519 replies to this topic

[Ambler]

I dislike LTK in much the same way I dislike QoS; it seems to me that neither have much to do with James Bond and that both films are essentially generic actioners. The maverick Bond out for revenge plotline has never interested me either.

Less easy for me to rationalise is why I like Dalton so much in TLD yet hate his portrayal of Bond in LTK ...

[Turn]

Look at what beat License To Kill at the U.S. box office in 1989. It wasn't JUST Batman or Indiana Jones; it was beaten by films I'm almost too embarassed too mention in this thread, but I'll do it anyway: TANGO & CASH.....BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE...THE BEAR (does anyone even remember THIS movie?) In fact, I'd dare to suggest that Bond's competition for box office supremacy that year was actually quite weak compared to the other monster movies that Bond has been up against since returning in Goldeneye. If you look at the chart for 1989, only Lethal Weapon 2 came close to approximating direct, head-to-head competition for LTK, and even it was released a week prior to LTK. BATMAN had been out 3 weeks, and INDIANA JONES had been out 7 weeks when LTK was released. LTK's box office performance wasn't simply unacceptable; it was a massive, collective indictment against the Dalton films, that Dalton apologists to this day absolutely refuse to recognize.

No question LTK underperformed at the box office. But when you look at the post LTK films, one must take into account they've all been moved back to the fall/Christmas season, a wise move on EON and the studio's part since summer usually offers the much of the same genre competition week after week.

You may want to throw Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indy out there as having been out a while, but that's a lot of films in the same basic genre and the first two were very fresh at the time. Several superhero and action genre movies with some kids films thrown in and a big comedy always do well in the summmer. Fall/holiday season blends in more romantic comedies, family films and epics vying for Oscar competition, thinning the action/special effects heavy summer season fare.

Since moving to the fall season, the Bonds have been pretty much on their own in the action adventure genre. Let's look at the competition since '95.

GE was the clear winner opening weekend and in second place was Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, followed by The American President and It Takes Two, an Olsen Twins movie. Toy Story came in and dominated the box office the next week and the only real action related film that came out was Heat, five weeks later,.

There's no doubt Titanic was a phenomenon and TND did more than hold its own against that juggernaut. But again, while the girls and date movie crowd had Titanic, TND was on its own as the guy alternative. Its closest competition at the box office were Mouse Hunt and Flubber.

Same basic thing with TWINE. Its competition debuting that week was Sleepy Hollow adn Pokemon the Movie. Toy Story 2 came out the next week to dominate. End of Days was the only real action film out that season. by the third week or fourth week, even Deuce Bigelow Male Gigolo was in the top three.

DAD's big competition was Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, which it beat its opening weekend, took back first then next weekend and DAD got it back the weekend after, a nice feat. No question Potter was the phenom at the time. But consider its other main competition opening weekend were The Friday After Next, Santa Clause 2, 8-Mile and even My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which was still hanging around in the top 10 after 32 weeks. Analyze that was second to DAD in its third week and something called Empire third (I don't remember it, but it says Denise Richards was in it). The Two Towers dominated a month after DAD debuted.

CR had Happy Feet that dominated the box office, with other competition being Borat and, ironically, Santa Clause 3, and Stranger Than Fiction. Not real heavyweight comeptition there. Deja Vu was the only film that came close to CR's genre until Blood Diamond came along, which didn't do that great. Then you had holiday fare like Deck the Halls. My question is how did Apocolypto ever win the box office during a holiday weekend?

QoS, same thing. It had Madagascar 2 as its big competition. The following week it hit the Twilight phenomenon and the animated Bolt. The only real action competition was weeks later with Transporter 3.

It's interesting to consider how the Bonds would have done in the traditional summer season. TWINE, for instance, would have faced Phantom Menace, Austin Powers, Tarzan, The Mummy, Wild Wild West, The Sixth Sense, etc. TND would have had Air Force One, Men in Black, Face/Off, Face/Off, The Lost World, Batman and Robin, etc. QoS would have contended with Indy 4, Hulk, The Dark Knight, WALL-E, Kung Fu Panda, Iron Man, etc.

Bond held his own during the Moore era summer season, but by AVTAK, things were changing. I like Bond in the fall/Christmas season and hope he stays there.

[The Shark]

Look at what beat License To Kill at the U.S. box office in 1989. It wasn't JUST Batman or Indiana Jones; it was beaten by films I'm almost too embarrassed too mention in this thread, but I'll do it anyway: TANGO & CASH.....BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE...THE BEAR (does anyone even remember THIS movie?)

I do. The Bear's one of my favourite "animal" films from my childhood, quite dark as well.

There's a few Bond films I might call awful, but LTK's hardly one of them.

Edited by The Shark, 27 June 2009 - 09:42 PM.

[Tybre]

Look at what beat License To Kill at the U.S. box office in 1989. It wasn't JUST Batman or Indiana Jones; it was beaten by films I'm almost too embarassed too mention in this thread, but I'll do it anyway: TANGO & CASH.....BILL AND TED'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE...THE BEAR (does anyone even remember THIS movie?) In fact, I'd dare to suggest that Bond's competition for box office supremacy that year was actually quite weak compared to the other monster movies that Bond has been up against since returning in Goldeneye. If you look at the chart for 1989, only Lethal Weapon 2 came close to approximating direct, head-to-head competition for LTK, and even it was released a week prior to LTK. BATMAN had been out 3 weeks, and INDIANA JONES had been out 7 weeks when LTK was released. LTK's box office performance wasn't simply unacceptable; it was a massive, collective indictment against the Dalton films, that Dalton apologists to this day absolutely refuse to recognize.

No question LTK underperformed at the box office. But when you look at the post LTK films, one must take into account they've all been moved back to the fall/Christmas season, a wise move on EON and the studio's part since summer usually offers the much of the same genre competition week after week.

You may want to throw Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indy out there as having been out a while, but that's a lot of films in the same basic genre and the first two were very fresh at the time. Several superhero and action genre movies with some kids films thrown in and a big comedy always do well in the summmer. Fall/holiday season blends in more romantic comedies, family films and epics vying for Oscar competition, thinning the action/special effects heavy summer season fare.

Since moving to the fall season, the Bonds have been pretty much on their own in the action adventure genre. Let's look at the competition since '95.

GE was the clear winner opening weekend and in second place was Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls, followed by The American President and It Takes Two, an Olsen Twins movie. Toy Story came in and dominated the box office the next week and the only real action related film that came out was Heat, five weeks later,.

There's no doubt Titanic was a phenomenon and TND did more than hold its own against that juggernaut. But again, while the girls and date movie crowd had Titanic, TND was on its own as the guy alternative. Its closest competition at the box office were Mouse Hunt and Flubber.

Same basic thing with TWINE. Its competition debuting that week was Sleepy Hollow adn Pokemon the Movie. Toy Story 2 came out the next week to dominate. End of Days was the only real action film out that season. by the third week or fourth week, even Deuce Bigelow Male Gigolo was in the top three.

DAD's big competition was Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, which it beat its opening weekend, took back first then next weekend and DAD got it back the weekend after, a nice feat. No question Potter was the phenom at the time. But consider its other main competition opening weekend were The Friday After Next, Santa Clause 2, 8-Mile and even My Big Fat Greek Wedding, which was still hanging around in the top 10 after 32 weeks. Analyze that was second to DAD in its third week and something called Empire third (I don't remember it, but it says Denise Richards was in it). The Two Towers dominated a month after DAD debuted.

CR had Happy Feet that dominated the box office, with other competition being Borat and, ironically, Santa Clause 3, and Stranger Than Fiction. Not real heavyweight comeptition there. Deja Vu was the only film that came close to CR's genre until Blood Diamond came along, which didn't do that great. Then you had holiday fare like Deck the Halls. My question is how did Apocolypto ever win the box office during a holiday weekend?

QoS, same thing. It had Madagascar 2 as its big competition. The following week it hit the Twilight phenomenon and the animated Bolt. The only real action competition was weeks later with Transporter 3.

It's interesting to consider how the Bonds would have done in the traditional summer season. TWINE, for instance, would have faced Phantom Menace, Austin Powers, Tarzan, The Mummy, Wild Wild West, The Sixth Sense, etc. TND would have had Air Force One, Men in Black, Face/Off, Face/Off, The Lost World, Batman and Robin, etc. QoS would have contended with Indy 4, Hulk, The Dark Knight, WALL-E, Kung Fu Panda, Iron Man, etc.

Bond held his own during the Moore era summer season, but by AVTAK, things were changing. I like Bond in the fall/Christmas season and hope he stays there.

Indeed. It's a bit of a nice way to close out the year.

[Turn]

No, I'm not saying Bond couldn't and can't compete in the summer season. My point is there are so many similar films, one on top the other with many in the same genres, why not stay in the same fall/holiday timefram as it's now proven to be a comfortable place? That's smart marketing, not trying to have to have to compete with so many others.

You expect a Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Spider-Man or Batman film to come out in the summer. You can expect a Bond film later in the year. It's a comfort zone studios are obviously fine with and fans can set their calendars by.

I'm not sure where a competitive marketplace comes in when it comes to making a better film. They all want to win and some studios even reserve weekend debuts 2-3 years ahead of time, making marketing strategies a lot more vital for competition. If people are trying to come up with a better product, we wouldn't have endless comic book sequels, remakes of horror films and movies based on old TV shows and toys. It sells.

I agree there were actors who fit the part better that helped as well as new blood in the series. But, again, it would have been interesting to see how some of the Brosnan films post GE would have performed against similar product, particularly when you get something new in there such as a Bourne or an MI.

Where do you get QoS was supposed to come out in the summer of '08? And what gives you the impression the Craig films would do better in the summer? Just curious. It seems like if one were to open opposite a Transformers, for example, it wouldn't do that well.

And lastly, on a similar note on LTK and Lethal Weapon 2, I remember at the time hearing a rumor that those two films were originally set to come out the same weekend and Warners moved up Lethal Weapon 2 so as not to compete with Bond. I wonder how bad it could have been had they shared the same slot.

[Safari Suit]

I don't think the competition provided by Batman can be totally ignored just because it had been out four weeks. It was a true event movie, many people consider it the first really mass-marketed movie, and in 1989 the opening weekend wasn't quite as all-important as it is today. And it was a character who hadn't been seen on the big screen since Connery was Bond, and this was a completely different take. It was fresh in a way an entry in a series which had only once been off the screen for more than two years since 1962 couldn't hope to be, even with a new actor with a noticably different approach. The weekend LTK opened it managaed to earn $15million, which is more than any Bond film had earned in its opening weekend at the time. I'm not saying Batman in any way excuses LTK's poor stateside peformance, but I think it was to some extent a factor.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Remember, only in 2008 did we get a Batman movie that outgrossed the the original, which proves what a juggernaut that film was. I'm sure Safari Suit is right about it being one of many factors.

[Dekard77]

CR worked better not just because it was a reboot but also it had a similar style to Bourne and Batman Begins. It was intended to be a bigger in terms of character relationships rather than set pieces. Audiences today respond to that but back in '89 it was a different story all together.
Growing up in 80's and remembering '89 because it was the year I started obsessing about movies I can tell you a few reason why I thought LTK Bombed.

Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were massive American Action Hero movies. These movies were simply everywhere. Imagine today talking about the popularity of LOTR series or HP or Pixar. That's how big and influencial these films were. Basically most mags dismissed the purpose of Bond simply cos the propoganda machine driven by major studio's to promote American Action films. Ghostbusters 2/Batman both had a superb advantage with their movie soundtracks which reached all over the world. There wasn't a single place you could escape without references to Batman. It was that Big!
LTK nor CR would have worked in '89. Bond should have been loud and expensive and Cubby didn't understand that. He thought if he roughed up Bond everything else fit in.
Brosnan was sorely missed by audiences.... as in people did not click with Dalton. In England and Europe they liked him to some extent but not the US audience. Roger Moore was also missed as he is larger than life and an equivalent to Connery when playing Bond. Their styles may have been completely opposites but both have the right sophistication.
For a movie to be a blockbuster it must be able to make double it's budget in US. This was clearly explained in Time Mag and considered the movie to be a flop. Most movies today go by the numbers to call themselves a hit when it doesn't have the ability to make back the budget in US alone.
Taking the humour away from Bond is a mistake. A lot of people take swipes at Moore but to great extent he kept the movie interesting same way with Connery. I call it wit. John Glen did make a joke of things from time to time and that hurt the movies. E.g PM calling Bond and parrot answering it, Bond hanging on rope all over San Francisco and carelessly wheeling all over Paris , laser beams splitting car and finally tankers doing wheelers. They were meant in a good way but showed Bond as Brit Clown at times. Humour or wit is needed Bond movies . Glen didn't understand how to work on it. Dalton and Glen also never got along I think as moment you see Bond do something nice he is immediately cut away. E.g compliments of Sharkey you hardly see Bond delivering that line.
Nothing about LTK feels expensive and that was the biggest problem because for people who saw Batman couldn't get enough of that world and finally the only person who can deliver something closer also has gone cheap audiences gave up.
In '89 hardcore action films with fantasy films ruled and they were all ripping off Bond. All Bond producers had to do was deliver MR or SPWLM type film. Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford ruled the action summer with sexy looks and daring stunts,Dalton didn't blow any steam in that direction.
I love LTK for it's honest portrayal . It got me hooked on the franchise. Dalton a good Bond and Glen was not the director for him.
Last year when Indiana Jones and Kingdom Of Crystal Skull came out it made a ton of money (700'000'000 +) That showed americans respond to home grown hero better.
Competing with Titanic or Toy Story Bond was benefited by Brosnan accessibility to the press and massive marketing campaigns !!!!!!!!!

Edited by Dekard77, 28 June 2009 - 12:00 PM.

[Stephen Spotswood]

"You're a problem solver?"

"Mmm...let's just say I'm more of a problem eliminator."

[Tybre]

There certainly is humor and wit in LTK. Most of it, however, is much more Fleming wit. It's not the obvious (and usually groan-worthy) Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan puns. It's just simple answers to questions or certain lines instead of a "I think he got the point" moment. And then there are moments that probably aren't meant to be funny that personally I laugh my off at, like Q just tossing his radio broom into a bush.

[Revelator]

I don't think the competition provided by Batman can be totally ignored just because it had been out four weeks. It was a true event movie, many people consider it the first really mass-marketed movie, and in 1989 the opening weekend wasn't quite as all-important as it is today.

Indeed. Batman was still playing in theatres in October. I know because that's when I saw it. Some people are in danger of forgetting that we're talking about what conditions were like 20 years ago. Films stayed in theaters for a long time and didn't hit VHS for a long time afterward--the "make all the big money on opening weekend" model took time to emerge. A moviegoer seeking an action film in the summer of 1989 had a wealth of much better-promoted and more flamboyant action movies than LTK, and all were still in the theaters (and were more likely to be in the theaters than LTK which opened on fewer screens than its major competitors). Batman simply had and has a greater stronghold on the American imagination--had QoS opened close to The Dark Knight it would have also suffered.

[Tybre]

few people around here are willing to fess up to the real reasons why LTK was a failure: it was AWFUL.

In your opinion. There are those of us that find LTK to be a very enjoyable film experience.

[Licence_007]

few people around here are willing to fess up to the real reasons why LTK was a failure: it was AWFUL.

In your opinion. There are those of us that find LTK to be a very enjoyable film experience.

Agreed. It's definitely an upper half Bond film for me.

[Royal Dalton]

Well, at least nobody can accuse you of being inconsistent, GS.

Bond should have been loud and expensive and Cubby didn't understand that.

Of course he understood it. That's why the film was originally supposed to have been an epic Bond adventure set in China.

Unfortunately, the studio was only willing/able to give him a budget of £32 million. So, he had to cut his cloth accordingly.

[DamnCoffee]

Plus he was ill at the time of production, so that didn't really help things.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

You may want to throw Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Indy out there as having been out a while, but that's a lot of films in the same basic genre and the first two were very fresh at the time. Several superhero and action genre movies with some kids films thrown in and a big comedy always do well in the summmer. Fall/holiday season blends in more romantic comedies, family films and epics vying for Oscar competition, thinning the action/special effects heavy summer season fare.

Okay. And?

I mean, it seems like your basic idea is that Bond couldn't, or can't, compete against other films in a similar genre, so therefore the Bond films should simply beat a hasty retreat to a less crowded time of year. Whatever happened to competitive marketplace creating winners and losers? Whatever happened to people being challenged to come up with a better product?

Truth is, EON did come up with a better product: Brosnan and Craig. They also reorganized their duties, with Barbara taking over executive producing duties from Cubby, Michael Wilson no longer trying to produce a film he's written (wow, now there's a conflict of interest), and fresh writing and directing blood being brought in, rather than using the same exact, stagnant writing-directing combo/team that they'd used for the previous 5 films. So I'd say some lessons were learned from the series' complete collapse following the release of LTK.

I don't see things as clear cut as this. Whilst EON definately upped their game for GE I cannot accept if LTK is to be labelled a flop it was solely attributable to what you have written about EON. Is it not the case EON was fighting against a studio very much taking the series for granted in the late eighties? Until someone can tell me why the budgets did not rise and why the marketing costs for Bond were, in MGW's words, 'more conservative than most' I cannot look solely to EON in the way you seem to have here. As John Cork put it in a 1996 issue of Goldeneye Magazine "The studio was pushing LTK with the lamest ad campaign ever and showed little enthusiasm for the product". It would not surprise me that a key reason GE worked was because the studio and EON shared a common vision to save and nurture the series, and I personally don't think any such common vision existed in the late eighties with the Dalton era.
I don't believe LTK is a good/excellent film that had the misfortune to fail at the box office because of poor marketing. For me it had serious problems and as far as the public were concerned Dalton may have been one of them. But I think its at least tenable LTK became the film it was because Bond was on a bit of a backburner with the studio's.

Furthermore, GOLDENEYE was originally to be released in the Summer of 1995, and it was only a production delay for more time to rewrite the film after TRUE LIES came out that caused the film's release to be set back to HOLIDAY '95 time slot. I don't think EON thought they couldn't compete in the summer with a better product, and at one point QoS was slotted to be released in SUMMER 2008 rather than HOLIDAY 2008 because SONY believed they had a winning team on their hands; I think the Craig films would do substantially better at the box office in the Summer time slots than in the Holiday time slots.

Sure you're correct about getting the script right in the wake of True Lies, but was it the only factor? I always understood converting Leavesden studios was another factor that postponed the production of GE.

[Safari Suit]

few people around here are willing to fess up to the real reasons why LTK was a failure: it was AWFUL.

In your opinion. There are those of us that find LTK to be a very enjoyable film experience.

Plus people have to actually see the film to decide which camp they fall in.

[dee-bee-five]

It seems as though this thread has been covered by now, But as a 'front line' Dalton/TLD/LTK supporter, it gets my dander well and truely up, when in the past I have heard/seen LTK reffered to as a flop (despite the figure proving otherwise). I know we all have our opinions, but I just want to grab a frying pan and beat them in the face. That's not an overreaction, is it?

It's news to me that LTK did flop. I've looked at the box office figures again and, while they're not the greatest the series ever delivered, I can only conclude I've misunderstood what the word "flop" means all these years.

Still, I personally think LTK is a bloody good and brave Bond film, although I do agree it was a case of casting pearls before swine which is why a few more people stayed away than usual.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Ghostbusters 2/Batman both had a superb advantage with their movie soundtracks which reached all over the world.

Yeah, and that's because their studios deemed it necessary to provide the soundtrack with relevant, current artists at the time, not fossilized relics of the 70's funk movement like Patti Labelle or Gladys Knight (both great singers, but not commercial enough to make a hit Bond song).

There wasn't a single place you could escape without references to Batman. It was that Big!
LTK nor CR would have worked in '89. Bond should have been loud and expensive and Cubby didn't understand that. He thought if he roughed up Bond everything else fit in.

Yes, I remember the 80's quite well, and I also remember that there was, like, zero buzz for License To Kill. To this day I have trouble finding anybody outside of Bond fandom that actually liked Timothy Dalton's portrayal. He's mostly appreciated by the core fans, and because of that I'm sure the marketing efforts were hampered somewhat.

Competing with Titanic or Toy Story Bond was benefited by Brosnan accessibility to the press and massive marketing campaigns !!!!!!!!!

Well, yeah, and that's because Brosnan was a player. He knew how to go out and sell a movie and he liked doing it; Dalton despised promoting the films and he hated the press and he hated the attention and the intrusion into his life and that did nothing to endear him to non-core fans who might've needed more reasons to see the film than just the mere fact that it was out.

I'm no STAR TREK fan, but even I liked what I saw with the "reboot" of the series. It CAN be done. You CAN reboot a series, put it up against monster sized American action product, and still have a big hit. Casino Royale did it; Dalton's films were, in essence, a reboot of sorts, but the audiences just didn't like him. And in all the handwringing and hemming and hawwing over marketing plans and box office numbers, few people around here are willing to fess up to the real reasons why LTK was a failure: it was AWFUL. It was a horrible film with a very good, but unappreciated lead actor. You can have good films with lousy actors, you can have lousy films that get by on the charisma of their good actors, but it's hard to have a successful film that is structurally awful in direction, acting, and writing, and have said film anchored by a star that most people don't care for.

Numerous lengthy, well-written and passionate posts such as this one secures that I can't help wondering why you are so extremely keen on proving this film's "flopping"...

It's news to me that LTK did flop. I've looked at the box office figures again and, while they're not the greatest the series ever delivered, I can only conclude I've misunderstood what the word "flop" means all these years.

Me too. According to Wikipedia, it made $156.2M worldwide on a budget of $42M, which is sadly less than superior The Living Daylights but still fairly healthy numbers (though obviously not as much as any Bond fan or producer would have preferred).

Edited by The Ghost Who Walks, 30 June 2009 - 08:30 AM.

[Dekard77]

Well, at least nobody can accuse you of being inconsistent, GS.

Bond should have been loud and expensive and Cubby didn't understand that.

Of course he understood it. That's why the film was originally supposed to have been an epic Bond adventure set in China.

Unfortunately, the studio was only willing/able to give him a budget of £32 million. So, he had to cut his cloth accordingly.

Cubby was working on remote control with the same crew who were exhausted with ideas or enthusiasm. Batman cost $50 million to make. LTK had $32 million. How can you say that budget wasn't enough for a film made in 1989?? I disagree. Even 20yrs later CR cost roughly $65 million to make. Am sorry but Bond films in 80's were losing glossy epic feel especially after OP. John Glen is a good director but had no idea what to do with Dalton, and it's very clear. Half the time when Dalton appears he is cut out from the scenes and supporting actors are given spotlight. Only part where the Dalton presence is felt is Tanker chase scenes. Another thing that bugged people was how low key Dalton's dress sense was compares to Moore or Connery. Dalton looked dam good in LDL and in this film he is like a cheap tourist. Please don't tell me he was dressing like that for the time of the movie because then it's not a Bond film. Even Craig with jeans and t-shirt look very handsome because he is given the full Bond treatment. That's why people call them Bond movies. In Die Hard they expect him to be in a vest uttering foul language.
LTK stands out as a good film but certain tweaks were needed to make it a good Bond movie. Batman had that very expensive glossy (goth) feel to it. Audiences at that time went nuts with the movie. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had the best set stunts and overall humour and was helped by the presence of Connery.

[Zorin Industries]

LICENCE TO KILL is not awful. If some folk feel it is then you do have to question what folk want from a Bond film...

[Zorin Industries]

Well, at least nobody can accuse you of being inconsistent, GS.

Bond should have been loud and expensive and Cubby didn't understand that.

Of course he understood it. That's why the film was originally supposed to have been an epic Bond adventure set in China.

Unfortunately, the studio was only willing/able to give him a budget of £32 million. So, he had to cut his cloth accordingly.

Cubby was working on remote control with the same crew who were exhausted with ideas or enthusiasm.

And what evidence do you have to support that rather than it suits what you feel about the film?


Batman cost $50 million to make. LTK had $32 million. How can you say that budget wasn't enough for a film made in 1989?? I disagree.

How many films made in 1989 were you in charge of the budgeting for? Just curious...

Even 20yrs later CR cost roughly $65 million to make. Am sorry but Bond films in 80's were losing glossy epic feel especially after OP. John Glen is a good director but had no idea what to do with Dalton, and it's very clear.

To who? You? Because - again - it suits your attitude to the film...?

Half the time when Dalton appears he is cut out from the scenes and supporting actors are given spotlight.

Nonsense.

Only part where the Dalton presence is felt is Tanker chase scenes. Another thing that bugged people was how low key Dalton's dress sense was compares to Moore or Connery.

This was late a late 1980's Latino drug world. Did 007 really need to wear beautifully tailored (and hot) suits all the time?

Dalton looked dam good in LDL and in this film he is like a cheap tourist.

Is that the Dalton from THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS that wore chinos and an anorak or Taliban fatigues for most of the film?

Please don't tell me he was dressing like that for the time of the movie because then it's not a Bond film.

Bond films dress themselves in light of the tailoring trends of the day. Just look at the history of the tailored suit and the history of the costume design for the Bond filsm. DRESSED TO KILL is a great book for a such insight.
Even Craig with jeans and t-shirt look very handsome because he is given the full Bond treatment.

?? What - great lighting and better screen resolution??

That's why people call them Bond movies. In Die Hard they expect him to be in a vest uttering foul language.
LTK stands out as a good film but certain tweaks were needed to make it a good Bond movie.

Again - that is your opinion masquerading as historical consensus. That's never good when discussing cinema.

Batman had that very expensive glossy (goth) feel to it.

So it should. It was a big screen version of a comic book hero directed by Tim Burton. Did you really expect Dalton to be jumping out of stylised cars and gothic architecture in the middle of a tin pot Latino drug world?



Audiences at that time went nuts with the movie. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had the best set stunts and overall humour and was helped by the presence of Connery.

But he left James Bond films nearly two decades before.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I get the impression that some fans who were not around when LTK was released are getting a misrepresentation about the state of the cinematic Bond in the late eighties. A lot of what I have read does not reconcile with my memory as a UK Bond fan. I personally think history has been distorted because LTK was the last film before the six year hiatus. I think the world in general likes to make a connection between LTK's box office performance and the six year gap, when the two events were unrelated. Consequently LTK is branded as the film that caused the downfall.

With LTK we saw a change in formula and a move in a different direction. In 1989 the film felt very different to its predecessors, and the series was doing something new. This change may or may not have worked or have been 'right' (I see this as a distinct more subjective issue, with no definitive answer). However, I am uneasy about inferences EON was loosing touch or running out of steam, or the series was tired etc etc. I don't think it was the case.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 30 June 2009 - 02:47 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

I get the impression that some fans who were not around when LTK was released are getting a misrepresentation about the state of the cinematic Bond in the late eighties. A lot of what I have read does not reconcile with my memory as a UK Bond fan. I personally think history has been distorted because LTK was the last film before the six year hiatus. I think the world in general likes to make a connection between LTK's box office performance and the six year gap, when the two events were unrelated. Consequently LTK is branded as the film that caused the downfall.

With LTK we saw a change in formula and a move in a different direction. In 1989 the film felt very different to its predecessors, and the series was doing something new. This change may or may not have worked or have been 'right' (I see this as a distinct more subjective issue, with no definitive answer). However I am uneasy about inferences EON was loosing touch or running out of steam, or the series was tired etc etc. I don't think it was the case.

This is very true. It's one of the myths that have grown up about Bond - like Lazenby being sacked or OHMSS itself being a flop - that have been repeated so often they've become accepted as historical "fact". For a production team that was supposedly exhausted, they produced something that was different and bold and hardly formulaic with LTK. I accept that it might not have been to everyone's taste and there is definitely an argument that Dalton was a bit of a turn-off for some (however much Fleming purists, like myself, embraced his portrayal). But let's not rewrite history. LTK wasn't nearly the disaster some would have us believe. Nor was it responsible for the six year break.

[Zorin Industries]

I get the impression that some fans who were not around when LTK was released are getting a misrepresentation about the state of the cinematic Bond in the late eighties. A lot of what I have read does not reconcile with my memory as a UK Bond fan. I personally think history has been distorted because LTK was the last film before the six year hiatus. I think the world in general likes to make a connection between LTK's box office performance and the six year gap, when the two events were unrelated. Consequently LTK is branded as the film that caused the downfall.

With LTK we saw a change in formula and a move in a different direction. In 1989 the film felt very different to its predecessors, and the series was doing something new. This change may or may not have worked or have been 'right' (I see this as a distinct more subjective issue, with no definitive answer). However I am uneasy about inferences EON was loosing touch or running out of steam, or the series was tired etc etc. I don't think it was the case.

This is very true. It's one of the myths that have grown up about Bond - like Lazenby being sacked or OHMSS itself being a flop - that have been repeated so often they've become accepted as historical "fact". For a production team that was supposedly exhausted, they produced something that was different and bold and hardly formulaic with LTK. I accept that it might not have been to everyone's taste and there is definitely an argument that Dalton was a bit of a turn-off for some (however much Fleming purists, like myself, embraced his portrayal). But let's not rewrite history. LTK wasn't nearly the disaster some would have us believe. Nor was it responsible for the six year break.

You beat me to it, DeeBeeFive. LICENCE TO KILL was not a flop, not a critical disaster, was as anticipated and as equal as LAST CRUSADE, LETHAL WEAPON II and BATMAN (which it pre-dated by two months - which is a box office lifetime these days) and - like ROYALE and SOLACE - was exactly what the series had to prove and achieve in order to survive. All this "China" version rumouring (which was an avenue considered) sounds horrific to me (bike chase on the Great Wall anyone? Not me.....and certainly not Dalton's Bond).

And Eon were far from "exhausted" on that one. It is not fair or indeed that savvy to stamp "exhausted" on a film just because you don't like it. It happened with LICENCE TO KILL and it is certainly still going on with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

[Licence_007]

What I love most about those that criticise LTK is that they are quite often people that love the darker, grittier feel to the new Bond films. It's all opinion but I think LTK delivers that atmosphere whilst still feeling like a Bond film. I'm a fan of Casino Royale, but I always find it quite hard to think of as a Bond film.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I get the impression that some fans who were not around when LTK was released are getting a misrepresentation about the state of the cinematic Bond in the late eighties. A lot of what I have read does not reconcile with my memory as a UK Bond fan. I personally think history has been distorted because LTK was the last film before the six year hiatus. I think the world in general likes to make a connection between LTK's box office performance and the six year gap, when the two events were unrelated. Consequently LTK is branded as the film that caused the downfall.

With LTK we saw a change in formula and a move in a different direction. In 1989 the film felt very different to its predecessors, and the series was doing something new. This change may or may not have worked or have been 'right' (I see this as a distinct more subjective issue, with no definitive answer). However I am uneasy about inferences EON was loosing touch or running out of steam, or the series was tired etc etc. I don't think it was the case.

This is very true. It's one of the myths that have grown up about Bond - like Lazenby being sacked or OHMSS itself being a flop - that have been repeated so often they've become accepted as historical "fact". For a production team that was supposedly exhausted, they produced something that was different and bold and hardly formulaic with LTK. I accept that it might not have been to everyone's taste and there is definitely an argument that Dalton was a bit of a turn-off for some (however much Fleming purists, like myself, embraced his portrayal). But let's not rewrite history. LTK wasn't nearly the disaster some would have us believe. Nor was it responsible for the six year break.

You beat me to it, DeeBeeFive. LICENCE TO KILL was not a flop, not a critical disaster, was as anticipated and as equal as LAST CRUSADE, LETHAL WEAPON II and BATMAN (which it pre-dated by two months - which is a box office lifetime these days) and - like ROYALE and SOLACE - was exactly what the series had to prove and achieve in order to survive. All this "China" version rumouring (which was an avenue considered) sounds horrific to me (bike chase on the Great Wall anyone? Not me.....and certainly not Dalton's Bond).

And Eon were far from "exhausted" on that one. It is not fair or indeed that savvy to stamp "exhausted" on a film just because you don't like it. It happened with LICENCE TO KILL and it is certainly still going on with QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Thanks DeeBeeFive and Zorin. I hate to see history re written, and even worse, younger fans believing what I consider to be misinformation and false 'facts'.

[Dekard77]

Well, at least nobody can accuse you of being inconsistent, GS.

Bond should have been loud and expensive and Cubby didn't understand that.

Of course he understood it. That's why the film was originally supposed to have been an epic Bond adventure set in China.

Unfortunately, the studio was only willing/able to give him a budget of £32 million. So, he had to cut his cloth accordingly.

Cubby was working on remote control with the same crew who were exhausted with ideas or enthusiasm.

And what evidence do you have to support that rather than it suits what you feel about the film?
*Read John Glen's autobiography. He clearly states that even he didn't know how to continue.


Batman cost $50 million to make. LTK had $32 million. How can you say that budget wasn't enough for a film made in 1989?? I disagree.

*Time mag reported the budgets of summer movies as it was big news then as it is today. Batman and Ghostbusters 2 were very expensive. Lethal Weapon 2 and LTK both had same budgets. I wasn't in-charge of making any movies just stating some of the things I read at that time. No need to be sarcastic.

How many films made in 1989 were you in charge of the budgeting for? Just curious...

Even 20yrs later CR cost roughly $65 million to make. Am sorry but Bond films in 80's were losing glossy epic feel especially after OP. John Glen is a good director but had no idea what to do with Dalton, and it's very clear.

To who? You? Because - again - it suits your attitude to the film...?

*It was well reported by producers that they want to make a Bond film with that budget and also opted for cost effective location. I think the fact that CR was made with a certain style in mind along with the European locations suited the movie.

Half the time when Dalton appears he is cut out from the scenes and supporting actors are given spotlight.

Nonsense.
Carefully watch the film again. Observe the bits where Dalton appears and notice how quickly they are cut away. Compliments of Shary... the getaway scene from Sanchez house we see more of Lupi than Bond. The bar fight Dalton is thrown all over the place. The scene between Bond and Sanchez morning after, they only show Sanchez talking away with very few reactions of Bond. BTW there were reports while filming LDL that Dalton and Glen clashed.

Only part where the Dalton presence is felt is Tanker chase scenes. Another thing that bugged people was how low key Dalton's dress sense was compares to Moore or Connery.

This was late a late 1980's Latino drug world. Did 007 really need to wear beautifully tailored (and hot) suits all the time?

*I was a teenager in the 80's did see movies based on drug cartels but this is Bond movie and Sean Connery/Roger Moore set the standard on the Bond looks. It is important for a Bond film. Which is still one of the main reasons that even fashion mags talks about how he looks and dresses. Brosnan and Craig both given that treatment with the media/movies.

Dalton looked dam good in LDL and in this film he is like a cheap tourist.

Is that the Dalton from THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS that wore chinos and an anorak or Taliban fatigues for most of the film?

*Well at least he had a reason to wear taliban outfit. What the hell was his reason to look like a cheap tourist? No reason. His hair style also doesn't change that often in LDL where as in LTK it's a different story.

Please don't tell me he was dressing like that for the time of the movie because then it's not a Bond film.

Bond films dress themselves in light of the tailoring trends of the day. Just look at the history of the tailored suit and the history of the costume design for the Bond filsm. DRESSED TO KILL is a great book for a such insight.
Even Craig with jeans and t-shirt look very handsome because he is given the full Bond treatment.

?? What - great lighting and better screen resolution??
*No he gets to dress a bit sharp. That is important. If your a Bond Fan you would know that. Times may change Bond represents a certain look. Connery had that polo t-shirt look which is imitated by Craig and Brosnan looks quite similar to Moore when he is in full suit. Most people love that aspect about Bond.
Nothing to do with screen resolution. When Brosnan was researching Bond he found out that it was important to maintain the standard Bond look .
Also the photogrpahy in the Bond films considerably much better than most of the 80's films. FYEO was an exception.


That's why people call them Bond movies. In Die Hard they expect him to be in a vest uttering foul language.
LTK stands out as a good film but certain tweaks were needed to make it a good Bond movie.

Again - that is your opinion masquerading as historical consensus. That's never good when discussing cinema.
*Obviously am telling you what I think from what I've read and seen. Whether you think it's good or not is your business.

Batman had that very expensive glossy (goth) feel to it.

So it should. It was a big screen version of a comic book hero directed by Tim Burton. Did you really expect Dalton to be jumping out of stylised cars and gothic architecture in the middle of a tin pot Latino drug world?

*Did I say that ? Your just blabbering away without understanding that in '89 Batman conquered the Cinema's with it's epic feel. Same way MR was made to cater Star Wars audience/mood. LTK looked extremely low key hence the reason why people who saw Lethal Weapn 2, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Batman felt there was nothing special to see in LTK. The topic here is why LTK bombed and it did. It made it's money from world wide B.O but it was mostly ignored.


Audiences at that time went nuts with the movie. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had the best set stunts and overall humour and was helped by the presence of Connery.

But he left James Bond films nearly two decades before.

*Yes, but Connery was big movie star then and Dalton wasn't much favoured by Americans and audience believed to a great extent there will and should be more Indy/Lethal Weapons and Die Hards as opposed to Bond. Also a lot of Bond fans would have loved to see Connery play Indy's father.
As I stated before last year Indiana Jones and Kingdom of Crystal Skull made the money of two Bond films put together. So imagine in the 80's how people who didn't much warm up to Dalton dismissed him in the eyes of other heroes???

[byline]

*No he gets to dress a bit sharp. That is important. If your a Bond Fan you would know that. Times may change Bond represents a certain look. Connery had that polo t-shirt look which is imitated by Craig and Brosnan looks quite similar to Moore when he is in full suit. Most people love that aspect about Bond.

Connery also inexplicably had that baby-blue jumpsuit in "Goldfinger" and Moore had his safari jackets and "Moonraker" jumpsuits, which -- while all the fashion rage at the time -- haven't aged so well. Dalton dressed the way travelers in a tropical climate did at that time, but in an understated way because of the cover he had created for himself. Had he gone the full-blown "Miami Vice" wardrobe treatment, he would've stuck out like a sore thumb. He needed to blend in, hence his more muted wardrobe style. When he's sipping coffee at Sanchez's place, for example, I think he looks quite fine.

Edited by byline, 30 June 2009 - 03:11 PM.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Cubby was working on remote control with the same crew who were exhausted with ideas or enthusiasm.

And what evidence do you have to support that rather than it suits what you feel about the film?
*Read John Glen's autobiography. He clearly states that even he didn't know how to continue.

I never got that impression from reading Glen's biography to be honest. I always remember this part:
"Cubby asked me if I was interested in staying on and, although it was harder to find new locations and dream up new action sequences, I said yes without hesitation" John Glen, For My Eyes Only.