519 replies to this topic

[Zorin Industries]

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

If you think giving a film a bigger budget equals more success at the box office then I really need to stop trying to point you towards the door marked "reality". It is painfully clear you haven't ever budgeted a film (on whatever scale). Not that that stops you from having an opinion, but please at least have an informed one.

ALL Bond films promise "the return of Bond". That has NOTHING to do with budgets.

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.

These factors are signed off BEFORE the film finishes shooting.

[Dekard77]

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

If you think giving a film a bigger budget equals more success at the box office then I really need to stop trying to point you towards the door marked "reality". It is painfully clear you haven't ever budgeted a film (on whatever scale). Not that that stops you from having an opinion, but please at least have an informed one.

ALL Bond films promise "the return of Bond". That has NOTHING to do with budgets.

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.

It would be wise for you to read before just commenting away. It's clear that you do not care beyond anything else than what you think.
I said film with bigger budgets can benifit if the people involved know what they are doing That's just common sense. If your a Bond fan then u'd know that earlier Bond films benifited the most from having big budgets. It's not my fault if you can't understand simple things. But it's ok. If your such an expert on how big budgets are not needed on movies maybe you can lecture Hollywood to make a few summer/event movies for much less. Realistically event movies cost money to make and market and that's why they need big studios. Duh!
Finally you don't seem understand that LTK did Bomb in US and created negativity around the franchise and wasn't helped by legal issues, which of course was corrected with GE. Since you don't bother reading anything that's printed by movie mags (stated by you) I guess you can go back to living in your bubble.
Am done answering , what I want to say is written which is somewhat similar in certain areas to what other forum members think.
Tata Zorin get well soon(falling from Golden Gate bridge can't be that easy)!


These factors are signed off BEFORE the film finishes shooting.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

A documentary on the marketing of LTK is here

[Dekard77]

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

Well, Jurassic Park and T2 were f/x driven films, so you'd expect their costs to be somewhat higher than a Bond film. Dark Knight did extensive location work in Chicago *AND* Hong Kong, and that ain't cheap.

But LTK's budget was not far off from what other action films were budgeted for at the time, and was only slightly less than TLD's budget. At the time LTK filmed in Mexico, the Peso-to-Pound/Dollar ratio made it more favorable to shoot in Mexico than in England or at a studio in the U.S. The budget went farther in Mexico, and other big name movies were filmed at Cherebusco Studios, such as TOTAL RECALL, so it's not as if somehow cheap, no-skilled, illegal immigrant workers were doing the job that Pinewood technicians would have otherwise been doing. And the budget cuts on LTK from TLD's budget were minimal when compared to the budget slashing the team of Golan/Globus did on SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987). On that film the budget went from $36 million to $17 million, and all the f/x work was sent from Pinewood to a studio in Israel.

Because LTK wasn't an f/x driven picture, I don't see a budget in the low 30-million range to be a problem. And certainly the money was spent on some fairly good action sequences, but the cast was considerably bargain-basement, with most of the cast being not simply unknowns, but having starred in a string of low-budget, Grade-B thrillers that had gone direct-to-video, or were 70's tv stars whose careers had faded. It was one of the worst casts assembled ever for a Bond film.

*My comments about the budgets came after I was asked how budgets help movies. I had to answer it that way. $30 million budget is not bad at all for a film made in '89 (which I stated before). My argument was with an actor the public/media didn't like and a team that didn't fully manage materialise the true potential of the movie it hurt the performance. Bond fans are important but the average movie audience matter a lot too and they trust the word of mouth and media. Today the internet has a way of promoting the films but the mass markets react differently at times. Even in the documentary stated above they indicate how sensitive they've become and how in the future they need to adapt(they were taking about the 90's), in the 80's it was a case of films doing well in USA to be considered a hit. I don't agree fully with it either but that's how the business works. The real question is would MGM/UA would have agreed to make Bond in '91 with the same actor if it wasn't for the legal issues? If was done with new actor then it would have clearly proved Hollywood didn't want Dalton. Or did they delay the film using legal claims to prevent from another Dalton Bond? Broccoli's were very close with Dalton and wouldn't have fired him. The film also did make it's money with the worldwide figures but if in America the film under-performs then it hurts the franchise.
QOS is a good film which has some elements of LTK with Bond touch audience is more familiar with (car/grand finale/exotic locations shot well/ Bond looking like Bond hehe).

I just think it was a poorly directed film with a weak script and some very bad acting. You also need to give the movie an emotional center, and as talented as Dalton was in that movie, and as expressive as he can be with no dialogue and just facial expressions, he just didn't have a script that utilized his talents. The audience barely had gotten to know THIS FELIX LEITER before Sanchez feeds him to the shark. I don't think John Terry would've improved the situation much, but at least there would've been some consistency. Bringing Hedison back added ZERO to the mix.

Since we're also discussing THE DARK KNIGHT...it's also worth noting that the film covers similar territory as License To Kill does, but only better. And the tragedy that befalls Harvey Dent isn't played out until an hour and forty minutes into the picture. I'm not saying LTK could've waited an hour and forty minutes before mangling Felix and raping Della, but the whole set-up happened so quickly that I don't think audience members who wanted to be emotionally invested in the story really got the chance before Leiter and Della were written out of the story.

Dalton got a few good lines and gave some great delivery: "You earned it. You keep it....old buddy.", but I think the film just lacked a necessary energy and flair to make it interesting. It's barely better than your average straight-to-VHS action flick from the 80's starring Michael Dudikoff or Chuck Norris. And the characterizations were uneven, to put it mildly. One minute Pam is a tough-as-nails copter pilot, the next minute she's jealously mimicking Lupe like a petty bitch.

[Mr. Blofeld]

LTK's budget was not far off from what other action films were budgeted for at the time, and was only slightly less than TLD's budget. At the time LTK filmed in Mexico, the Peso-to-Pound/Dollar ratio made it more favorable to shoot in Mexico than in England or at a studio in the States, and the budget cuts on LTK from TLD's budget were minimal when compared to the budget slashing the team of Golan/Globus did on SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987). On that film the budget went from $36 million to $17 million, and all the f/x work was sent from Pinewood to a studio in Israel.

Because LTK wasn't an f/x driven picture, I don't see a budget in the low 30-million range to be a problem. And certainly the money was spent on some fairly good action sequences, but the cast was considerably bargain-basement, with most of the cast being not simply unknowns, but having starred in a string of low-budget, Grade-B thrillers that had gone direct-to-video, or were 70's tv stars whose careers had faded. It was one of the worst casts assembled ever for a Bond film.

I just think it was a poorly directed film with a weak script and some very bad acting. You also need to give the movie an emotional center, and as talented as Dalton was in that movie, and as expressive as he can be with no dialogue and just facial expressions, he just didn't have a script that utilized his talents. The audience barely had gotten to know THIS FELIX LEITER before Sanchez feeds him to the shark. I don't think John Terry would've improved the situation much, but at least there would've been some consistency. Bringing Hedison back added ZERO to the mix.

Dalton got a few good lines and gave some great delivery: "You earned it. You keep it....old buddy.", but I think the film just lacked a necessary energy and flair to make it interesting. Also, the characterizations were uneven, to put it mildly; one minute Pam is a tough-as-nails copter pilot, the next minute she's jealously mimicking Lupe like a petty bitch.

You make a lot of good points, Gravity's; I'd also like to bring up the disbelief-shattering arrival of Q in Isthmus City halfway through the film, armed with subpar gags and cheap camera tricks. I could take the movie a little more seriously were it not for him, the simpering annoyances of Truman-Lodge, and the tacky religious center Sanchez uses as a base.

Also, if the producers had wanted Hedison's Leiter to work, I think they should've planned things out beforehand; Hedison should've been cast in The Living Daylights, then had his screentime expanded past the 40-something minute mark in Licence to Kill: It certainly would've bred familiarity with the audience.

[Dekard77]

LTK's budget was not far off from what other action films were budgeted for at the time, and was only slightly less than TLD's budget. At the time LTK filmed in Mexico, the Peso-to-Pound/Dollar ratio made it more favorable to shoot in Mexico than in England or at a studio in the States, and the budget cuts on LTK from TLD's budget were minimal when compared to the budget slashing the team of Golan/Globus did on SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE (1987). On that film the budget went from $36 million to $17 million, and all the f/x work was sent from Pinewood to a studio in Israel.

Because LTK wasn't an f/x driven picture, I don't see a budget in the low 30-million range to be a problem. And certainly the money was spent on some fairly good action sequences, but the cast was considerably bargain-basement, with most of the cast being not simply unknowns, but having starred in a string of low-budget, Grade-B thrillers that had gone direct-to-video, or were 70's tv stars whose careers had faded. It was one of the worst casts assembled ever for a Bond film.

I just think it was a poorly directed film with a weak script and some very bad acting. You also need to give the movie an emotional center, and as talented as Dalton was in that movie, and as expressive as he can be with no dialogue and just facial expressions, he just didn't have a script that utilized his talents. The audience barely had gotten to know THIS FELIX LEITER before Sanchez feeds him to the shark. I don't think John Terry would've improved the situation much, but at least there would've been some consistency. Bringing Hedison back added ZERO to the mix.

Dalton got a few good lines and gave some great delivery: "You earned it. You keep it....old buddy.", but I think the film just lacked a necessary energy and flair to make it interesting. Also, the characterizations were uneven, to put it mildly; one minute Pam is a tough-as-nails copter pilot, the next minute she's jealously mimicking Lupe like a petty bitch.

You make a lot of good points, Gravity's; I'd also like to bring up the disbelief-shattering arrival of Q in Isthmus City halfway through the film, armed with subpar gags and cheap camera tricks. I could take the movie a little more seriously were it not for him, the simpering annoyances of Truman-Lodge, and the tacky religious center Sanchez uses as a base.

Also, if the producers had wanted Hedison's Leiter to work, I think they should've planned things out beforehand; Hedison should've been cast in The Living Daylights, then had his screentime expanded past the 40-something minute mark in Licence to Kill: It certainly would've bred familiarity with the audience.

Agreed, I also felt things were a bit rushed, but in 80's that pace was excepted.

[dee-bee-five]

Okay, so if the decent return LTK made for its investors is now to be the yardstick by which we measure a flop, can someone please point me in the direction of a similar investment? My bank manager and I would appreciate that kind of failure. In fact, by my calculations, I (and probably a small town, to boot) could live most comfortably for the rest of my days off such a flop...

[Safari Suit]

It's barely better than your average straight-to-VHS action flick from the 80's starring Michael Dudikoff or Chuck Norris.

Ha! None of Chuck Norris or Michael Dudikoff's films from the 80s went straight-to-video! They all played in theatres (in the US anyway)! You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Yes, I'm kidding. Except for the stuff about all their 80s films all playing in theatres. That's true.

[Zorin Industries]

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

If you think giving a film a bigger budget equals more success at the box office then I really need to stop trying to point you towards the door marked "reality". It is painfully clear you haven't ever budgeted a film (on whatever scale). Not that that stops you from having an opinion, but please at least have an informed one.

ALL Bond films promise "the return of Bond". That has NOTHING to do with budgets.

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.

It would be wise for you to read before just commenting away. It's clear that you do not care beyond anything else than what you think.
I said film with bigger budgets can benifit if the people involved know what they are doing That's just common sense. If your a Bond fan then u'd know that earlier Bond films benifited the most from having big budgets. It's not my fault if you can't understand simple things. But it's ok. If your such an expert on how big budgets are not needed on movies maybe you can lecture Hollywood to make a few summer/event movies for much less. Realistically event movies cost money to make and market and that's why they need big studios. Duh!
Finally you don't seem understand that LTK did Bomb in US and created negativity around the franchise and wasn't helped by legal issues, which of course was corrected with GE. Since you don't bother reading anything that's printed by movie mags (stated by you) I guess you can go back to living in your bubble.
Am done answering , what I want to say is written which is somewhat similar in certain areas to what other forum members think.
Tata Zorin get well soon(falling from Golden Gate bridge can't be that easy)!


These factors are signed off BEFORE the film finishes shooting.

It is really lazy to defend points that have been blown away with yet more hyperbole.

You haven't even addressed why GOLDENEYE was greenlit off the back off LICENCE TO KILL which would not have happened had it been the flop you want it to be. The next Bond film post 1989 was to star Dalton (not the new Brosnan). He only officially bailed in the Spring of 1994 which was - I would imagine (given that GOLDENEYE was announced publically in June 1994) - around the time the finances were put in place. So your suggestions and deeply held beliefs about Brosnan being the reason GOLDENEYE got a bigger budget (six years of inflation helps too) is somewhat dubious.

"Bigger budgets work if the people involved know what they are doing"....?? What sort of generalisation is that? I think Eon Productions have a better financial accountability than some governmental ministers (and I say that from personal insight, not gleaned from some movie rag somewhere).

There is no point comparing the budgets of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THUNDERBALL with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT eras of film and Bond film making with different costs, allowances, fees, above the line, below the line costs. It is like trying to make a point by comparing how much the first Beatles album cost to produce compared to Paul McCartney's Fireman album.

I do read movie mags. I also write for some. And I have budgeted a few films and worked for people who have budgeted others. And I am talking about low-cost shorts and features to the million-plus features and television series.

And I don't live in a bubble. I just like to burst other people's when they are taking what they are told and read in WHSmiths to be the last word rather than what they have experienced or learnt for themselves.

I'm not trying to be rude or abrasive. I just don't like to see history rewritten in order to suit one person's theory and thoughts on a film.

[Dekard77]

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

If you think giving a film a bigger budget equals more success at the box office then I really need to stop trying to point you towards the door marked "reality". It is painfully clear you haven't ever budgeted a film (on whatever scale). Not that that stops you from having an opinion, but please at least have an informed one.

ALL Bond films promise "the return of Bond". That has NOTHING to do with budgets.

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.

It would be wise for you to read before just commenting away. It's clear that you do not care beyond anything else than what you think.
I said film with bigger budgets can benifit if the people involved know what they are doing That's just common sense. If your a Bond fan then u'd know that earlier Bond films benifited the most from having big budgets. It's not my fault if you can't understand simple things. But it's ok. If your such an expert on how big budgets are not needed on movies maybe you can lecture Hollywood to make a few summer/event movies for much less. Realistically event movies cost money to make and market and that's why they need big studios. Duh!
Finally you don't seem understand that LTK did Bomb in US and created negativity around the franchise and wasn't helped by legal issues, which of course was corrected with GE. Since you don't bother reading anything that's printed by movie mags (stated by you) I guess you can go back to living in your bubble.
Am done answering , what I want to say is written which is somewhat similar in certain areas to what other forum members think.
Tata Zorin get well soon(falling from Golden Gate bridge can't be that easy)!


These factors are signed off BEFORE the film finishes shooting.

It is really lazy to defend points that have been blown away with yet more hyperbole.

You haven't even addressed why GOLDENEYE was greenlit off the back off LICENCE TO KILL which would not have happened had it been the flop you want it to be. The next Bond film post 1989 was to star Dalton (not the new Brosnan). He only officially bailed in the Spring of 1994 which was - I would imagine (given that GOLDENEYE was announced publically in June 1994) - around the time the finances were put in place. So your suggestions and deeply held beliefs about Brosnan being the reason GOLDENEYE got a bigger budget (six years of inflation helps too) is somewhat dubious.

"Bigger budgets work if the people involved know what they are doing"....?? What sort of generalisation is that? I think Eon Productions have a better financial accountability than some governmental ministers (and I say that from personal insight, not gleaned from some movie rag somewhere).
So my statement is correct then. When there are competent people around they will manage well. If a movie like Stealth had $150'000'000 budget still it wouldn't make much of difference but give the same budget to Eon or Jerry Bruckhiemer and they will make a hit movie. Isn't it rather simple for you to understand without just attacking me?

There is no point comparing the budgets of FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and THUNDERBALL with THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL. They are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT eras of film and Bond film making with different costs, allowances, fees, above the line, below the line costs. It is like trying to make a point by comparing how much the first Beatles album cost to produce compared to Paul McCartney's Fireman album.

I do read movie mags. I also write for some. And I have budgeted a few films and worked for people who have budgeted others. And I am talking about low-cost shorts and features to the million-plus features and television series.

And I don't live in a bubble. I just like to burst other people's when they are taking what they are told and read in WHSmiths to be the last word rather than what they have experienced or learnt for themselves.

I'm not trying to be rude or abrasive. I just don't like to see history rewritten in order to suit one person's theory and thoughts on a film.

So now you read mags written by lazy journalists (which what you said)? Oh wait you are one of those lazy journalists then? LOL!
Anyways if you do read then most of the press will highlight that Dalton is unpopular choice with general public and he declined the role only to save himself from being fired. I admire the Broccoli's for standing by their leading man.
Ofcourse GE was somewhat a reboot of the franchise, plauged by legal issues and terrible perforamance in US. They all look at catering to US markets before the rest. I can't rewrite history just stating the obvious and yes you can be quite rude. I noted the fact bigger budgets helped the Bond films and it's true. Any Bond documentarty will state that. Never said that LTK budget was low just said it didn't have the Bond feel which could have been the reason it never managed to become a box office hit in USA. If things were that simple and Eon was so confident then they surely would have greenlit another Bond film atleast two years after LTK. No they waited till they got their new team under new direction with a new actor.

following article taken from Mi6.co.uk

http://www.mi6.co.uk...r...3?t=ge&s=ge


Production Notes - GoldenEye
In the fallout from the disappointing box office returns for Licence to Kill [1989] there was much boardroom politicing and financial manouvering that virtually ensured that James Bond would be absent from our screen for six years.

Albert R. Broccoli, disheartened at the way that the Bond franchise was going, had put Danjaq, the Swiss based parent company of the Bond production office, Eon, up for sale at the turn of the 90s. Eon itself was passed on to Michael G. Wilson, Broccoli's stepson who had been guiding the series as executive producer since Moonraker [1979], and Broccoli's daughter Barbara who had been playing an increasingly important role in the last couple of films.

On August 12 1990, The Sunday Times reported that Broccoli had parted company with Richard Maibaum and John Glen, long serving writer and director respectively - Maibaum, who had been at least partly responsible for 13 out of the 16 'official' Bond films so far, died a year later. Broccoli now set to work seeking out fresh blood to try to revitalise what was clearly an ailing franchise. Among those he considered were John Landis, American TV writer Alfonse M. Ruggiero Jr [though his track record on Miami Vice and Airwolf hardly boded well], Rambo director Ted Kotcheff, writer / director John Byrum and, most worrying of all, husband-and-wife writing team Gloria and Willard Huyck, the people responsible for Howard the Duck [1986].

MGM/UA were getting a little desperate at this point. Bond had been one of the mainstays of their success and the early 90s were difficult times - they had only Rocky V ready for release and that was far from assured of success. They needed Bond, though even they were forced to admit that "the series is looking a little tired."

Then things started to get even muddier. In 1989, the MGM/UA chairman had sold the company to the Australian based broadcasting group Quintex and they in turn were negiotiating to merge the company with Pathe Communications. Just days before the propsed merger date on 23 October 1990, Danjaq, still in the control of Broccoli and his wife Dana, issued a writ against MGM/UA and its new chairman, Italian businessman Giancarlo Peretti, trying to stop the company from licensing the Bond back catalogue to Pathe Communications for TV distribution deals that were alledgedly unfavourable to Danjaq.

Danjaq was arguing that Pathe had entered into agreements with Japanese, Spanish, French, Italian and South Korean broadcasters to show the Bond films on TV but had failed to consult with Danjaq first. Danjaq's attorney told Variety that the deals were "improvident in a number of respects. Their most obnoxious aspect is the length of the terms at ridiculously low rates." Danjaq alledged that Pathe was going to sell the TV distribution rights in order to generate the funds it needed for the propsed buy-out of MGM/UA and Danjaq were rightly worried that they would be unable to generate income from their films through TV sales for the rest of the century.

In 1992, with the matter still unresolved and with Broccoli's health failing, a new problem presented itself - Frank Mancuso had been installed as the chairman of the newly formed MGM/UA Pathe and he in turn appointed John Calley as the president of United Artists. Calley had been at Warner Brothers during the production of Kevin McClory's rogue Bond picture Never Say Never Again [1983] and on his appointmen was keen to see the'official' Bond franchise up and running again. But he wanted a new Bond and presented Broccoli with a list of names, among them Hugh Grant [then still largely unknown], Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan, all of whom he felt would be worthy of consideration. But Broccoli was adamant that Dalton should fulfill his three picture contract and remain on as Bond.

In 1993, Broccoli had a victory at last. Giancarlo Peretti was removed as head of MGM/UA and the incoming regime seemed more willing to deal with Danjaq on Broccoli's terms. On 6 August 1993, Timothy Dalton was interviewed by The Daily Mail and gave the first indication of what was to come. He claimed that Michael France, who had penned the Sylvester Stallone thriller Cliffhanger was on board and working on a screenplay for the forthcoming Bond film. Dalton hinted that production was set to begin in January or February of 1994.

Satisfied that the franchise and its history was once again safely in Danjaq's hands, Broccoli took a back seat and allowed Wilson and Barbara Broccoli to get on with the day to day running of Eon Productions. Broccoli's health was deteriorating, the producer plagued by a serious heart condition that was putting great strains on him.

The January or February 1994 production start that Dalton had suggested came and went and there was still not even an official announcement from Eon as to where the series was heading. As time wore on, it became inevitable that patience would be worn thin and on 12 April 1994, a bombshell was dropped - Timothy Dalton was refusing to come back to the fold. He'd signed up for three film, but it was now five years since his last outing as Bond and he felt the time had come to move on.

Eon opted not to stand in his way and set about searching for his replacement. Although ten actors were screen tested there was really little doubt who was going to get the role. During the filming of For Your Eyes Only [1981], Broccoli had lunched with one of the film's co-stars, Cassandra Harris who had introduced the producer to her fiance, a handsome young Irish actor by the name of Pierce Brosnan. Broccoli had been impressed by Brosnan and, when Roger Moore hung up his tuxedo after A View To a Kill [1985], had sought him out with a view to casting him as Bond.

But Brosnan had been enjoying some success on American TV in the comedy-drama Remington Steele. At first it looked as though the show was being cancelled by its network, NBC and that Brosnan would be free to accept Broccoli's offer to join the Eon team. But as the world's press leaked more information about the new Bond, NBC changed its mind and asked producers Mary Tyler Moore Television for another series of Remington Steele and Brosnan, still under contract, had no choice but to turn down the chance to play 007.

But this time, things were different. Remington Steele had finished its run at the end of 1986 and Brosnan appeared in a string of largely undistinguished features and TV films for a few years. His career went on hold for a while as he nursed Harris through the final stages of the cancer that was to claim her life in 1991. Brosnan was devestated and it took him some time to turn his mind back to his work. More undistinguished films followed, including Mister Johnson [1991] and The Lawnmower Man [1992], his only major credit during these difficult years being a small part in the hit Robin Williams comedy Mrs Doubtfire [1993]. By 1994, the time was right for the talented Irishman's elevation to a loftier stature and Wilson and Broccoli were quick to snap him up.

Brosnan has frequently recalled how, as a boy just over from Ireland, he had been to the cinema to see his first film - Goldfinger [1964]. While shooting Goldeneye, Brosnan was to keep a copy of Fleming's Goldfinger novel at hand, "just for the significance of it."

Timothy Dalton's assertion that Michael France was writing the new film proved correct. Working closely with the Broccolis and Wilson, France had created a first draft screenplay named after Ian Fleming's house in Jamaica, GoldenEye. The first draft had been written with Dalton in mind and, when Brosnan came on board, it was rewritten by British writer Jeffrey Caine who retained a lot of France's original ideas [involving Bond's relationship with the traitorous 006, Alex Trevelyan] but added new angles to the piece - it was Caine who added the nine-years-previously prologue that opens the finished film. A third writer, Kevin Wade, was brought in to polish the script, followed by final tinkering by Bruce Feirstein, a friend of Barbara Broccoli and her husband Fred Zollo. This complex arrangement was acknowledged on-screen with Caine and Feirstein sharing a screenplay credit while France was credited with creating the story. There was no on-screen credit for Wade.

I hope it's clear. Also I remeber reading in yet another magazine that Michael France was asked to write Bond and was rather excited considering Cliffhanger was fun movie to watch and re-launced Stallone as leading action man again.

I am a fan of Bond, TD and LTK. I was just trying to tell you a few things I knew at that time(from tv,news papers and mags). I was very interested to see Dalton return but when years went by I had to accept that apart from the legal issues they wanted him out due bankability in US box office. No one will be able to contest that given his two films (individually) never made beyond $50 million in USA alone. It was the benchmark at that time . Others have stated much more harsh facts. It may not be right to always look at in from US point of view but the truth is they call the shots when movies are being made and distributed. If they didn't like something am sure they will have their way.

[Dekard77]

GE was green-light cos the studio wanted to make money from Bond (nothing to do with Dalton). All they had to do was change the team and get a new star. No point burying Bond just because last two movies didn't make a good return. They can always try again.
Indiana Jones,Star Trek, Rambo, Die Hard and hopefully Beverly Hills Cop, all make a return/re-imaged to make money.

[Zorin Industries]

You still are missing the point that LICENCE TO KILL was not a "bomb" as the studios still greenlit GOLDENEYE off the back of it (and indeed THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS). Thank you for the MI6 website cut and paste job which literally underline that your "budgets" theory had nothing to do with the issue.

Let's just agree to disagree. I feel I am coming at the discussion with a little wider perspective, certain personal insight (which sheds a slightly different light here and there on some of the points you have highlighted in blue - particularly the Eon / Dalton dynamic) and using my worklife experience to blow some of your wider, less enforced viewpoints out of the water.

Is it possible to ask why all the salient points I have raised that question the validity of some of your points are met with universal "LOL!!!"s and really dubious statements such as "Dalton is unpopular choice with general public". There is no such thing as the general public and Dalton was far from "unpopular" with the world's various audiences. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a big success in all sorts of ways - and didn't have a massive budget.

[Dekard77]

You still are missing the point that LICENCE TO KILL was not a "bomb" as the studios still greenlit GOLDENEYE off the back of it (and indeed THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS). Thank you for the MI6 website cut and paste job which literally underline that your "budgets" theory had nothing to do with the issue.

Let's just agree to disagree. I feel I am coming at the discussion with a little wider perspective, certain personal insight (which sheds a slightly different light here and there on some of the points you have highlighted in blue - particularly the Eon / Dalton dynamic) and using my personal experience to blow some of your wider, less enforced viewpoints out of the water.

Is it possible to ask why all the salient points I have raised that question the validity of some of your points are met with universal "LOL!!!"s and really dubious statements such as "Dalton is unpopular choice with general public". There is no such thing as the general public and Dalton was far from "unpopular" with the world's various audiences. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a big success in all sorts of ways - and didn't have a massive budget.

I LOL cos before you were going on about lazy journalists who write movie mags and later claim you've written to some .Thanks again for contradicting your own statements and changing the subject or refusing to understand . Well to some point they are the very people we depend on for info. I don't have to believe everything but some things are true.
My point is correct , they were asked to fire an actor who falied to perform in USA(you asked me why USA is so important only to later tell me that they are??) due to studio pressure. that's no secret and most can agree to it. Dalton being kept in the dark after screen writer was hired, isn't that pretty much what was happening to Brosnan before he was let go?? Common. There is nothing wide about your perspective quite the oppossite.
Budget discussion was extended by you not me when you chose not to understand what was being said. Initially I never said LTK budget was never enough, I even said it had the similar budget to Lethal Weapon 2. All I said is the mood at that time was Dalton was not liked, movie bombed in USA and the marketing leading up to the movie may have not been enough given the competition.It definitely lacked the Bond touch as well.
The delay in getting GE started was partly putting a new team with a new actor in mind not purely the legal issues. I always stood by the fact Eon wanted to stay with Dalton but US studio's though otherwise.
Worlds Various Audiences Don't matter if it doesn't suit the American Studio that wants to make money. Doesn't the article clearly state they wanted a new actor, disappointing Box office returns and new direction etc??? A bit slow eh.

[The Ghost Who Walks]

There is no such thing as the general public and Dalton was far from "unpopular" with the world's various audiences. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a big success in all sorts of ways - and didn't have a massive budget.

Hear, hear.

[Zorin Industries]

You still are missing the point that LICENCE TO KILL was not a "bomb" as the studios still greenlit GOLDENEYE off the back of it (and indeed THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS). Thank you for the MI6 website cut and paste job which literally underline that your "budgets" theory had nothing to do with the issue.

Let's just agree to disagree. I feel I am coming at the discussion with a little wider perspective, certain personal insight (which sheds a slightly different light here and there on some of the points you have highlighted in blue - particularly the Eon / Dalton dynamic) and using my personal experience to blow some of your wider, less enforced viewpoints out of the water.

Is it possible to ask why all the salient points I have raised that question the validity of some of your points are met with universal "LOL!!!"s and really dubious statements such as "Dalton is unpopular choice with general public". There is no such thing as the general public and Dalton was far from "unpopular" with the world's various audiences. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a big success in all sorts of ways - and didn't have a massive budget.

I LOL cos before you were going on about lazy journalists who write movie mags and later claim you've written to some.

Thanks again for contradicting your own statements and changing the subject or refusing to understand . Well to some point they are the very people we depend on for info. I don't have to believe everything but some things are true.
My point is correct , they were asked to fire an actor who falied to perform in USA

No. They weren't. But you stick with your thoughts.

(you asked me why USA is so important only to later tell me that they are??) due to studio pressure. that's no secret and most can agree to it. Dalton being kept in the dark after screen writer was hired, isn't that pretty much what was happening to Brosnan before he was let go?? Common.

No-one really knows whether or not Brosnan was kept in the dark as you say. There were other factors that led to his departure but they are beyond the debate here.


There is nothing wide about your perspective quite the oppossite.
Budget discussion was extended by you not me when you chose not to understand what was being said. Initially I never said LTK budget was never enough, I even said it had the similar budget to Lethal Weapon 2.

Why this LETHAL WEAPON II obsession?!

All I said is the mood at that time was Dalton was not liked,

Who said that? Can I ask whether you saw Dalton's two entries at the time at the cinema?

movie bombed in USA and the marketing leading up to the movie may have not been enough given the competition.It definitely lacked the Bond touch as well.

That is merely your opinion.

The delay in getting GE started was partly putting a new team with a new actor in mind not purely the legal issues.

It was mostly the legal issues as (until Brosnan was publically announced as the new Bond in June 94) Dalton was the current Bond.

I always stood by the fact Eon wanted to stay with Dalton but US studio's though otherwise.
Worlds Various Audiences Don't matter if it doesn't suit the American Studio that wants to make money. Doesn't the article clearly state they wanted a new actor, disappointing Box office returns and new direction etc??? A bit slow eh.

[Dekard77]

You still are missing the point that LICENCE TO KILL was not a "bomb" as the studios still greenlit GOLDENEYE off the back of it (and indeed THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS). Thank you for the MI6 website cut and paste job which literally underline that your "budgets" theory had nothing to do with the issue.

Let's just agree to disagree. I feel I am coming at the discussion with a little wider perspective, certain personal insight (which sheds a slightly different light here and there on some of the points you have highlighted in blue - particularly the Eon / Dalton dynamic) and using my personal experience to blow some of your wider, less enforced viewpoints out of the water.

Is it possible to ask why all the salient points I have raised that question the validity of some of your points are met with universal "LOL!!!"s and really dubious statements such as "Dalton is unpopular choice with general public". There is no such thing as the general public and Dalton was far from "unpopular" with the world's various audiences. THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a big success in all sorts of ways - and didn't have a massive budget.

I LOL cos before you were going on about lazy journalists who write movie mags and later claim you've written to some.

Thanks again for contradicting your own statements and changing the subject or refusing to understand . Well to some point they are the very people we depend on for info. I don't have to believe everything but some things are true.
My point is correct , they were asked to fire an actor who falied to perform in USA

No. They weren't. But you stick with your thoughts.

(you asked me why USA is so important only to later tell me that they are??) due to studio pressure. that's no secret and most can agree to it. Dalton being kept in the dark after screen writer was hired, isn't that pretty much what was happening to Brosnan before he was let go?? Common.

No-one really knows whether or not Brosnan was kept in the dark as you say. There were other factors that led to his departure but they are beyond the debate here.


There is nothing wide about your perspective quite the oppossite.
Budget discussion was extended by you not me when you chose not to understand what was being said. Initially I never said LTK budget was never enough, I even said it had the similar budget to Lethal Weapon 2.

Why this LETHAL WEAPON II obsession?!

All I said is the mood at that time was Dalton was not liked,

Who said that? Can I ask whether you saw Dalton's two entries at the time at the cinema?

movie bombed in USA and the marketing leading up to the movie may have not been enough given the competition.It definitely lacked the Bond touch as well.

That is merely your opinion.

The delay in getting GE started was partly putting a new team with a new actor in mind not purely the legal issues.

It was mostly the legal issues as (until Brosnan was publically announced as the new Bond in June 94) Dalton was the current Bond.

I always stood by the fact Eon wanted to stay with Dalton but US studio's though otherwise.
Worlds Various Audiences Don't matter if it doesn't suit the American Studio that wants to make money. Doesn't the article clearly state they wanted a new actor, disappointing Box office returns and new direction etc??? A bit slow eh.

Yes a Bond who was kept in the dark, if he was their Bond then he'd be involved in the movie. Which is again clearly stated. Not at all obsessed with Lethal Weapon 2 just telling you both competing movies had similar budgets maybe. Legal issues were clearly over by the time they began working on GE. I had to spell it out to again since you have missed reading that bit.
All things left aside it's nice to watch LTK, CR and QOS .
Do you think LTK had any faults? Any improvements? Just asking.

[dee-bee-five]

Alas, my dear Zorin, I fear you're ploughing a barren field here. It's quite clear others on this thread aren't going to let the facts get in the way of their rewriting history.

[Zorin Industries]

Did LICENCE TO KILL have any faults? Yes - the wrong people saw it (!). Seriously - that is for a longer review from Zorin Industries review factory but right now I think the film set itself a gamble by balancing the formula and the new. You claim KILL does not have that Bond feel. I personally feel that the Bond acoutrements (the fan's wishlist) is what hampers the film twenty years on. But at the time that was what the audiences wanted and expected. It's certainly a better Bond film than GOLDENEYE and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH which trip over themselves trying to be be Bond films.

You suggest too it had no budget or "gloss". I completely disagree. It achieves the rare feat of making Mexico look enticing. It also features a beautiful production design (based on existing architecture, i.e. the Bank, SANCHEZ's pad, the Institute) and a decision to throw a lot of money at the costumes. Carey Lowell's sequinned dress cost thousands of man hours, sequins and designer tears alone. That is not from a film I would say "lacks gloss".

LICENCE TO KILL is certainly one of my personal favourites (though for a variety of personal reasons connected to the film too). And it was the time when I was fortunate enough to see a Bond film almost two months before the world.

Be careful what you read and believe about Brosnan's departure period. Most actors are kept in the dark about returning projects. Other factors were at work too regarding Brosnan's departure. Some of which don't tend to get picked up on.

[Mike00spy]

It is amazing how people try to say LTK flopped b/c it was a "bad" movie. Since when does a movie's quality solely influence box office returns? Not all good movies make tons of money and not all bad movies bomb. It is a curious argument.

Then I really love those who are using numbers (box office) to prove a SUBJECTIVE POINT (that the film MUST be bad as a result).

I find it all rather amusing.

[dee-bee-five]

It is amazing how people try to say LTK flopped b/c it was a "bad" movie. Since when does a movie's quality solely influence box office returns? Not all good movies make tons of money and not all bad movies bomb. It is a curious argument.

Then I really love those who are using numbers (box office) to prove a SUBJECTIVE POINT (that the film MUST be bad as a result).

I find it all rather amusing.

It is amusing, but sometimes tiresome. You are absolutely right about appreciation of a film being subjective. I don't think anyone has to like a film because I do. The fact that I think LTK is better than TLD doesn't make me right or others wrong. But the twisting of facts to "prove" a point simply won't do. And as you rightly say in your first paragraph, the argument that because LTK had disappointing box office returns (though far from being a disaster) it means it was a bad film is spurious. If we're to believe that, where does that leave OHMSS, I wonder...?

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

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.

True, but I still feel LTK was subject to a lower spectrum budget for its type of movie (whether this affected the film or not or indeed was cured by filming in Mexico is a seperate issue IMO).
"The road to GoldenEye" in Goldeneye Magazine by John Cork states:
"By the summer of 1990, relations with MGM/UA had deteriorated to a point of high frustration for the officers of Danjaq.
Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli-who was becoming increasingly more involved in the day to day aspects of Danjaq- were finding a reluctance of cash-strapped MGM/UA to finance an expensive Bond adventure in the same hands off fashion as in the old days..."

The delay in getting GE started was partly putting a new team with a new actor in mind not purely the legal issues. I always stood by the fact Eon wanted to stay with Dalton but US studio's though otherwise.

You may be right but I always understood the frustrations with Danjaq (quoted above), the legal problems with MGM, Danjaq going on sale and the (later) occupation of Pinewood Studios caused the main delay in shooting GE.
Maibaum and Wilson had met in summer 1989 to work on Bond 17. Legal issues were cleared by 1993 and Michael France began to pen GE and his draft was completed in January 1994. In April 1994 Dalton was given the new script and was still Bond of record at that point.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

True, but I still feel LTK was subject to a lower spectrum budget for its type of movie

I'm not picking holes for the sake of it, but I personally don't count using real locations (the bank, the institute, SANCHEZ's pad, Hemingways house), a succulent costume design, uprooting the whole Bond circus to Churubusco Studios which barely started out with a phone line let alone workable studio space, five exploding tankers for real on the precarious roads of Mexico, aerial work involving stuntmen fishing another plane, underwater scenes involving crashing prison vans and a water-skiing 007, speed boats, a few Miss World's, Richard Gere's wife, Vegas legend Wayne Newton, casino scenes that visually on anything in GOLDENEYE and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH with their attention to detail and expense, a title tune originally designed by Eric Clapton and then performed by one of Motown's biggest names ever as being the result of a lower "spectrum budget".

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

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.

True, but I still feel LTK was subject to a lower spectrum budget for its type of movie

I'm not picking holes for the sake of it, but I personally don't count using real locations (the bank, the institute, SANCHEZ's pad, Hemingways house), a succulent costume design, five exploding tankers for real on the precarious roads of Mexico, aerial work involving stuntmen fishing another plane, underwater scenes involving crashing prison vans and a water-skiing 007, speed boats, a few Miss World's, Richard Gere's wife, Vegas legend Wayne Newton, casino scenes that visually on anything in GOLDENEYE and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH with their attention to detail and expense, a title tune originally designed by Eric Clapton and then performed by one of Motown's biggest names ever as being the result of a lower "spectrum budget".

OK, but that's not the point I'm getting at. If my post was unclear I apologise. If I understand you correctly you stated LTK had to look elsewhere to film because because of the economic climate in Britain. I think its at least tenable at that time the studio could have given a bit more money and that MAY have been a factor that caused the movie to relocate, not JUST the economic viability of the UK alone. I did not say (or necessarily do I believe) a lower spectrum budget had the RESULT of making LTK look cheap.

[Zorin Industries]

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.

True, but I still feel LTK was subject to a lower spectrum budget for its type of movie

I'm not picking holes for the sake of it, but I personally don't count using real locations (the bank, the institute, SANCHEZ's pad, Hemingways house), a succulent costume design, five exploding tankers for real on the precarious roads of Mexico, aerial work involving stuntmen fishing another plane, underwater scenes involving crashing prison vans and a water-skiing 007, speed boats, a few Miss World's, Richard Gere's wife, Vegas legend Wayne Newton, casino scenes that visually on anything in GOLDENEYE and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH with their attention to detail and expense, a title tune originally designed by Eric Clapton and then performed by one of Motown's biggest names ever as being the result of a lower "spectrum budget".

OK, but that's not the point I'm getting at. If my post was unclear I apologise. If I understand you correctly you stated LTK had to look elsewhere to film because because of the economic climate in Britain. I think its at least tenable at that time the studio could have given a bit more money and that MAY have been a factor that caused the movie to relocate, not JUST the economic viability of the UK alone. I did not say (or necessarily do I believe) a lower spectrum budget had the RESULT of making LTK look cheap.

I don't think the studios money-men are into giving more funds. It would be up to Eon to make their money stretch - which they always do quite successfully I think. The tax situation was not great at the time in Britain, so they looked elsewhere. I would imagine most money-men's reaction would primarily be "Pinewood is not the only studio in the world".

[Zorin Industries]

Thank you Gravity. A bit of reality and perspective at long last.

You are very right about John Cork et al and "pinches of salt".

I also think that the TRUE LIES story is absolute hokum. They may have shared some similiarities (both films do feature similiar MIG type fighter planes as their sort of McGuffin), but TRUE LIES was no doubt in production from 1992 onwards (at least - if Cameron's usual timeframe for a movie had anything to go by) and shared a certain production designer by the name of Peter Lamont. I really don't buy that the Summer 94 release of TRUE LIES was the first time Bond management got wind of Cameron's Bond rip off.

And that car-plucking scene from TRUE LIES with Ms Lee Curtis....? LICENCE TO KILL made a feature of that bridge first (so there!).

The "Bond of record" was not everyone's Bond of record.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

but what we can definitely take away from this is that the original plan was to release GOLDENEYE in the summer of 1995, not the holiday season.

Definately, and I agree with your post.
Can I say you have misquoted me though, as the middle quote is not mine.

[Zorin Industries]

but what we can definitely take away from this is that the original plan was to release GOLDENEYE in the summer of 1995, not the holiday season.

Definately, and I agree with your post.
Can I say you have misquoted me though, as the middle quote is not mine.

But surely GOLDENEYE would have stumbled at the summer box office had it been released against the biggest budgeted film of all time, WATERWORLD? (if you take some people's criteria for what guarantees box office sheckles for a Bond film).

?!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

but what we can definitely take away from this is that the original plan was to release GOLDENEYE in the summer of 1995, not the holiday season.

Definately, and I agree with your post.
Can I say you have misquoted me though, as the middle quote is not mine.

But surely GOLDENEYE would have stumbled at the summer box office had it been released against the biggest budgeted film of all time, WATERWORLD? (if you take some people's criteria for what guarantees box office sheckles for a Bond film).

?!

Absolutely!

[Safari Suit]

Waterworld wasn't actually a flop either you know.

[Zorin Industries]

Waterworld wasn't actually a flop either you know.

Course it wasn't. I went and saw it. And quite liked it too. Though it did seem to keep wanting to wear its budget on its sleeve.

Actually it is a good example of a film that didn't quite match its budget at the Western box office but - I think - caught up via all the other outlets (a bit like LICENCE TO KILL which was NEVER a flop on release or even when ALL the pennies from all the different sources were counted up!!).