico was diminished by the poor decision to disguise the country as a fictional location....

That last tenuous statement was because it was no doubt safer to bracket the country as somewhere fictional. You don't shoot a high profile drugs pic in Mexico with real people involved in the drug war as consultants and expect the locals and authorities to be okay with that.

Binder was apparently creatively bankrupt....

Was he "apparently"? Did you speak to him? Were you on set or in his editing studio? Were you perhaps one of the writhing girls that hit his cutting room floor in the Spring of 1989?

set designs looked cheap in some areas...

No. They didn't - especially as a great many of the larger sets were real locations.

plots, while complicated in TLD, weren't important enough and didn't carry much weight...

So a story that sees BOND's best mate see his wife raped and murdered by the people who fed him to the fishes (which was a Fleming creation - as was MILTON KREST) was not good enough for you? What did you want? Bunkers, ninjas and volcanoes?


audiences somewhat turned off by Bond's "chaste", "virginal" relationship with only one woman, Kara, in THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS...

Did you not hear of the global pandemic called AIDS which changed how a great many leading men treated their women and their own sexual health?




atrociously bad acting from so many different players in LICENSE REVOKED....


So you didn't like David Hedison who had been in a Bond before, the Oscar winning actor Benecio Del Toro (who I have talked to about BOND '89 and heard his thoughts on making the film), the son of Bond veteran Pedro Armanderiz......?

And there wasn't a film called LICENSE REVOKED.


I feel bad for Dalton. All the problems he had to take on...it was almost the cinematic version of prison rape.

Zorin says : I don't remember Dalton dropping the soap once. And don't knock it til you've tried it.

[Jim]

Can't read most of that and not convinced I actually want to.

If you're waiting for me to adjudicate, I say the winner is me.

[Zorin Industries]

Can't read most of that and not convinced I actually want to.

If you're waiting for me to adjudicate, I say the winner is me.

Well the winner certainly ain't reality, I know that.

I shall leave this one alone I think before I start naming films by the working titles I prefer because obviously the professional filmmakers behind these new fangled James Bond movies don't know a thing.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I agree that its arguable Americans MAY have responded better to Brosnan than Dalton on the basis they were more familiar with him through Remington Steele, and Dalton was less familiar to Americans. However, this is to some extent a logical and safe conclusion to make because it can be predicated on how Brosnan was actually received in '95. But there is no guarantee Brosnan would have been any different in terms of box office returns to Dalton in '87, had he been given the role then.

[Dekard77]

I agree that its arguable Americans MAY have responded better to Brosnan than Dalton on the basis they were more familiar with him through Remington Steele, and Dalton was less familiar to Americans. However, this is to some extent a logical and safe conclusion to make because it can be predicated on how Brosnan was actually received in '95. But there is no guarantee Brosnan would have been any different in terms of box office returns to Dalton in '87, had he been given the role then.

Yes it looked like a long shot in certain angles but Brosnan was off to a good start the moment he was in Leavesdon with the press. Every paper I got hold at that time had him. The film was marketed well and given the absence of Bond there was much curiosity. Brosnan had the press on his side and women also liked him as much. Even last year watching Mama Mia most were complimenting Brosnan. Like Moore there was some destiny involved in Brosnan being Bond you can't deny that.
What's funny is how Dalton manage to sue a tabloid over Brosnan being official choice for Bond in '86. Hehehe.
There are facts to LTK and there are views. Sometimes whether it's commenting on sets or title's or fan reaction can vary. Can the words Bomb and Disappointment can also be considered almost the same???

[dee-bee-five]

Can't read most of that and not convinced I actually want to.

If you're waiting for me to adjudicate, I say the winner is me.

Well the winner certainly ain't reality, I know that.

I shall leave this one alone I think before I start naming films by the working titles I prefer because obviously the professional filmmakers behind these new fangled James Bond movies don't know a thing.

What gets me is the lengths some people are going to on here to "prove" that LTK was a flop when the figures simply don't support it, and to convince us it was a a bad film/badly-written/badly-acted/badly-whatever when that is purely subjective.

[Zorin Industries]

Dear Mr Silhouette,

We are going round in circles. And I don't have the inclination or time to keep arguing with rude and blinkered digs of increasingly fictional depths. I am not a school teacher, liberal or otherwise (though have always liked elbow pads on tweed).

What I do for a living is a little more related to the subject in hand. I don't "teach or talk about the arts", I actually do it. "Bond" has inadvertently influenced, inspired and personally encouraged me. I don't come from any pedestal of "knowing better" nor would I want to. But I do take objection when the facts are 100% twisted (as well as the opposing sentiments of others) to suit someone who got as close to LICENCE TO KILL as their movie theater would allow them. Which begs the question - how many times did you go to the cinema to see this film you didn't like? It's a bit like the SOLACE haters who despise the film but have seen 3, 4 or more times just to make sure (and the box office thanks them for not liking the film so many times).

If you are to gain / maintain any credence in the discussion of any sort of film, I would suggest you avoid petulance in naming some by what you want them to be called just because you didn't like the end title and product (what IS that about?!). I also advise (and ignore me as you no doubt will) that you also don't mistaken something you don't like or get for something that was a box office turkey. On the not very relevant or interesting point of TERMINATOR SALVATION, it has not finished rolling out across the world so to idly label it a "bomb" is neither accurate, fair or progressive to your standing in this or any argument about cinema. There is more to the box office that the "US". Who do you think owns Sony for starters.

There are always people who sit on their self-anointed pedestals and spout forth about THIS what how it was and THAT happened when sadly they haven't got the insight or experience to really justify that. THAT is what I will always defend in my own life and on forums like CBN. Whether I should be bothered enough is another matter (!).

Fine. Have your opinions. Of course we all must and indeed do. But when vast swathes of it attacks Bond film making (in this instance, on this thread) I personally do not like sitting by and allowing idle speculation replace and rewrite the reality. It does a great disservice to the individuals and companies whose working reality, time, efforts and personal sacrifices are undermined by heresay, speculation, chinese whispers and in some cases complete b*ll*cks. Also, I don't like seeing certain filmmakers and actors dismissed as ailing or not liked when that was/is not the case.

I also do not need your sanctioning to be "out" and "proud" about anything - least of all a James Bond film.

Yours sincerely,

Zorin Industries plc.

PS. For someone who supports OCTOPUSSY and A VIEW TO A KILL, we really should be getting on a bit more. Dinner tomorrow night? Meet me on the chateau bridge (!)

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I am literally grateful for all the opinions here. This thread has returned my mind to the world of Bond in the UK in '89 as I remember it. It has detracted me from some of the fiction generated by the six year gap (and beyond) where there was little Bond production news, so people created their own 'news' instead.

I agree. Brosnan dodged a crap bullet by being forced to wait 8 years. However, if Brosnan had gotten the role we wouldn't have had LICENSE REVOKED, because *that* script was specifically tailored around Dalton's strengths and abilities to play a darker role and a darker storyline. Having said that, its possible the problems with MGM would've sandbagged Brosnan's tenure as 007 as well, though I think the chances would've been reduced had Brosnan, or Dalton, been successful with BOND16.

Yes it looked like a long shot in certain angles but Brosnan was off to a good start the moment he was in Leavesdon with the press. Every paper I got hold at that time had him. The film was marketed well and given the absence of Bond there was much curiosity. Brosnan had the press on his side and women also liked him as much. Even last year watching Mama Mia most were complimenting Brosnan. Like Moore there was some destiny involved in Brosnan being Bond you can't deny that.

I am uneasy about any assumption Brosnan would have done better for the sole reason that he was cast over Dalton in '87. There is no way of knowing this.

Brosnan (not intentionally) rode on the crest of Tims media wave. Dalton took the brunt of the blame for the series ending. By the time Brosnan came along the media welcomed him with open arms before he had shot anything from GE.
I don't think there was any difference to the actual exposure that Dalton got with TLD and Brosnan got with GE. The whole world knew both actors got the Bond role in their respective time periods.

[doublenoughtspy]

And I have been fortunate enough to be privy over the years to how James Bond films actually do it too. And not from magazines or online articles or documentaries on box-sets. "Bond" has inadvertently influenced, inspired and personally encouraged me. I don't come from any pedestal of "knowing better" nor would I want to. But I do take objection when the facts are 100% twisted (as well as the opposing sentiments of others) to suit someone who got as close to LICENCE TO KILL as their movie theater would allow them.

While you may have some insider knowledge - the fact that you continue to claim that "LTK made back 4 times its budget" makes we wonder where your facts are coming from.

Everyone keeps claiming "LTK cost $32 million and made $156 million" and that is laughable.

As Mr Silhouette has tried to point out multiple times - about half of US box office gets returned to the studios.

And yes - overseas box office is critical to Bond's success - but overseas box office isn't as good as US Box Office for 2 reasons.

#1 - the percentages are lower - foreign proceeds are usually a 40-60 split - with the lesser share going back to the studio.

#2 - foreign box office isn't returned as quickly to the studio.

Why does this matter? The interest on the financing. The banks that pony up the money for films charge interest. The quicker money gets back to the studio coffers, the quicker they pay off the loans - the less interest paid.

So please - when someone like G.S. or I tout the importance of the U.S. box office - it isn't a "America is the most important - other countries suck" issue - it's an accounting issue plain and simple.

Regarding "LTK Breaking box-office records" - these platitudes are like sports statistics - easily made up to suit marketers needs. "LTK broke the box office record for Wednesday matinée performances in February when the humidity in Norway was 32%"

I've got numerous OHMSS trade publication ads that tout the fact that it was breaking house records in various territories - and even though I love the film with a passion that burns like 1000 suns - I won't pretend that it wasn't a box office disappointment compared to the Bond films that preceded and succeeded it.

Perhaps that is something both LTK lovers and LTK haters can agree on - it wasn't a "flop", which implies not making its money back, but a box office disappointment.

[Mr. Blofeld]

So, Gravity's, you're saying you wanted Brosnan as Bond in '86? No wonder you've been arguing this way...