519 replies to this topic

[dee-bee-five]

Whether Licence To Kill is a good film or a bad film is purely subjective. No-one is right, no-one is wrong. Personally, I like it and think it's much better than its immediate predecessor. I also rate it far above outings such as Thunderball, Diamonds Are Forever and The Man With The Golden Gun, without ever challenging my favourites - Quantum Of Solace, Casino Royale and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Others obviously feel differently and are entitled to do so.

The box office is a different matter. LTK was certainly no blockbuster; we can all agree on that. But whatever the accountants claim - and they always work to their own agenda anyway and could make a case for Titanic having flopped if they really tried - the bottom line is LTK didn't lose money. As someone once said, a penny profit is still a profit.

[plankattack]

Gravity's post really does hit many nails on the head (and I do like LTK, more than TLD and many others in the preceeding decade) when it comes to LTK's failings. My point is only that there are many nails, some greater than others. Like the proverbial plane crash, it's the culmination/chain that does the film in. There have been many Bonds with some questionable acting (TMWTGG), choppy editing (TB) or Bond with an Eddie Munster-haircut (TND), but in LTK too much comes together.

Personally, I think there are two reasons specifically why LTK gets no respect outside of fandom - the oft-mentioned creative stagnation at EON (blame on Glen, the writer's strike whatever), and TD's lack of star-appeal.

I do respect EON's attempt to shake things up, but desire and ability are two different things (I want to be a movie star but I'm just too ugly....). I've said before and say it again, I don't think TD connected with a mass audience who don't pore over their Bond religiously, could easily buy a ticket to something else when standing in line, but, for better or for worse, are the reasons films and films stars are popular. TD is a great actor, but not a star. The incumbent, DC, is also a good actor, but it has that quality that connects with an audience.

I don't think LTK is a "bad" film, but I do see why it's quite polarising and why it's deemed a "flop."

[Safari Suit]

For people who might be interested, here are some contemporary reviews by people who, alright they were probably more interested in films than the average viewer, but are as close as we're going to get to reviews of LTK from the average 1989 viewer. They seem to all think it was more of an interesting new direction than a sign of fatigue:
http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/05/0575
http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/05/0576
http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/05/0577
http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/05/0585

[Dekard77]

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.

I guess it means the same thing when you look at it. Good job with the quote. Thanks . I am also a fan of LTK and love Dalton but what am saying here are a few things others/myself managed to observe. Just trying to be objective. That's all.

About Moore's Safari suits I would say they look slightly dated but for some reason he did look very stylish to me. Same with Connery never liked him wearing a Pink shirt but again felt he pulled it off well. Dalton looked very sharp in LTD (except Taliban kits), I guess I kinda missed that.
Also I agreed with fact that this movie does have more edge than MWTGG or AWTAK.

[Dekard77]

BTW can anyone remember that Dalton dropped out of Columbus movie in 90's because of director John Glen.
I bet there was some hostility between the two. It was publicised everywhere that Dalton will assume the lead role in expensive telling of Columbus. What made him quit was director Glen.

[DLibrasnow]

Hey, folks; it's me, again.

Anywho, I've been scanning the 'net, and this has caught my eye: It's an opinion espoused on Licence to Kill by a user called Nick from a website known as the agony booth.

2. The beginning of the UA/Kevin McClory/Eon lawsuits which cast a shadow over the production and lasted for another 6 years, preventing any new Bond movies being made.

My question pertains to point #2: I thought it was a lawsuit with Pathe that stalled the Bond movies for six years. Also, didn't most of the UA executives want Dalton gone (I like the man, myself)?

I've never understood why so many people blame McClory for the six-year hiatus.

The lawsuit that Broccoli was embroiled in during the early 1990s had nothing to do with McClory.

[Royal Dalton]

BTW can anyone remember that Dalton dropped out of Columbus movie in 90's because of director John Glen.
I bet there was some hostility between the two. It was publicised everywhere that Dalton will assume the lead role in expensive telling of Columbus. What made him quit was director Glen.

It's hardly a secret that they butted heads on a few occasions. But Dalton left the Columbus film out of loyalty to the original director, George Pan Cosmatos, who was sacked just before shooting was about to begin. It had nothing to do with John Glen.

[Safari Suit]

Kotcheff, Cosmatos, next you'll be telling me he wanted to work with Peter MacDonald!

[Royal Dalton]

[Dekard77]

Kotcheff, Cosmatos, next you'll be telling me he wanted to work with Peter MacDonald!

[Mr. Blofeld]

When EON decided to scale Bond down and make him leaner and meaner, it also should have meant replacing Glen, Maibaum, Wilson, and Binder. It's hard to make the case for new blood and a new direction for the series when the same hired hands are managing the results. As much as I loved the work Maibaum, Wilson, Glen, Barry, and Binder contributed to the series, they should have been replaced when Dalton assumed the role, as was Lois Maxwell. In fact, the entire staff should have been replaced. If I have any consistent complaint about LTK it is that the "reboot" wasn't radical enough; it was half-assed. As a result, Dalton didn't get the kind of support his films needed and with a public that doesn't follow these things as closely as we do, Dalton was left to shoulder the blame for the failure of LTK and the six-year gap.

So, it's all because of Cubby Broccoli's senility, then? I really think GoldenEye would've been leagues better with Dalton as Bond and Brosnan as Trevelyan.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

I really think GoldenEye would've been leagues better with Dalton as Bond and Brosnan as Trevelyan.

Great suggestion! Brosnan could have made a great Trevelyan, though imagine the uprorar it would have caused if the man the media proclaimed as the "perfect Bond" actually played the villain opposite the more controversial and daring Dalton as Bond. But heck, this would have been fantastic, and might have made GoldenEye a film I actually want to re-watch.

If I have any consistent complaint about LTK it is that the "reboot" wasn't radical enough; it was half-assed. As a result, Dalton didn't get the kind of support his films needed and with a public that doesn't follow these things as closely as we do, Dalton was left to shoulder the blame for the failure of LTK and the six-year gap.

Though I love both his Bond movies, I can agree with this. A more interesting and dynamic director than Glen (who I like, mind) would have been the most important thing.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I go back to my point about the creative stagnation: I think EON was, at times, too loyal to its people, even at the risk of hurting the series. For example:

#1 After AVTAK, Cubby doesn't terminate Roger's contract (but, I guess, allows Roger to retire rather than be fired).
Roger's time with Bond was up after AVTAK, so why not let him retire, rather than have the producer terminate his contract. Moore's contractual exit to the series had no substantive effect whatsoever on the future films IMO. Cubby could well afford to let it be Rogers decision, a mark of respect to an actor that sustained the series to highpoints of popularity.

#2 When trying to bring a darker, more realistic and gritty tone to the series, EON retains John Glen as director and Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson as writers, despite the fact that all of these men were part of the reason why the series found itself in the shape that it was in.
What shape was that? Do you mean pre LTK? TLD was a very popular Bond film and was it not the case in '87 James Bond was in pretty good shape? Plus Maibuam left in the early pre production of LTK and contributed little to the final script, but here you seem to be suggesting Maibuam was responsible for LTK if I understand you correctly.
Don't get me wrong: I think Glen did a bang-up job on OP and TLD, and was good w/FYEO, but AVTAK and LTK were not his best films, and pulled the series down.
I agree Glen should have gone after TLD.

The concept of new blood being needed extended far beyond the front of the camera; Wilson should have given up writing duties when he began producing the films; it's a conflict of interest IMO. And when the writers strike occured in 1988, everyone involved should have taken a breather and waited for the writers to come back rather than allowing Wilson to continue working on the script alone (even if that meant delaying the picture by a year).
Yes, everyone should have taken a breather, or at least a new writer should have been hired to replace Maibaum. But I am (again) unconvinced that Wilson did not soldier on alone to keep the costs down on what I think was an underfunded movie.

EON and the studio was loyal to the schedule rather than to the quality of the production. From 1977 through 1989, they churned out a picture every other year, and that meant that BOND16 had to be ready to film in the summer of 1988 with or without a great script. At the time there seemed to be no desire to stage the films every 3 years to allow more time for quality writing and production. As a result they started taking their audience for granted.
On the contrary. The studio may have taken Bond for granted, but I don't think EON productions ever did (although that's not to say EON never made mistakes).

#3 Cubby didn't fire Maurice Binder after the title sequence for TLD, and what Binder ended up giving to LTK was the worst set of titles since TMWTGG, thus having two films back-to-back with underwhelming titles sequences.

#4 Cubby wouldn't fire Dalton after John Calley told EON that MGM wouldn't help produce Goldeneye if Dalton was still set to play James Bond. Cubby was a good guy; like Bond did with Major Dexter Smythe, Cubby allowed Dalton the opportunity to resign from the role rather than face the disgrace of being publicly fired.

When EON decided to scale Bond down and make him leaner and meaner, it also should have meant replacing Glen, Maibaum, Wilson, and Binder. It's hard to make the case for new blood and a new direction for the series when the same hired hands are managing the results. As much as I loved the work Maibaum, Wilson, Glen, Barry, and Binder contributed to the series, they should have been replaced when Dalton assumed the role, as was Lois Maxwell. In fact, the entire staff should have been replaced. If I have any consistent complaint about LTK it is that the "reboot" wasn't radical enough; it was half-assed. As a result, Dalton didn't get the kind of support his films needed and with a public that doesn't follow these things as closely as we do, Dalton was left to shoulder the blame for the failure of LTK and the six-year gap.

I see LTK's problems arising from those who were absent. I think LTK would have been more effective if Maibaum had wrote it, or (even better) co authored it with another writer. Equally LTK would have benefitted had Barry scored it.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 30 June 2009 - 11:01 PM.

[Tybre]

I see LTK's problems arising from those who were absent. I think LTK would have been more effective if Maibaum had wrote it, or (even better) co authored it with another writer. Equally LTK would have benefitted had Barry scored it.

Agree about Maibum. Maibum doesn't seem to have been involved much beyond the first, maybe second draft. Very early on. In regards to Barry however, personally I think Kamen's score fit the film quite well. I also find to be drastically better than anything Barry had pumped out over the previous three films. Really I find Barry on the whole to be vastly overrated, but that's another discussion for another thread.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Really I find Barry on the whole to be vastly overrated, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Well, since this is a thread I originated, please continue your point; I'm interested.

[Dekard77]

Gravity's post really does hit many nails on the head (and I do like LTK, more than TLD and many others in the preceeding decade) when it comes to LTK's failings. My point is only that there are many nails, some greater than others. Like the proverbial plane crash, it's the culmination/chain that does the film in. There have been many Bonds with some questionable acting (TMWTGG), choppy editing (TB) or Bond with an Eddie Munster-haircut (TND), but in LTK too much comes together.

Personally, I think there are two reasons specifically why LTK gets no respect outside of fandom - the oft-mentioned creative stagnation at EON (blame on Glen, the writer's strike whatever), and TD's lack of star-appeal.

I do respect EON's attempt to shake things up, but desire and ability are two different things (I want to be a movie star but I'm just too ugly....). I've said before and say it again, I don't think TD connected with a mass audience who don't pore over their Bond religiously, could easily buy a ticket to something else when standing in line, but, for better or for worse, are the reasons films and films stars are popular. TD is a great actor, but not a star. The incumbent, DC, is also a good actor, but it has that quality that connects with an audience.

I don't think LTK is a "bad" film, but I do see why it's quite polarising and why it's deemed a "flop."

I go back to my point about the creative stagnation: I think EON was, at times, too loyal to its people, even at the risk of hurting the series. For example:

#1 After AVTAK, Cubby doesn't terminate Roger's contract (but, I guess, allows Roger to retire rather than be fired).

#2 When trying to bring a darker, more realistic and gritty tone to the series, EON retains John Glen as director and Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson as writers, despite the fact that all of these men were part of the reason why the series found itself in the shape that it was in. Don't get me wrong: I think Glen did a bang-up job on OP and TLD, and was good w/FYEO, but AVTAK and LTK were not his best films, and pulled the series down. It reminds me of the economic situation regarding Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae here in the U.S.: the same people who brought the American banking system to the brink are now the same people being tasked with the responsibility of bringing the country out of a recession/depression. How? Why?

The concept of new blood being needed extended far beyond the front of the camera; Wilson should have given up writing duties when he began producing the films; it's a conflict of interest IMO. And when the writers strike occured in 1988, everyone involved should have taken a breather and waited for the writers to come back rather than allowing Wilson to continue working on the script alone (even if that meant delaying the picture by a year).

EON and the studio was loyal to the schedule rather than to the quality of the production. From 1977 through 1989, they churned out a picture every other year, and that meant that BOND16 had to be ready to film in the summer of 1988 with or without a great script. At the time there seemed to be no desire to stage the films every 3 years to allow more time for quality writing and production. As a result they started taking their audience for granted.

#3 Cubby didn't fire Maurice Binder after the title sequence for TLD, and what Binder ended up giving to LTK was the worst set of titles since TMWTGG, thus having two films back-to-back with underwhelming titles sequences.

#4 Cubby wouldn't fire Dalton after John Calley told EON that MGM wouldn't help produce Goldeneye if Dalton was still set to play James Bond. Cubby was a good guy; like Bond did with Major Dexter Smythe, Cubby allowed Dalton the opportunity to resign from the role rather than face the disgrace of being publicly fired.

When EON decided to scale Bond down and make him leaner and meaner, it also should have meant replacing Glen, Maibaum, Wilson, and Binder. It's hard to make the case for new blood and a new direction for the series when the same hired hands are managing the results. As much as I loved the work Maibaum, Wilson, Glen, Barry, and Binder contributed to the series, they should have been replaced when Dalton assumed the role, as was Lois Maxwell. In fact, the entire staff should have been replaced. If I have any consistent complaint about LTK it is that the "reboot" wasn't radical enough; it was half-assed. As a result, Dalton didn't get the kind of support his films needed and with a public that doesn't follow these things as closely as we do, Dalton was left to shoulder the blame for the failure of LTK and the six-year gap.

Quite an insightful look into the whole LTK backlash. I like the film but outside fandom hardly anyone will talk about it.

[dee-bee-five]

Quite an insightful look into the whole LTK backlash. I like the film but outside fandom hardly anyone will talk about it.

History being rewritten again. There was no "backlash" against LTK. No-one was rioting in the streets. There was a tad more indifference to it, granted, but that is not quite the same thing.

[Zorin Industries]

So, it's all because of Cubby Broccoli's senility, then? I really think GoldenEye would've been leagues better with Dalton as Bond and Brosnan as Trevelyan.

I actually agree with that 100%.

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.

But BATMAN came out two months AFTER LICENCE TO KILL.

[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?
*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???

So all Bond films should be steered to appease the American audiences? I hate to tell you but they are not the mainstay of the box office for Bond (not these days anyway).

The BATMAN argument is benign. That was a gothic comic book caper. That is NOT what ANY Bond film has been or needs to be. So why this lazy reasoning in trying to say LICENCE TO KILL bombed because it wasn't BATMAN. For the record, LICENCE TO KILL did NOT 'bomb'.

LICENCE TO KILL had to cut costs because it was NOT ecomonically viable to shoot studio work in Britain. The production had to look elsewhere.

And if you think A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS are not "glossy" then you really need to see more James Bond films (or - thinking about it - probably a lot less).

I'm sorry but this is a futile argument. I for one am not getting into discussions like "his hair was different" in that film, "he looked shabby", the "film bombed because it wasn't such and such a film", the budget was only "32 million FACT FACT FACT because I er read it' ", "the budget of GHOSTBUSTERS II was bigger than LICENE TO KILL and that was wrong" (I don't remember much need for CGI phantoms in Isthmus City and "Craig was given the full Bond treatment with his costumes"....??????????

Without sounding too harsh, I don't believe you have a clue what the "Bond treament" actually is. And I certainly don't need lessons in what worked at the box office in 1989. I was there. I saw the films and the reaction to them. I also didn't glean all my facts, figures and opinion from FILM REVIEW magazine or what lazy journalist thought that year of Bond's competition. Being "Bondian" appeases the fans and them only. The 007 films work, operate and succeed on a few more levels than just "he must wear the tuxedo".

[Dekard77]

So, it's all because of Cubby Broccoli's senility, then? I really think GoldenEye would've been leagues better with Dalton as Bond and Brosnan as Trevelyan.

I actually agree with that 100%.

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.

But BATMAN came out two months AFTER LICENCE TO KILL.

Your right about that.LTK in USA had June release while Batman/Lethal Weapon 2 had July release. Clever addition to the discussion . Ghostbusters 2 was in competition with massive campaign. Both Lethal Weapon 2 and Batman were July release but the marketing leading up to both movies would have hurt LTK hopes. Time Mag ran a cool article about Summer movies in '89 and had some reasons why Bond did not do well and main one being audiences did not like Dalton and his serious approach to Bond.

[Safari Suit]

Batman came out two months after Licence to Kill in the UK. In the US, Batman came out a month before LTK:
http://www.boxoffice...t...d=28&p=.htm

[Zorin Industries]

So, it's all because of Cubby Broccoli's senility, then? I really think GoldenEye would've been leagues better with Dalton as Bond and Brosnan as Trevelyan.

I actually agree with that 100%.

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.

But BATMAN came out two months AFTER LICENCE TO KILL.

Your right about that.LTK in USA had June release while Batman/Lethal Weapon 2 had July release. Clever addition to the discussion . Ghostbusters 2 was in competition with massive campaign. Both Lethal Weapon 2 and Batman were July release but the marketing leading up to both movies would have hurt LTK hopes. Time Mag ran a cool article about Summer movies in '89 and had some reasons why Bond did not do well and main one being audiences did not like Dalton and his serious approach to Bond.

One of us is missing the point here.

GHOSTBUSTERS II came out in the UK at Christmas 1989.

But I'm glad we have TIME mag (azine) to tell the world that LICENCE TO KILL was going to be a flop because it didn't have the same poster campaign as LETHAL WEAPON II. That's real insight for you. Did it also have a more lucid and relevant discussion on the ratings for all those films and how that affected LICENCE TO KILL or have I yet to read that opinion and make it my own written in stone must-be-true mantra?

I hate to tell you but Bond films sell themselves. Yes, awareness is needed, but that awareness is there if a Bond film is there.

[Safari Suit]

Why do you keep bringing up UK release dates (and implying that the US release dates stated were "wrong" in the process, which they were not thank you very much) when it is the US Box Office which is being discussed? Granted, the worldwide Box Office is what should be being discussed, but recently this thread has focused on the US.

[Zorin Industries]

Why do you keep bringing up UK release dates (and implying that the US release dates stated were "wrong" in the process, which they were not thank you very much) when it is the US Box Office which is being discussed? Granted, the worldwide Box Office is what should be being discussed, but recently this thread has focused on the US.

Because the person I am arguing with keeps harping on about the US release dates as if they were mirrored the whole world over.

[Safari Suit]

Fair do's. But in my case I did make it very clear I was talking about the US and the US alone.

[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???

So all Bond films should be steered to appease the American audiences? I hate to tell you but they are not the mainstay of the box office for Bond (not these days anyway).

The BATMAN argument is benign. That was a gothic comic book caper. That is NOT what ANY Bond film has been or needs to be. So why this lazy reasoning in trying to say LICENCE TO KILL bombed because it wasn't BATMAN. For the record, LICENCE TO KILL did NOT 'bomb'.

LICENCE TO KILL had to cut costs because it was NOT ecomonically viable to shoot studio work in Britain. The production had to look elsewhere.

And if you think A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS are not "glossy" then you really need to see more James Bond films (or - thinking about it - probably a lot less).

I'm sorry but this is a futile argument. I for one am not getting into discussions like "his hair was different" in that film, "he looked shabby", the "film bombed because it wasn't such and such a film", the budget was only "32 million FACT FACT FACT because I er read it' ", "the budget of GHOSTBUSTERS II was bigger than LICENE TO KILL and that was wrong" (I don't remember much need for CGI phantoms in Isthmus City and "Craig was given the full Bond treatment with his costumes"....??????????

Without sounding too harsh, I don't believe you have a clue what the "Bond treament" actually is. And I certainly don't need lessons in what worked at the box office in 1989. I was there. I saw the films and the reaction to them. I also didn't glean all my facts, figures and opinion from FILM REVIEW magazine or what lazy journalist thought that year of Bond's competition. Being "Bondian" appeases the fans and them only. The 007 films work, operate and succeed on a few more levels than just "he must wear the tuxedo".

Well If you were there then you'd know Bond was crushed in the mix of competition. Even the LTK documentary kind of touches on the subject towards the end. LTK did bomb in the US but worldwide it managed to make it's money back. Yes Bond needs to look like Bond, if you didn't know that then there is no point in talking. Anyone who'd seen a Bond film recodnises the formula or the world he lives in and thats why they like watching those movies. During the GE campaigns they promoted the hell out of BMW,Omega and Brioni suits to bring out the Bond image again (apart from money they make out of Product placements). You don't have to be a hardcore fan to know what the hell Bond is suppose to be. So if film Review and other mags with lazy journalists are no good does that mean you know better and we all should only listen to you? LOL!!!!!!
A good budget helps a movie and that is a fact(providing they know how to use it well).
I have said things that I've seen, read and heard from the people at that time LTK did not spark with overall movie going crowds if it did THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MASSIVE HIT IN USA! For it to be considered a Box Office hit it needed to make more than $50million or twice it's budget.
Since you did know what was happening in 80's then you'd know that it was the American Box Office figures that determined the hits and rarely they consider the world wide numbers. Today however it's a different story.

[Zorin Industries]

Fair do's. But in my case I did make it very clear I was talking about the US and the US alone.

Fair do's back at you Suit!

[Dekard77]

Why do you keep bringing up UK release dates (and implying that the US release dates stated were "wrong" in the process, which they were not thank you very much) when it is the US Box Office which is being discussed? Granted, the worldwide Box Office is what should be being discussed, but recently this thread has focused on the US.

Because the person I am arguing with keeps harping on about the US release dates as if they were mirrored the whole world over.

Bond films are made through US movie studios. World Wide Box Office Numbers were not considered a big deal until recently. Today most countries get simultaneous release dates for an event movie but before it took over a month to see a big summer movie. They wanted word of mouth to be good so they can ride on the success faster. I for one thought that was unfair too as most films do very well abroad. But I believe when American studios finance movies they want their money to be made back from USA as other regions it could be the different distributors that benifit from it's profits.

[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?
*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???

So all Bond films should be steered to appease the American audiences? I hate to tell you but they are not the mainstay of the box office for Bond (not these days anyway).

The BATMAN argument is benign. That was a gothic comic book caper. That is NOT what ANY Bond film has been or needs to be. So why this lazy reasoning in trying to say LICENCE TO KILL bombed because it wasn't BATMAN. For the record, LICENCE TO KILL did NOT 'bomb'.

LICENCE TO KILL had to cut costs because it was NOT ecomonically viable to shoot studio work in Britain. The production had to look elsewhere.

And if you think A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS are not "glossy" then you really need to see more James Bond films (or - thinking about it - probably a lot less).

I'm sorry but this is a futile argument. I for one am not getting into discussions like "his hair was different" in that film, "he looked shabby", the "film bombed because it wasn't such and such a film", the budget was only "32 million FACT FACT FACT because I er read it' ", "the budget of GHOSTBUSTERS II was bigger than LICENE TO KILL and that was wrong" (I don't remember much need for CGI phantoms in Isthmus City and "Craig was given the full Bond treatment with his costumes"....??????????

Without sounding too harsh, I don't believe you have a clue what the "Bond treament" actually is. And I certainly don't need lessons in what worked at the box office in 1989. I was there. I saw the films and the reaction to them. I also didn't glean all my facts, figures and opinion from FILM REVIEW magazine or what lazy journalist thought that year of Bond's competition. Being "Bondian" appeases the fans and them only. The 007 films work, operate and succeed on a few more levels than just "he must wear the tuxedo".

Well If you were there then you'd know Bond was crushed in the mix of competition. Even the LTK documentary kind of touches on the subject towards the end. LTK did bomb in the US but worldwide it managed to make it's money back. Yes Bond needs to look like Bond, if you didn't know that then there is no point in talking. Anyone who'd seen a Bond film recodnises the formula or the world he lives in and thats why they like watching those movies. During the GE campaigns they promoted the hell out of BMW,Omega and Brioni suits to bring out the Bond image again (apart from money they make out of Product placements). You don't have to be a hardcore fan to know what the hell Bond is suppose to be. So if film Review and other mags with lazy journalists are no good does that mean you know better and we all should only listen to you? LOL!!!!!!
A good budget helps a movie and that is a fact(providing they know how to use it well).
I have said things that I've seen, read and heard from the people at that time LTK did not spark with overall movie going crowds if it did THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MASSIVE HIT IN USA! For it to be considered a Box Office hit it needed to make more than $50million or twice it's budget.
Since you did know what was happening in 80's then you'd know that it was the American Box Office figures that determined the hits and rarely they consider the world wide numbers. Today however it's a different story.

Why do people put LOL when they haven't laughed out loud nor have they said anything remotely amusing in any way?

A "good budget helps a movie"...? How does a "good budget" help a movie? And what is a "good budget" to you? Something that is more than the final costs of a rival film to a Bond release? A Bond film's success is also gauged in international TV sales, how much can it get to be played on every long-haul tourist flight, what will fifty years of advert breaks during fifty future years of TV broadcasts yield, what endorsement deals can be struck with global brands, international DVD sales, global television audiences, global television sales, global cable sales and which TV network is going to play it in - for example - Papau New Guinea. Coming behind LETHAL WEAPON II and GHOSTBUSTERS II is sort of irrelevant.

A film is not just given a budget then required to double it at the box office. It doesn't work like that. And yes America is/was an important barometer for a Bond film, but can I ask you one thing ....... if LICENCE TO KILL was such an American flop how come GOLDENEYE was greenlit with a bigger budget four years later?

[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???

So all Bond films should be steered to appease the American audiences? I hate to tell you but they are not the mainstay of the box office for Bond (not these days anyway).

The BATMAN argument is benign. That was a gothic comic book caper. That is NOT what ANY Bond film has been or needs to be. So why this lazy reasoning in trying to say LICENCE TO KILL bombed because it wasn't BATMAN. For the record, LICENCE TO KILL did NOT 'bomb'.

LICENCE TO KILL had to cut costs because it was NOT ecomonically viable to shoot studio work in Britain. The production had to look elsewhere.

And if you think A VIEW TO A KILL and THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS are not "glossy" then you really need to see more James Bond films (or - thinking about it - probably a lot less).

I'm sorry but this is a futile argument. I for one am not getting into discussions like "his hair was different" in that film, "he looked shabby", the "film bombed because it wasn't such and such a film", the budget was only "32 million FACT FACT FACT because I er read it' ", "the budget of GHOSTBUSTERS II was bigger than LICENE TO KILL and that was wrong" (I don't remember much need for CGI phantoms in Isthmus City and "Craig was given the full Bond treatment with his costumes"....??????????

Without sounding too harsh, I don't believe you have a clue what the "Bond treament" actually is. And I certainly don't need lessons in what worked at the box office in 1989. I was there. I saw the films and the reaction to them. I also didn't glean all my facts, figures and opinion from FILM REVIEW magazine or what lazy journalist thought that year of Bond's competition. Being "Bondian" appeases the fans and them only. The 007 films work, operate and succeed on a few more levels than just "he must wear the tuxedo".

Well If you were there then you'd know Bond was crushed in the mix of competition. Even the LTK documentary kind of touches on the subject towards the end. LTK did bomb in the US but worldwide it managed to make it's money back. Yes Bond needs to look like Bond, if you didn't know that then there is no point in talking. Anyone who'd seen a Bond film recodnises the formula or the world he lives in and thats why they like watching those movies. During the GE campaigns they promoted the hell out of BMW,Omega and Brioni suits to bring out the Bond image again (apart from money they make out of Product placements). You don't have to be a hardcore fan to know what the hell Bond is suppose to be. So if film Review and other mags with lazy journalists are no good does that mean you know better and we all should only listen to you? LOL!!!!!!
A good budget helps a movie and that is a fact(providing they know how to use it well).
I have said things that I've seen, read and heard from the people at that time LTK did not spark with overall movie going crowds if it did THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MASSIVE HIT IN USA! For it to be considered a Box Office hit it needed to make more than $50million or twice it's budget.
Since you did know what was happening in 80's then you'd know that it was the American Box Office figures that determined the hits and rarely they consider the world wide numbers. Today however it's a different story.

Why do people put LOL when they haven't laughed out loud nor have they said anything remotely amusing in any way?

A "good budget helps a movie"...? How does a "good budget" help a movie? And what is a "good budget" to you? Something that is more than the final costs of a rival film to a Bond release? A Bond film's success is also gauged in international TV sales, how much can it get to be played on every long-haul tourist flight, what will fifty years of advert breaks during fifty future years of TV broadcasts yield, what endorsement deals can be struck with global brands, international DVD sales, global television audiences, global television sales, global cable sales and which TV network is going to play it in - for example - Papau New Guinea. Coming behind LETHAL WEAPON II and GHOSTBUSTERS II is sort of irrelevant.

A film is not just given a budget then required to double it at the box office. It doesn't work like that. And yes America is/was an important barometer for a Bond film, but can I ask you one thing ....... if LICENCE TO KILL was such an American flop how come GOLDENEYE was greenlit with a bigger budget four years later?

GE was made with a new actor and a new team behind to guarantee success. It was a gamble they took and it paid off in style. The movie also promised the return of Bond.
TV/CABLE/DVD deals helps the movie after it's released but a healthy marketing campaing product placements and good word of mouth helps the movie initially. Bond will do well outside USA and there is no worry about that but the American market is very important to MGM/UA/Eon to make thier mark(money).
A good budget does help the movie if it's used correctly. What more do I need to say about that? Imagine Jurassic Park,T2 or Dark Knight working on low budgets?? LOL