519 replies to this topic

[Harry Fawkes]

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 (and think your cheap shot there speaks volumes about how you like and dislike your views to be challenged online).

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. 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. 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.

Well said.

[Harry Fawkes]

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.

But, like it or not, those figures are official ones. Is all you can come up with is an unsubstantiated theory that you say is fact. If you show me one official statement that contradicts the figures you say are laughable your argument might just stand but you don't so you choose to laugh at official ones. Strange I must say.

And could you kindly explain what 'LTK still managed to stay marginally ahead of AVTAK' means. Doesn't that mean it made more money?

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.

Which is exactly what most people have been saying, no. Nobody said it was not a box office disappointment for the makers. What we are saying is that LTK was not, again, was not a bloody 'FLOP'.


Regards

Harry Fawkes

[Royal Dalton]

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.

The film still made the studio a net profit of $28,200,000. Which was over $4 million more than its immediate predecessor made.

[Harry Fawkes]

LTK = $156.2 million (World wide Box office)

AVTAK = $152.4 million (World wide Box office)

The above are official worldwide box office results for both films.

Fact - LTK made more money than AVTAK even though AVTAK did better in the US than LTK.

LTK = $34.67 million (US Box office)

AVTAK = $50.3 million (US Box office)


Gravity's Silhouette kindly note thank you very much.

[doublenoughtspy]

But, like it or not, those figures are official ones. Is all you can come up with is an unsubstantiated theory that you say is fact. If you show me one official statement that contradicts the figures you say are laughable your argument might just stand but you don't so you choose to laugh at official ones. Strange I must say.

I am not disputing that LTK grossed $156 million world wide.

Put would you, please, for the love of God, acknowledge that the studio didn't see even half that gross returned to them?

You do understand that when you pay 10 dollars or 10 pounds or 10 drachma or 10 euros to see a film that at best 4-5 units of that currency are returned to the studio?

You are honestly claiming that this financial fact is an "unsubstantiated theory"?

It is your belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity?

What sort of crack are you on?

[Loomis]

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

I can't agree. This exchange between Grav and Zorin is one of the most hilarious things I've ever read on CBn. Keep 'em coming, gents.

Takes me back to those classic arguments involving Bondpurist (older CBners will no doubt remember him).

[Loomis]

It is your belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity?

Actually - and in all seriousness - I believe that that is how it works. The cinemas don't actually get any of the ticket money (I know, I know, it sounds absurd, but bear with me) - their take comes purely from drinks and snacks (and, one supposes, advertising revenue), which is why drinks and snacks are so frickin' expensive in cinemas. So if you go to a movie but don't buy anything to eat or drink there, then basically the cinema ain't getting squat from you. Strange but true.

I wish clinkeroo, who I believe knows his stuff about how cinemas operate, would jump in here.

[dee-bee-five]

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.

You do well to remind us of that. Some of us tried to say this ages ago, but I fear you - like the rest of us - are pissing into the wind. LTK was not a flop. Whether it was an artistic misfire is entirely subjective. I don't happen to think it is - far from it - but I can understand why some people might. What is fascinating is the way some people are trying to translate their disappointment with the film into some kind of financial disaster. That is rather bizarre logic. I think Titanic is a lousy film. But I don't think I could ever start to claim it's a flop because of that...

[Loomis]

Actually, I seem to recall reading somewhere that TITANIC wasn't actually profitable when all was said and done. Same goes for TERMINATOR 2 and TRUE LIES. Cameron is unquestionably box office gold, but perhaps not actually a sound investment.

BTW, I genuinely love TITANIC. No, really.

[dee-bee-five]

Actually, I seem to recall reading somewhere that TITANIC wasn't actually profitable when all was said and done.

Well, this is the thing, isn't it? The bloody bean counters in Hollywood can make anything look a flop if they really want to.

My problem with Titanic is that I could never understand why Leonardo was shagging his mother... They could remake it with Daniel Craig and Anne Reid and no-one would notice the difference...

[doublenoughtspy]

It is your belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity?

Actually - and in all seriousness - I believe that that is how it works.

Oh. my. god.

Please read: http://entertainment...stribution2.htm

And for those people touting the non-U.S. gross of LTK - I ask you to read this:

http://edwardjayepst...reigndemyst.htm

Which shows some interesting info:

"When Hollywood movies fail to find audiences in America, it is often claimed that these movies redeem their losses overseas. The assumption here is that the box-office receipts abroad are pure gravy for the movie studios. For example, the usually financially-savvy Wall Street Journal reported on November 19, 2004 that three notable "duds" in America-- Troy, The Terminal and King Arthur-- "ended up turning handsome profits" because "in each case, box-office receipts from outside the U.S. far outweighed domestic returns." It then cited impressive sounding numbers: Troy "made" $363 million internationally;The Terminal, $96.3 million internationally, and King Arthur, $149.8 million abroad-- as if, these receipts represented their salvation.

In reality, however, these impressive-sounding receipts represented the foreign theaters' revenue, not the studios' share of them. In fact, the studios get an even smaller share of the foreign than of the American box-office. Last year, the studios' share averaged about 40 percent of ticket sales. And from those revenues studios have to pay for foreign advertising, prints, taxes, insurance, translations,etc. Once those expenses are deducted, the studios are lucky to wind up with 15% of what is reported as the foreign gross.

Consider, a typical movie-- Disney's Gone In 60 Seconds . Its reported "foreign gross" was $129,477,395. Of that sum, Disney got $55, 979.966, of that it paid out $37, 986, 053 in expenses.

They included:

Foreign Advertising... $25, 197,723
Foreign prints... $ 5, 660.837
Foreign Taxes ... $ 5, 077,286
Foreign versions.. $ 822,997
Foreign shipping.. $ 454,973
Currency Conversion $ 266,900
Foreign Trade dues $ 122,275

After paying these expense, Disney was left with just $17,993,913 -- a far cry from the reported $129,477,395 "gross". And the film is still over $153 million in the red. So while the foreign box-office helps out, it does not necessarily make a movie profitable."

[Harry Fawkes]

But, like it or not, those figures are official ones. Is all you can come up with is an unsubstantiated theory that you say is fact. If you show me one official statement that contradicts the figures you say are laughable your argument might just stand but you don't so you choose to laugh at official ones. Strange I must say.

I am not disputing that LTK grossed $156 million world wide.

Put would you, please, for the love of God, acknowledge that the studio didn't see even half that gross returned to them?

You do understand that when you pay 10 dollars or 10 pounds or 10 drachma or 10 euros to see a film that at best 4-5 units of that currency are returned to the studio?

You are honestly claiming that this financial fact is an "unsubstantiated theory"?

It is your belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity?

What sort of crack are you on?

I am not claiming that 'this financial fact is an 'unsubstantiated theory in the belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity'.

What I am disputing is that LTK was a ing 'Flop'. It was not. Pure simple ing fact as the official figures show.

Disappointment to the makers yes. Flop ing no!

$156.2 million (World wide Box office) says so.

Now what part of that argument is it so hard for you and Gravity's Silhouette to understand?

And paying 10 dollars or 10 pounds or 10 drachma or 10 euros, as you so crackingly put it, to see a film that at best 4-5 units of that currency are returned to the studio has no bearing whatsoever because the studios got every cent, penny and drachma back which is why Bond is still seen as one of the most bankable series in movie history. Another ing fact!


Regards

It is your belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity?

Actually - and in all seriousness - I believe that that is how it works.

Oh. my. god.

Please read: http://entertainment...stribution2.htm

And for those people touting the non-U.S. gross of LTK - I ask you to read this:

http://edwardjayepst...reigndemyst.htm

Which shows some interesting info:

"When Hollywood movies fail to find audiences in America, it is often claimed that these movies redeem their losses overseas. The assumption here is that the box-office receipts abroad are pure gravy for the movie studios. For example, the usually financially-savvy Wall Street Journal reported on November 19, 2004 that three notable "duds" in America-- Troy, The Terminal and King Arthur-- "ended up turning handsome profits" because "in each case, box-office receipts from outside the U.S. far outweighed domestic returns." It then cited impressive sounding numbers: Troy "made" $363 million internationally;The Terminal, $96.3 million internationally, and King Arthur, $149.8 million abroad-- as if, these receipts represented their salvation.

In reality, however, these impressive-sounding receipts represented the foreign theaters' revenue, not the studios' share of them. In fact, the studios get an even smaller share of the foreign than of the American box-office. Last year, the studios' share averaged about 40 percent of ticket sales. And from those revenues studios have to pay for foreign advertising, prints, taxes, insurance, translations,etc. Once those expenses are deducted, the studios are lucky to wind up with 15% of what is reported as the foreign gross.

Consider, a typical movie-- Disney's Gone In 60 Seconds . Its reported "foreign gross" was $129,477,395. Of that sum, Disney got $55, 979.966, of that it paid out $37, 986, 053 in expenses.

They included:

Foreign Advertising... $25, 197,723
Foreign prints... $ 5, 660.837
Foreign Taxes ... $ 5, 077,286
Foreign versions.. $ 822,997
Foreign shipping.. $ 454,973
Currency Conversion $ 266,900
Foreign Trade dues $ 122,275

After paying these expense, Disney was left with just $17,993,913 -- a far cry from the reported $129,477,395 "gross". And the film is still over $153 million in the red. So while the foreign box-office helps out, it does not necessarily make a movie profitable."

Believe me, with regards to the figures above and the reasoning so well illustrated in your piece, there were no complaints from the studios that backed LTK. On the contrary, they still kept on investing in Bond.

[doublenoughtspy]

Believe me, with regards to the figures above and the reasoning so well illustrated in your piece, there were no complaints from the studios that backed LTK. On the contrary, they still kept on investing in Bond.

Investing in Bond? Yes.

No complaints from the studio? You could not be more wrong.

Studio pressure ended the tenure of two long term Bond folk - Maibaum & Glen.

Regardless of whether you feel Timothy Dalton was pushed from or jumped on his own from the Bond role - it's pretty established that there were studio factions that wanted Dalton gone.

I've been told that the studio realized that Broccoli was very much pro-Dalton, and that if he was adamant that Dalton stay in the role.

But they voted with their check book. They offered a low-ball amount of financing for a 3rd Dalton film, and a much higher figure for a film with a new actor.

[Harry Fawkes]

Anyway, at the end of the day, for me at least, irespective of how much it made (Suddenly I don't give two s about that anymore)LTK was simply one of the best Bond films I'd seen in a very, very long time and in that respect alone it was one of the biggest hits ever in my book.

After Roger Moore's turn at playing the secret agent and enjoying every one of his films, I and a load of other Bond fans out there were thrilled by Timothy Dalton's debut in TLD and then with LTK.

The era of slapstic in OO7 films had officially ended thanks only to his superb performances in both films.

He succeded in erasing any memory of other Bond actors and brought back the basics to Bond and the spirit of Fleming's original creation.

So, having said that, I will let the beancounters argue about the financial aspects of such a fine and classic film. As for me, I'm going to sit back and watch it again on DVD.

ENDIT

Harry Fawkes

[jaguar007]

Brosnan was not announced as the next Bond in 1986.

really?



I have to agree with Gravity that the US was expecting Brosnan to be Bond. When the Dalton movies came out, you don't know how many people I talked to were saying "it should have been Pierce Brosnan", and that was without them seeing the Dalton films!!! Many people wanted Brosnan and were not going to even give Dalton a chance.

[DamnCoffee]

From what I recall, Brosnan was officially signed up to the role, but then the producers from Remington Steele decided to do another series, which sounds just out of spite.

[plankattack]

From what I recall, Brosnan was officially signed up to the role, but then the producers from Remington Steele decided to do another series, which sounds just out of spite.

You are correct. Dalton was signed a couple of days before shooting started. Up until that point, Brozza was, for all intents and purposes, the next James Bond. And I've said before (back on page 3, I think, of the thread that will not die ) that Dalton's inability to connect with the audience (in the biggest market for sure) was partly responsible for the decline in ticket sales apparent in LTK (whether it's a financial flop or not has been discussed ad nauseum - one thing is certain, it wasn't a smash hit).

Like it or not, but to the masses, James Bond the celluloid character needs an actor who is a "star", whether the part makes him one, or he already is one. Laz and TD prove that point. Unfortunately.

[jaguar007]

Anyway, at the end of the day, for me at least, irespective of how much it made (Suddenly I don't give two s about that anymore)LTK was simply one of the best Bond films I'd seen in a very, very long time and in that respect alone it was one of the biggest hits ever in my book.

After Roger Moore's turn at playing the secret agent and enjoying every one of his films, I and a load of other Bond fans out there were thrilled by Timothy Dalton's debut in TLD and then with LTK.

The era of slapstic in OO7 films had officially ended thanks only to his superb performances in both films.

He succeded in erasing any memory of other Bond actors and brought back the basics to Bond and the spirit of Fleming's original creation.

So, having said that, I will let the beancounters argue about the financial aspects of such a fine and classic film. As for me, I'm going to sit back and watch it again on DVD.

ENDIT

Harry Fawkes

Harry, I agree with you. I much prefer Dalton over Brosnan and TLD is in my top 5. I like LTK better than most of Brosnan's film, but my admiration for Dalton does not cloud the fact that the American public did not get behind him in the role.

If LTK "bombed" in the US or not I guess depends on your definition of "bomb". However one cannot deny that it fell significantly below expectations.

[Royal Dalton]

The film still made the studio a net profit of $28,200,000. Which was over $4 million more than its immediate predecessor made.

I believe you. But could you just show us where you either got the figures, of how you arrived at the figures (calculations and all). Thanks.

They're the official studio revenue figures.


The Living Daylights (1987)

Production Cost: $40,000,000

Marketing Cost: $5,000,000

US Gross: $51,100,000
Overseas Gross: $140,100,000
Worldwide Gross: $191,200,000

Theatrical US Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $27,879,000
Theatrical Overseas Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $41,121,000
Theatrical Worldwide Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $69,000,000

US Admissions: 13.1 million
Overseas Admissions: 35.8 million
Worldwide Admissions: 48.9 million

Net Studio Income From Box Office: $24,000,000


Licence To Kill (1989)

Production Cost: $42,000,000

Marketing Cost: $5,000,000

US Gross: $34,700,000
Overseas Gross: $121,500,000
Worldwide Gross: $156,200,000

Theatrical US Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $16,200,000
Theatrical Overseas Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $59,000,000
Theatrical Worldwide Rentals (studio net profits before production and marketing costs): $75,200,000

US Admissions: 8.7 million
Overseas Admissions: 30.4 million
Worldwide Admissions: 39.1 million

Net Studio Income From Box Office: $28,200,000

From what I recall, Brosnan was officially signed up to the role, but then the producers from Remington Steele decided to do another series, which sounds just out of spite.

MTM were prepared to let Brosnan make the Bond film, as long as he fulfilled his Remington Steele contract afterwards. It was Broccoli who said no.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Brosnan was not announced as the next Bond in 1986.

Really?

From what I recall, Brosnan was officially signed up to the role, but then the producers from Remington Steele decided to do another series, which sounds just out of spite.

MGM was prepared to let Brosnan make the Bond film, as long as he fulfilled his Remington Steele contract afterwards. It was Broccoli who said no.

Yes; personally, I think Broccoli was just opposed to casting Brosnan in the first place, considering the original first choice was Timothy Dalton. John Glen seems pretty happy to be alongside Brosnan in the above photo, so I'm guessing he was peeved when his new (and, let's be honest here, predictable) leading man got the shaft in favour of Roger Moore's (the man he had worked his way up in EON filming) complete opposite; obviously, as part of a stuck-in-the-mud creative team, he would continue to make the old style of Bond film, a type of film that was tired by the time of AVTAK.

Glen was marvelous as a second-unit man and editor, but, as director, he needed to go; that's why LTK, though based on a revolutionary idea in the Bond canon, feels so stale.

[ChandlerBing]

I don't think Brosnan was ever their idea in the first place. Look at what happened once he fullfilled his 4 movie contract later on. It was pretty quickly bye bye, Pierce, and back to a more Dalton-like approach. Only this time, it really worked.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I have to agree with Gravity that the US was expecting Brosnan to be Bond. When the Dalton movies came out, you don't know how many people I talked to were saying "it should have been Pierce Brosnan", and that was without them seeing the Dalton films!!! Many people wanted Brosnan and were not going to even give Dalton a chance.

*Shudders at the thought of Brosnan starring in The Living Daylights*

[Safari Suit]

Brosnan was not announced as the next Bond in 1986.

Really?

From what I recall, Brosnan was officially signed up to the role, but then the producers from Remington Steele decided to do another series, which sounds just out of spite.

MGM was prepared to let Brosnan make the Bond film, as long as he fulfilled his Remington Steele contract afterwards. It was Broccoli who said no.

Yes; personally, I think Broccoli was just opposed to casting Brosnan in the first place, considering the original first choice was Timothy Dalton. John Glen seems pretty happy to be alongside Brosnan in the above photo, so I'm guessing he was peeved when his new (and, let's be honest here, predictable) leading man got the shaft in favour of Roger Moore's (the man he had worked his way up in EON filming) complete opposite; obviously, as part of a stuck-in-the-mud creative team, he would continue to make the old style of Bond film, a type of film that was tired by the time of AVTAK.

Glen was marvelous as a second-unit man and editor, but, as director, he needed to go; that's why LTK, though based on a revolutionary idea in the Bond canon, feels so stale.

Or maybe he looks so happy because it was a bloody publicity photo?

Not everything is cloak and dagger in the world of film folks.

[Dekard77]

All good points. Gravity is right to a great extent when he said the media wanted Brosnan to be the man who should have been Bond considering he had certain characteristics to Moore.
Like I said before Worldwide Box Office is needed now more than ever to cover costs of the movie. Especially films budgeted over 100'000'000 mln. However if the American Studio or Audience is doesn't respond well to the movie chances are it will hurt the franchise.

Hulk 2003
Godzilla 1998
Punisher (John Travolta version)
X Men Last Stand
Mission Impossible 3
Last Action Hero
Spider Man 3
The Island (Michael Bay)

All these films did well in recovering costs and even making a profit but due to poor pubic reception in America it did hurt the furutre of the franchise to some extent.
Hulk 2003 version was mostly dismissed as shrek Hulk, the film made money, later on Hulk was re imaged and done much better the second time but in US didn't manage to stir the business they were hoping for. Gale Ann Hurd quoted many times saying the film was successful for Universal but did nothing to inspire a sequel yet due to lack of public interest.
Godzilla if you listen to director/ producer commentary they keep going on about profit the film made, but the planned sequel was put on hold due to poor reception by the media as the studio might not want to take a chance.
Spiderman 3 must have made enough money to immediately warrant another sequel but again poor public reception deterred the project from getting off the ground until the dust has settled. At least they are giving it another go.
Mission Impossible 3 being the better sequel and having better reviews couldn't really overcome Cruise couch jumping antics which not only hurt the star but also the franchise. The film made a ton at the B.O but when the public was going on about Cruise acting a clown it made things hard for the studio . Cruise later on said he wants to keep his comments to himself about Scientology and just promote the movie but it was too late.
X Men 3 was much more successful than Superman Return but overall the interest fizzled over with the last outing.
So all am trying to say is that once the media blasts a move or star it becomes very difficult to continue. Most people who watch movies depends on media reaction to stir their interest. of course it doesn't work with all the films but most of the time it just hurts movie.
Most of Zorin's comments are only reserved for forums like this.I hardly saw in general print even a bit of good what Zorin said about LTK (unless it was a Bond related book). Eon or MGM was unable to fight what public in USA thought of Bond in '89. Blaming Dalton's last outing than legal issues was another theory as to how powerful the media can be when they want to hurt someone.
As far as I can remember from '93 it was Liam Neeson as Bond and Michael Caton Jones as the director were the frontrunners. Is it true ? Not likely but does'nt it create picture as to why no sound from Dalton camp. Brosnan became the hot favourite soon after Dalton quit. That's a given.
The term flop can be also defined as Disappointment or Disaster if one chooses. Regardless the profit if the US studio's are unhappy with something they will tinker. They want the maximum from the B.O from US alone which is fair. AVTAK performance in USA alone shows behind Dalton was with both outings. Granted he had to start from scratch I think there was higher expectations.
People ask why Bond films were financed if LTK was a flop, well it's simple they knew they can make money but minus any negativity or baggage from previous movie. Which is why GE at that time had a very aggressive campaign and fresh star.

Edited by Dekard77, 16 July 2009 - 08:23 AM.

[ChandlerBing]

That is a nice pic of Brosnan with Glen. Maybe with good special effects and the right 3D glasses, maybe one day we can finally get Brosnan in The Living Daylights.

Back on topic...20 yrs ago, the accountants looked at the results from the opening weekend and let out a collective "D'oh!"

[Loomis]

It is your belief that cinemas only wish to break even and that 100% of the ticket proceeds go to the studios - and that they take no money from the deal and act as some sort of charity?

Actually - and in all seriousness - I believe that that is how it works.

Oh. my. god.

Please read: http://entertainment...stribution2.htm

Thanks for the info. However, there have been cases where cinemas have not been happy with distributors' terms. An example is RAMBO (2008), which Britain's mighty Odeon chain refused to screen at all, for "undisclosed commercial reasons". Allegedly, there was a breakdown in negotiations between Odeon and the film's distributor, Sony, and the former evidently felt that it wouldn't be getting its end from the latter so refused to show the movie at all.

[Double-Oh Agent]

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.

I love Licence To Kill (it's my favorite Bond film), but I can very easily go along with this line of thinking because I think it's true.

From what I recall, Brosnan was officially signed up to the role, but then the producers from Remington Steele decided to do another series, which sounds just out of spite.

MTM were prepared to let Brosnan make the Bond film, as long as he fulfilled his Remington Steele contract afterwards. It was Broccoli who said no.

It was a catch-22 situation. NBC canceled Remington Steele with a year remaining on Pierce Brosnan's contract, which allowed him to audition for the role of 007. And with Timothy Dalton's unavailability due to a project he was working on, Brosnan quickly became the front runner to become James Bond #4 and he eventually got the part--at least tentatively.

However, all this speculation about Brosnan becoming the next Bond renewed interest in Remington Steele. As a result, NBC decided that they would, in fact, renew the show, which would consequently force Brosnan back onto Remington Steele, a concept that did not please EON honcho Cubby Broccoli. NBC chief Brandon Tartikoff even tried bargaining with Broccoli by saying they could both share Brosnan in their respective roles as Remington Steele could film in Europe around the time of the Bond shoots. Broccoli, however, would have none of it and said that no way was he going to allow a James Bond actor to star in a (somewhat similar) TV show at the same time as his 007 gig and let the public get a free viewing of "Bond" each week on the small screen, and thereby infringing on his theater earnings.

Well, despite Broccoli's threat, NBC called him on it and renewed Remington Steele on the 60th--and FINAL day--of Brosnan's contract option for renewal, which forced him back to work at NBC and out of the Bond gig as Broccoli walked away without his 007. However, the delay in negotiations happened to take long enough to allow Dalton, whose project had ended, to get back into the picture where Broccoli promptly scooped him up and hired him for Bond #4. Ironically, with Brosnan out of Bondage, interest in Remington Steele (at least from NBC's point of view) quickly waned and the show was canceled after only six more episodes. (This result undoubtedly made People Magazine's cover headline of Brosnan's "sentiments" over the NBC-EON tug-o-war even more apt: "Take this job and shove it.")

Fortunately, Brosnan, who had been thisclose to being James Bond 007 in 1986, got another chance at the Bond role in 1994, and he made the most of it.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Which is exactly what most people have been saying, no. Nobody said it was not a box office disappointment for the makers. What we are saying is that LTK was not, again, was not a bloody 'FLOP'.

Yeah, I will never agree that LTK flopped. Certainly the films rating was a dissapointment if nothing else

No complaints from the studio? You could not be more wrong.

Studio pressure ended the tenure of two long term Bond folk - Maibaum & Glen.

What do you mean by this. Do you mean they left voluntarily because of pressure or they were actually pushed out by the studio. I think if the studio wanted rid of Maibaum that was a bad move. Bond films are different animals from all other films and Maibum understood this and was the best screenwriter the series had IMO. Studios don't always get things right either. I have read that MGW and BB would have collaborated with Maibaum again had he lived for future Bond adventures, but who knows what actually would have happened.

[Zorin Industries]

Mr Silhouette,

I think we need to move on. One film made twenty years ago - Bond or otherwise - is not that important to the wider scheme of things, surely?

1) You say : The standard answers I've gotten have all had, invariably, these common themes: #1 Were you there in the script meetings? #2 Have you looked directly at the studios accounting books? #3 What was your financial investment in the film? #4 How many times did you see a film you claimed to hate?

2) You also say : To this day I do not believe he has responded to my linking to the article in BONDAGE Magazine where Dalton tells Richard Schenkman (then president of the U.S. 007 fan club) that he believe LICENSE REVOKED is the last film of the entire series. Was someone lying? Could it have been Schenkman? Dalton? Maybe the quote was taken out of context? Who knows, because Z.I. refuses to acknowledge that Dalton stated that.

For the benefit of the court clerk, I did not respond to a nudge to read a BONDAGE article for a film that didn't exist. LICENSE REVOKED did not get released under that title. Are you maybe confusing it for LICENSE TO DRIVE - which was released around 1989 and starred Miss Feldman and her then husband Mr Haim? Have we been arguing about different films? If so - we must stop. As the Bond films clearly didn't stop after a film (that did not exist) was released nor was that anyone's plan, I don't see the relevance here of smug "told you so" appeals to the jury. I will however use like for like and tell the court that Mr Silhouette has still not responded to what I outlined as what he said # 1. On a less flippant note, the fact I have had no responses speaks volumes to me. Throwing back more stats at me when all I am trying to do is take a few steps back and warn individuals like Mr Silhouette of the danger of blanket opinion-making (i.e. this was how it was, I know - I've read it).

However, there was a film called LICENCE TO KILL that was released in the late 1980's. I think it was the prequel to GOLDENDIES and saw a successful regeneration of the Doctor from Patrick Dalton into Piers Morgan....... (WARNING - this last comment included a statement Zorin Industries would like the court to know was 'sarcasm' / irony / lightening the tone - delete where applicable).

[Zorin Industries]

Zorin must ask the court what world this case is being heard in?

Is it the world that sees John Gavin star as Bond in 1971's DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, Michael Billington in 1979's FOR YOUR EYES ONLY and Pierce Brosnan in 1987's THE LIVING NIGHTLIGHTS and 1999's ELEKTRA (the working title for THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH) or is the world where the wider reality of Dalton into Brosnan and Brosnan into Craig has wider factors at play - but sadly for members of the "public" all they have at their disposal is a myriad of cut and pasted statistics about how a film that was not a flop for the people that made it. I am not disputing some might be right. But the manner in which they are being used is becoming ever more convoluted and "I told you so". So there.

Now - the Jury has fallen asleep and so have I. Shall the court convene in twenty years to discuss how SOLACE was a disappointment to the "fans" and "the box office" and that Daniel Craig should have been let go from LICENSE TO DRIVE and not this Brosnan chap?

Now, for a film that is not important in the wider scale of things Zorin Industries has gone on for far too long.

Gravity (I think I can call you Gravity now, no?).. shall we go for a drink at the court bar and settle this one like all the other cases are settled - i.e. we will both get very drunk, make a pass at each other and dig out our old interviews with the cast of LICENSE TO DRIVE?