519 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

At least in the US, bad word of mouth did not kill LTK because it was dead when it first opened.

That is true. In fact it made less than a quarter of it's money on opening weekend, which at least suggests word of mouth wasn't toxic.

I just know the man is more devoted to Fleming than any other user on this board.

Does the name MHazzard mean anything to you

[Turn]

I agree that the marketing was poor. I saw several other movies in the theater in 89, and never once saw the trailer for LTK. I only saw 1 TV commercial for the movie, and that was during an ABC viewing of TMWTGG. The marketing for the 4 week old Batman was still bigger than LTK when it was released.

I mentioned to my boss about going to see the new Bond movie and his response was "There is a new Bond movie?"

I maintain one of the biggest reasons for LTK's shortcomings in the U.S. is it was basically treated as if they were going to sell it that Bond is back on reputation alone. They figured Bondmania was still alive the way it had been circa 1965 and it could sell itself rather than anticipating the audience's preference for this new wave of action and heroes.

You had the decade's biggest hero, Indy, in his highly anticipated third film with the original Bond, no less. You had a familiar old hero, Batman, in the most anticipated movie in years. And you had one of the hottest actors in the world at the time, Mel Gibson, in a sequel to a hit by the biggest action producer, Joel Silver, who also produced Die Hard, the film a lot of people point to as changing the action genre.

That was a challenge and they didn't rise to it at all. They didn't try to sell the still basically unknown Dalton to audiences or show why this series should be as good as the other films that year. It was just "Here's a new Bond film, go see it. We're established."

I don't remember a whole lot of publicity. It was covered in the film magazines and such along with the others. It wasn't shunned or anything like that. You had a Bond movie every Sunday night on ABC and MTV did do a special at the time. Strangely, there was some kind of contest that ran in the Sunday comics section as well.

But there just wasn't that much else to work with with LTK. Even with AVTAK they had one of the hottest bands on the planet associated with it along with a crazy new wave singer in it. Then you had a-ha on TLD along with the hype of the 25th anniversary and a new Bond to sell it. There was nothing there to draw people to it other than reputation, which was waning by that point.

LTK went with an old-school singer and the cast had no names at all involved to draw in that different type of attention. Even if you threw Davi in from being in The Goonies, that audience wouldn't have likely been able to see LTK. People take shots at Madonna's cameo and song in DAD, but it drew attention at least.

It seems they really learned from these mistakes when GE came around. The marketing campaign was pretty much perfect for that. Brosnan staring into the camera saying "You were expecting someone else?" could have easily interested somebody who'd never heard of Bond.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

I agree that the marketing was poor. I saw several other movies in the theater in 89, and never once saw the trailer for LTK. I only saw 1 TV commercial for the movie, and that was during an ABC viewing of TMWTGG. The marketing for the 4 week old Batman was still bigger than LTK when it was released.

I mentioned to my boss about going to see the new Bond movie and his response was "There is a new Bond movie?"

I maintain one of the biggest reasons for LTK's shortcomings in the U.S. is it was basically treated as if they were going to sell it that Bond is back on reputation alone. They figured Bondmania was still alive the way it had been circa 1965 and it could sell itself rather than anticipating the audience's preference for this new wave of action and heroes.

You had the decade's biggest hero, Indy, in his highly anticipated third film with the original Bond, no less. You had a familiar old hero, Batman, in the most anticipated movie in years. And you had one of the hottest actors in the world at the time, Mel Gibson, in a sequel to a hit by the biggest action producer, Joel Silver, who also produced Die Hard, the film a lot of people point to as changing the action genre.

That was a challenge and they didn't rise to it at all. They didn't try to sell the still basically unknown Dalton to audiences or show why this series should be as good as the other films that year. It was just "Here's a new Bond film, go see it. We're established."

I don't remember a whole lot of publicity. It was covered in the film magazines and such along with the others. It wasn't shunned or anything like that. You had a Bond movie every Sunday night on ABC and MTV did do a special at the time. Strangely, there was some kind of contest that ran in the Sunday comics section as well.

But there just wasn't that much else to work with with LTK. Even with AVTAK they had one of the hottest bands on the planet associated with it along with a crazy new wave singer in it. Then you had a-ha on TLD along with the hype of the 25th anniversary and a new Bond to sell it. There was nothing there to draw people to it other than reputation, which was waning by that point.

LTK went with an old-school singer and the cast had no names at all involved to draw in that different type of attention. Even if you threw Davi in from being in The Goonies, that audience wouldn't have likely been able to see LTK. People take shots at Madonna's cameo and song in DAD, but it drew attention at least.

It seems they really learned from these mistakes when GE came around. The marketing campaign was pretty much perfect for that. Brosnan staring into the camera saying "You were expecting someone else?" could have easily interested somebody who'd never heard of Bond.

I've always maintained that the whole "LTK did poorly because of bad marketing" is a bunk argument because usually people who bring this argument up are whiners who complain about the posters for LTK. As I said in a post above, I think is argument is bull, easily verified by looking at ALL the posters for LTK and especially its trailers, which are quite good. LTK's posters stand up reasonably well to Lethal Weapon II's.

Your argument is different, Turn, and gives me pause. You (and some earlier posters too) are arguing not that the campaign was bad, per se, but that it is so starved of money that it practically didn't exist, and for this reason, LTK was lost in the summer shuffle in 1989.

I could buy that argument, if anyoone could provide hard, sourced numbers that would show that the marketing budget on LTK was significantly less then the marketing budget for TLD. It is my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that the film budget listed on sources like IMDB does not include the marketing costs, which is why films nowadays "have to earn back twice their budget to be profitable". The budgets for TLD and LTK were about the same (I see slightly varying numbers) and inflation was low in the late 80s, so if the problem with LTK's acceptance was a marketing problem, that should show up in the marketing budget. Any industry insiders on this site have insights on this?

[Double-Oh Agent]

I agree that the marketing was poor. I saw several other movies in the theater in 89, and never once saw the trailer for LTK. I only saw 1 TV commercial for the movie, and that was during an ABC viewing of TMWTGG. The marketing for the 4 week old Batman was still bigger than LTK when it was released.

I mentioned to my boss about going to see the new Bond movie and his response was "There is a new Bond movie?"

I maintain one of the biggest reasons for LTK's shortcomings in the U.S. is it was basically treated as if they were going to sell it that Bond is back on reputation alone. They figured Bondmania was still alive the way it had been circa 1965 and it could sell itself rather than anticipating the audience's preference for this new wave of action and heroes.

You had the decade's biggest hero, Indy, in his highly anticipated third film with the original Bond, no less. You had a familiar old hero, Batman, in the most anticipated movie in years. And you had one of the hottest actors in the world at the time, Mel Gibson, in a sequel to a hit by the biggest action producer, Joel Silver, who also produced Die Hard, the film a lot of people point to as changing the action genre.

That was a challenge and they didn't rise to it at all. They didn't try to sell the still basically unknown Dalton to audiences or show why this series should be as good as the other films that year. It was just "Here's a new Bond film, go see it. We're established."

I don't remember a whole lot of publicity. It was covered in the film magazines and such along with the others. It wasn't shunned or anything like that. You had a Bond movie every Sunday night on ABC and MTV did do a special at the time. Strangely, there was some kind of contest that ran in the Sunday comics section as well.

But there just wasn't that much else to work with with LTK. Even with AVTAK they had one of the hottest bands on the planet associated with it along with a crazy new wave singer in it. Then you had a-ha on TLD along with the hype of the 25th anniversary and a new Bond to sell it. There was nothing there to draw people to it other than reputation, which was waning by that point.

LTK went with an old-school singer and the cast had no names at all involved to draw in that different type of attention. Even if you threw Davi in from being in The Goonies, that audience wouldn't have likely been able to see LTK. People take shots at Madonna's cameo and song in DAD, but it drew attention at least.

It seems they really learned from these mistakes when GE came around. The marketing campaign was pretty much perfect for that. Brosnan staring into the camera saying "You were expecting someone else?" could have easily interested somebody who'd never heard of Bond.

I completely agree. While the trailer for Licence To Kill was very good, who actually saw it? The only place I saw the trailer was before the Robin Williams drama Dead Poets Society--hardly a comparable film/audience to LTK.

The U.S. movie poster was terrible. It was easily the worst Bond poster to that time, only matched/bettered/worsened (however you want to look at it) by the U.S. Die Another Day poster. No creativity whatsoever. Shoot, half the poster is a blank white page! What the hell?!

Some have said that the U.S. LTK poster wasn't much/any different than Lethal Weapon 2 and that may be true. However, I counter in saying that LTK's did not look like the traditional Bond poster (see above). Also, if you didn't catch the 007 logo, there's nothing other than the relatively new Timothy Dalton, who's dressed rather plainly for James Bond, to give away the fact that it's a 007 film.

There were other reasons involved with LTK's lackluster box office such as the abundance of quality competition (i.e. Lethal Weapon 2, The Last Crusade, and Batman--the latter having 100 times the marketing of LTK) and others that have been mentioned here, but LTK's marketing, or lack thereof, is my chief factor.

Oh, and for the record, I love LTK--it's my favorite Bond film while Quantum Of Solace is far from it. For me, regardless of its financial numbers or popular opinion, LTK did serious Bond right while QOS has some major issues. That certainly places me in the minority and further goes to show that beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

[Mike00spy]

It was definitely the worst showing for Bond in the 80's, even when taking into consideration the downward trend the films had been making in the 80's

I think this fact is kinda swept under the rug as a throwaway statistic.

FYEO had a 10% drop from Moonraker
OP had a 4% drop from FYEO
NSNA had a 19% drop from OP.
AVTAK had a 19% drop from NSNA.
(Discounting NSNA, AVTAK had a 34% drop from OP)
TLD had a 7% drop from AVTAK
and finally LTK dropped 33% from TLD.

Once you accept that no matter what the quality of the 80s Bonds were, and keep in mind "quality" is all purely SUBJECTIVE, Licence to Kill was almost certainly guaranteed to have a drop compared to the previous film. It just had finally gotten to a low enough dollar figure that people noticed.

Now, keeping in mind the LTK was surely going to get a drop compared to Daylights, is it that hard to accept that these factors (the marketing, the competition) each slowly took its toll on the film?

Instead of always considering financials, sometimes it helps to just judge the performance of a Bond movie by the company it keeps

I need to point out the obvious that up till Kill's release, there had already been
5 Bond films in that decade. All of the other summer films in '89 didn't have that going against them. There was no Indy 16, or Batman 16, or Lethal Weapon 16. Sometimes the public just wants something different.

Edited by Mike00spy, 05 July 2009 - 04:28 AM.

[tdalton]

It was definitely the worst showing for Bond in the 80's, even when taking into consideration the downward trend the films had been making in the 80's

I think this fact is kinda swept under the rug as a throwaway statistic.

FYEO had a 10% drop from Moonraker
OP had a 4% drop from FYEO
NSNA had a 19% drop from OP.
AVTAK had a 19% drop from NSNA.
(Discounting NSNA, AVTAK had a 34% drop from OP)
TLD had a 7% drop from AVTAK
and finally LTK dropped 33% from TLD.

Once you accept that no matter what the quality of the 80s Bonds were, and keep in mind "quality" is all purely SUBJECTIVE, Licence to Kill was almost certainly guaranteed to have a drop compared to the previous film. It just had finally gotten to a low enough dollar figure that people noticed.

Now, keeping in mind the LTK was surely going to get a drop compared to Daylights, is it that hard to accept that these factors (the marketing, the competition) each slowly took its toll on the film?

Instead of always considering financials, sometimes it helps to just judge the performance of a Bond movie by the company it keeps

I need to point out the obvious that up till Kill's release, there had already been
5 Bond films in that decade. All of the other summer films in '89 didn't have that going against them. There was no Indy 16, or Batman 16, or Lethal Weapon 16. Sometimes the public just wants something different.

I think that these are all valid points, especially your point about their being 5 Bond films released during the 1980s. That's quite a few films to be released in a decade, especially since, at that point in the franchise, the concept was no longer new and original like it was in the 1960s when there was a Bond film virtually every year. I think that part of what has made the recent films (GOLDENEYE through the present) has been that there have been breaks in between the films. There was the six year break between LTK and GE, which went a long way towards ensuring that that film was a success. Then they made two more that decade, for a total of 3 during the 1990s, and we've only had three films during the 2000s as well, which I think is a very healthy number of Bond films to have in a decade. By the time that LTK arrived in theaters, it was, as you said, the fifth film of the decade, and also coming at a time when each successive Bond film saw a lower return than the one that preceeded it.

[Turn]

I completely agree. While the trailer for Licence To Kill was very good, who actually saw it? The only place I saw the trailer was before the Robin Williams drama Dead Poets Society--hardly a comparable film/audience to LTK.

I think the pattern at the time was to match a film with whichever distributor it had, not necessarily genre of the film. I could be wrong as I don't think Dead Poets Society was MGM/UA.

I did see the LTK teaser with Rain Man, which was a good move as it made tons of money and won the Oscar. But just before it came out, the only think I saw it with was before Road House, an MGM/UA film (yes, I actually paid to see that in a cinema).

[Zorin Industries]

But was the budget even the reason for the bad casting? Would $5 million more have induced the producers to get somebody to play Sharkey who could deliver a line (his terrible delivery ruins an otherwise great line that SHOULD have gotten a big laugh from me, "What a terrible waste . . . of money.")?

His delivery hardly sounds terrible to me. Dry, but let's not confuse that wooden, and he gets in a good pause before the "of money."

The two real problems with the film are the script which has Bond basically telling everybody, "Go home" constantly, and the fact that the film doesn't feel like a Bond film.

The same complaint has been made about QoS. What does feeling like a Bond film consist of, adopting a 40 year old set of cliches? The films that feel most like Bond films are usually pastiches of earlier Bond films. And the script is good precisely because it's about a man who think he doesn't need help and comes to accept that he really does, as in Rio Bravo.

It's shot with no sense of style or class. QOS used third world settings like Haiti and managed to make them look classy (while not ignoring the poverty of the setting). LTK made Key West look cheesy.

How? What I remember are vivid shots of the sky and sea, and a well-shot sequence at Hemingway's house that makes ample use of the location. Key West is not an exotic third-world location like Haiti--complaining that it's not presented as one isn't useful. And LTK hardly lacks for style or class--the casino sequences in Isthmus are up to earlier ones in the series, and Sanchez's residence is as luxurious as one can expect.

It took me years to love THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, but I had all the time in the world because I'm a die-hard fan. I think there were a lot of people who saw TLD and immediately didn't care for it and weren't inclined to see the next film. For MGM and EON, those people were lost and nothing the Dalton films could do would ever bring them back.

For once I can agree with you wholeheartedly. And it is this factor that more convincingly accounts for LTK's fortunes, rather than its purported quality.

In fact, at least with movies like Batman Begins and THE DARK KNIGHT, there is a moral dilemma/debate about revenge. Only lip service is paid to the idea that Bond's vendetta may cost other people more than just money or lives or prestige.

Hardly lip-service--scenes revolve exactly around the idea. We're shown in the most emphatic terms that Bond's egotistical attempt at single-handed revenge frustrates better-plotted attempts that would have done the job just as well within official channels: Bond pulling a gun on Pam after seeing her with Heller, followed by his chagrined silence at Pam showing him how he's fouled up, a silence that speaks volumes, along with Pam's soft admonition. And there's no obfuscation of the fact that both Kwang and his helper died, violently and before our eyes, because Bond insisted on killing Sanchez by himself. Kwang tells Bond how he's screwed up quite vigorously. It's only after Bond has accepted the necessity of both Q and Pam's help that he's finally able to succeed. He has to put aside his own egotistical desire to do the job single-handed. Batman Begins and THE DARK KNIGHT state similar themes, but in a more pretentious way and with more platitudes, good films though they are.

It's also a film with no real emotional center or core. LTK wasn't planned for as TLD was being filmed, so the idea of enlarging Leiter's role in TLD to make him more familiar to viewers in LTK was never considered. As a result, Leiter's relationship with Bond gives little impetus for the viewer to care about why Bond feels the need to go after Sanchez.

I think this is a canard. LTK wouldn't have been any better had Leiter been built up. Anyone familiar with the Bond films (presumably a not-disposable segment of the audience) already knows that Leiter has been a good friend of Bond's for a very long time, and that's enough motivation. And even those who don't see enough scenes of Bond and Felix together to know these men are friends--the wedding scene of Bond being presented with the Leiter is effective enough, and the scene of Sanchez's revenge is horrific enough to make us want revenge on his behalf. What happens to Leiter is a springboard for the bulk of the movie, not the thematic heart of the movie, which is the process of revenge and Bond learning how to go about achieving it in through both wrong (viewing it as a single-handed, private affair) and right ways. The emotional core of the movie is embodied in how his relations with Sanchez, Pam, Lupe and Q fluctuate and are resolved within the process of his revenge.

I always found the idea of Sanchez not knowing that Bond was part of the team that reeled him in ludicrous. How could Sanchez not have known; Bond was 10 feet behind him on the tail of the plane. Killifer most certainly would have brought up Bond's name.

It's hardly as if Sanchez had a perfect view of the exact rear of his plane. I'll have to rewatch the film to see about Killifer, but as far as plot holes go, it's hardly worse than Bond and Blofeld not recognizing each other in OHMSS.

Lowell's hairstyle early on in the film is clearly a wig and looks cheap to boot. That hairstyle was dated even by 1989 standards.

I think you're the first person I've heard to complain about her hair, though this fits in with your Eddie Munster comments about Dalton's do. Films do not rise and fall by the quality of their hairstyles, and I can hardly think of a less essential thing to build a negative critique on.

There is inconsistency in the Bouvier character; one minute she's a tough-as-nails broad who has been to every third-world hellhole and back, and the neck minute she's a jealous, catty girly-girl who can't stand the idea that James was with Lupe (and by "with" I mean they were having S-E-X).

This is only inconsistent for people under the impression that tough ladies are incapable of feeling jealousy. I found this one of the more charming aspects of Pam's character--she acts cool around Bond but deep down is riled up over the idea of him being less than cool with a woman she looks down.

One minute Bond is telling Pam "it's a tough business you picked Miss Bouvier; leave it to the professionals" and 30-seconds later he's asking her for her help. I don't think the audience bought that relationship.

I don't think many others have pinpointed this as a problem for the film, especially since there aren't any scenes of Bond telling Pam to piss off and then asking for her help 30 seconds later. It's a more drawn-put process of Bond realizing he can't make it alone.

...marketing can only take you so far...The marketing department are salespeople; not miracle workers. You can't give them and expect them to be able to make Shinola from it.

Nobody asks marketers to make a movie better--they ask them to make it sound better to the public. Marketing has nothing to do with film's quality--it's about building up anticipation for a film regardless of the film's quality, and plenty of lousy films have been well-marketed enough to score at the box office. Bringing in quality in a discussion about marketing is pretty much beside the point.

It is what it is, and a bad film was given to the marketing department to market and their campaign was as lifeless, impotent and uninspired as the movie was.

From the way you go on one I almost get the impression that film depressed the marketing team into promoting it badly. Plenty of bad Bond films have enjoyed good enough marketing (TND anyone?) as have plenty of lousy movies that did well at the box office even though they were stinkers--is anyone here wiling to stand up and say that either of the Transformers movies were good? The marketing team for LTK simply did a lousy job, just as the marketing team for TMWTGG did. Blaming the film's quality is utterly beside the point.

Very good points very well made. Thank you for seeing the wood for the trees and understanding of the how some wider issues matter and how smaller ones should not be made wider via chinese whispers and a twenty year gap since people saw the film which leaves it wide open for speculation and fictional rumour-mongering.

[Mr. Blofeld]

It was definitely the worst showing for Bond in the 80's, even when taking into consideration the downward trend the films had been making in the 80's

I think this fact is kinda swept under the rug as a throwaway statistic.

FYEO had a 10% drop from Moonraker
OP had a 4% drop from FYEO
NSNA had a 19% drop from OP.
AVTAK had a 19% drop from NSNA.
(Discounting NSNA, AVTAK had a 34% drop from OP)
TLD had a 7% drop from AVTAK
and finally LTK dropped 33% from TLD.

Once you accept that no matter what the quality of the 80s Bonds were, and keep in mind "quality" is all purely SUBJECTIVE, Licence to Kill was almost certainly guaranteed to have a drop compared to the previous film. It just had finally gotten to a low enough dollar figure that people noticed.

Now, keeping in mind the LTK was surely going to get a drop compared to Daylights, is it that hard to accept that these factors (the marketing, the competition) each slowly took its toll on the film?

Instead of always considering financials, sometimes it helps to just judge the performance of a Bond movie by the company it keeps

I need to point out the obvious that up till Kill's release, there had already been
5 Bond films in that decade. All of the other summer films in '89 didn't have that going against them. There was no Indy 16, or Batman 16, or Lethal Weapon 16. Sometimes the public just wants something different.

I think that these are all valid points, especially your point about their being 5 Bond films released during the 1980s. That's quite a few films to be released in a decade, especially since, at that point in the franchise, the concept was no longer new and original like it was in the 1960s when there was a Bond film virtually every year. I think that part of what has made the recent films (GOLDENEYE through the present) has been that there have been breaks in between the films. There was the six year break between LTK and GE, which went a long way towards ensuring that that film was a success. Then they made two more that decade, for a total of 3 during the 1990s, and we've only had three films during the 2000s as well, which I think is a very healthy number of Bond films to have in a decade. By the time that LTK arrived in theaters, it was, as you said, the fifth film of the decade, and also coming at a time when each successive Bond film saw a lower return than the one that preceeded it.

Actually, if you could Never Say Never Again, Dalton's second film was actually the sixth Bond film of the decade; a figure only matched by the '60s, which also had six, but with the last three spread over a longer period of time.

[Mike00spy]

Mr. Blofeld, we're saying the same thing but from different angles. LTK was the 6th Bond of the decade as you said. There had already been 5 Bonds (before LTK) in the 80's as I said.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Mr. Blofeld, we're saying the same thing but from different angles. LTK was the 6th Bond of the decade as you said. There had already been 5 Bonds (before LTK) in the 80's as I said.

Yes, so I'm assuming the public was experiencing franchise fatigue by this point. Sixth movie of the decade + ridiculously long-running series - profits made by other blockbusters of summer (Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, etc.) = "flop", I guess...

[Tybre]

Mr. Blofeld, we're saying the same thing but from different angles. LTK was the 6th Bond of the decade as you said. There had already been 5 Bonds (before LTK) in the 80's as I said.

Yes, so I'm assuming the public was experiencing franchise fatigue by this point. Sixth movie of the decade + ridiculously long-running series - profits made by other blockbusters of summer (Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, etc.) = "flop", I guess...

It would be interesting to fit six Bond films into a decade again, just to see what happens.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Mr. Blofeld, we're saying the same thing but from different angles. LTK was the 6th Bond of the decade as you said. There had already been 5 Bonds (before LTK) in the 80's as I said.

Yes, so I'm assuming the public was experiencing franchise fatigue by this point. Sixth movie of the decade + ridiculously long-running series - profits made by other blockbusters of summer (Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, etc.) = "flop", I guess...

It would be interesting to fit six Bond films into a decade again, just to see what happens.

I doubt either EON or the McClory estate would ever want to tempt fate again.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

There was a link provided to a YouTube video which showed an interview with Michael G. Wilson circa 1989, with him discussing the marketing budget of LTK. He said the marketing budget was $35 million, which was the same or slightly more than the actual cost of shooting the picture. I don't know if that 35 million was just for the North American markets, or for the entire world.

That was my upload and was (perhaps surprisingly) first Broadcast 5th September 1992. The programme was called 'a global culture' and its my GUESS that was a worldwide figure - as the programme was about worldwide marketing strategy.


I have been thinking a lot about my memories from when LTK was released in the UK.
I think in terms of UK marketing I definitely remember knowing that LTK was out there. I mean as a thirteen year old I knew there was a new Bond film out, (and furthermore it was one I could not go and see!)
I think it was controversial and surprising owing to its violence and shift in tone, but nonetheless regarded as good film, and never deemed any kind of failure. Dalton was still the new Bond - as far as I recall the UK public liked him. I also think when LTK was released no one would have guessed this was going to be Dalton's or the last Bond film for a while. People were expecting him to carry on in the role like Moore did. Dalton was still settling in and I think the UK public were interested enough to see what he was going to do in the future. All this is of course recollections of teenager obsessed with James Bond, and is not purporting to be a factual account.

Going over some old Bond fan club stuff I have from the early nineties, what comes across is that the series was really cut dead by the litigation.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 05 July 2009 - 11:21 PM.

[Turn]

One of the interesting things to look at is what happened to those other big action franchises that were competing with LTK in 1989. By the end of the following decade, Batman and Robin pretty much did in that series for a while and Lethal Weapon 4 wasn't a huge hit either. Indy 4 was stuck in development hell for 18 years.

Not unlike Bond, Batman was rebooted and is one of the biggest things around again. I hear rumors from time to time of another Lethal Weapon, but not much is said of it these days. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a blockbuster financially, but who knows if Indy will come around again in our lifetime.

[Mr. Blofeld]

Not unlike Bond, Batman was rebooted and is one of the biggest things around again. I hear rumors from time to time of another Lethal Weapon, but not much is said of it these days. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a blockbuster financially, but who knows if Indy will come around again in our lifetime.

So-o-o-o... give 'em a reboot and they'll sell like hotcakes, you say?

[jaguar007]

regarded as good film, and never deemed any kind of failure. Dalton was still the new Bond - as far as I recall the UK public liked him. I also think when LTK was released no one would have guessed this was going to be Dalton's or the last Bond film for a while. People were expecting him to carry on in the role like Moore did. Dalton was still settling in and I think the UK public were interested enough to see what he was going to do in the future. All this is of course recollections of teenager obsessed with James Bond, and is not purporting to be a factual account.

I think the big difference is the US v/s UK. What info I remember reading back in 89 (before this fandangled internets) was that Dalton and LTK were fairly well received in the UK. It was the US market where Dalton really failed to click with the public.

[Tybre]

regarded as good film, and never deemed any kind of failure. Dalton was still the new Bond - as far as I recall the UK public liked him. I also think when LTK was released no one would have guessed this was going to be Dalton's or the last Bond film for a while. People were expecting him to carry on in the role like Moore did. Dalton was still settling in and I think the UK public were interested enough to see what he was going to do in the future. All this is of course recollections of teenager obsessed with James Bond, and is not purporting to be a factual account.

I think the big difference is the US v/s UK. What info I remember reading back in 89 (before this fandangled internets) was that Dalton and LTK were fairly well received in the UK. It was the US market where Dalton really failed to click with the public.

There's a fellow on Youtube who says he reviews films, but his reviews are more like documentaries with his opinion occasionally thrown in. I started subscribing to him because I found his Bond stuff, and he finally uploaded his Dalton work today. He covers it quite well in the first two parts. Brosnan was the hot pick here in the US. Magazines were pumping for Brosnan. Brosnan was appearing in Bond-esque commercials. Remington Steele was cancelled in what looked to be nothing shy of the hand of God coming down and throwing Brosnan at the role. All sorts of hype and build up got the majority of the US behind the notion of Brosnan and when the time came for his announcement, people were both a bit pissed and confused to see someone else at the conference. I'll go back on Youtube and nip the video(s) in a little bit. I advise watching all of his past videos as well, even if some of it is pretty common knowledge to us die hard fans, it's still a fun watch.

[Mr. Blofeld]

regarded as good film, and never deemed any kind of failure. Dalton was still the new Bond - as far as I recall the UK public liked him. I also think when LTK was released no one would have guessed this was going to be Dalton's or the last Bond film for a while. People were expecting him to carry on in the role like Moore did. Dalton was still settling in and I think the UK public were interested enough to see what he was going to do in the future. All this is of course recollections of teenager obsessed with James Bond, and is not purporting to be a factual account.

I think the big difference is the US v/s UK. What info I remember reading back in 89 (before this fandangled internets) was that Dalton and LTK were fairly well received in the UK. It was the US market where Dalton really failed to click with the public.

There's a fellow on Youtube who says he reviews films, but his reviews are more like documentaries with his opinion occasionally thrown in. I started subscribing to him because I found his Bond stuff, and he finally uploaded his Dalton work today. He covers it quite well in the first two parts. Brosnan was the hot pick here in the US. Magazines were pumping for Brosnan. Brosnan was appearing in Bond-esque commercials. Remington Steele was cancelled in what looked to be nothing shy of the hand of God coming down and throwing Brosnan at the role. All sorts of hype and build up got the majority of the US behind the notion of Brosnan and when the time came for his announcement, people were both a bit pissed and confused to see someone else at the conference. I'll go back on Youtube and nip the video(s) in a little bit. I advise watching all of his past videos as well, even if some of it is pretty common knowledge to us die hard fans, it's still a fun watch.

What's the fellow's name? I'd like to have a look at those videos sometime.

[Tybre]

regarded as good film, and never deemed any kind of failure. Dalton was still the new Bond - as far as I recall the UK public liked him. I also think when LTK was released no one would have guessed this was going to be Dalton's or the last Bond film for a while. People were expecting him to carry on in the role like Moore did. Dalton was still settling in and I think the UK public were interested enough to see what he was going to do in the future. All this is of course recollections of teenager obsessed with James Bond, and is not purporting to be a factual account.

I think the big difference is the US v/s UK. What info I remember reading back in 89 (before this fandangled internets) was that Dalton and LTK were fairly well received in the UK. It was the US market where Dalton really failed to click with the public.

There's a fellow on Youtube who says he reviews films, but his reviews are more like documentaries with his opinion occasionally thrown in. I started subscribing to him because I found his Bond stuff, and he finally uploaded his Dalton work today. He covers it quite well in the first two parts. Brosnan was the hot pick here in the US. Magazines were pumping for Brosnan. Brosnan was appearing in Bond-esque commercials. Remington Steele was cancelled in what looked to be nothing shy of the hand of God coming down and throwing Brosnan at the role. All sorts of hype and build up got the majority of the US behind the notion of Brosnan and when the time came for his announcement, people were both a bit pissed and confused to see someone else at the conference. I'll go back on Youtube and nip the video(s) in a little bit. I advise watching all of his past videos as well, even if some of it is pretty common knowledge to us die hard fans, it's still a fun watch.

What's the fellow's name? I'd like to have a look at those videos sometime.

http://www.youtube.c...8F681ACCEF75D94 is the playlist of Bond videos

http://www.youtube.c.../HaphazardStuff is the user. He also has some entertaining/informative videos on superhero films and other stuff. Introduced me to some films I've added to my Netflix queue over the past year, just about. I think it was last August I stumbled upon him.

[jaguar007]

Brosnan was the hot pick here in the US. Magazines were pumping for Brosnan. Brosnan was appearing in Bond-esque commercials. Remington Steele was cancelled in what looked to be nothing shy of the hand of God coming down and throwing Brosnan at the role. All sorts of hype and build up got the majority of the US behind the notion of Brosnan and when the time came for his announcement, people were both a bit pissed and confused to see someone else at the conference.

I was rooting for Brosnan in the mid 80s to be the next Bond. I was a fan of Remington Steele and he seemed to be the natural successor to Roger Moore. Of course once I saw TLD I was no longer in the "it should have been Brosnan" camp as I thought Dalton clearly was the better choice. I stood by the affirmation that Dalton was the better choice all during Brosnan's 4 film run.

[Dekard77]

regarded as good film, and never deemed any kind of failure. Dalton was still the new Bond - as far as I recall the UK public liked him. I also think when LTK was released no one would have guessed this was going to be Dalton's or the last Bond film for a while. People were expecting him to carry on in the role like Moore did. Dalton was still settling in and I think the UK public were interested enough to see what he was going to do in the future. All this is of course recollections of teenager obsessed with James Bond, and is not purporting to be a factual account.

I think the big difference is the US v/s UK. What info I remember reading back in 89 (before this fandangled internets) was that Dalton and LTK were fairly well received in the UK. It was the US market where Dalton really failed to click with the public.

Yep maybe cos US wanted to make more money out of Bond or same as international markets. The legal issues delayed Bond which probably would have given the studio an advantage to change things. Otherwise the Broccoli's would have stuck with TD.
I also felt that most US studio's over-hyped the Die Hards, Indy and lethal Weapons to keep any competition out or make any one else look bad . That victim mostly being Bond.This was one of the most obvious in early '90's . Even Arnie while promoting True Lies was going on about how Bond films have slowed down etc...but am glad that GE and TND did well with audience to prove them wrong.
MGW announced at the Premier of TWINE with his cast and crew that Bond is no.1 at b.o in US. I honestly felt so thrilled to stay in Odeon Cinema and hear it.
Maybe with all the new action films in the 80's Bond would have felt the heat a bit, but internationally he did do well considering the market already identified with 007 .

[Zorin Industries]

Yes quite agree on that, certain area's and overall Bond look was a bit missing even for '89. I have been attacked many times for pointing it. TWINE also had a good budget but as a film it was rather uneven(mostly the story and direction). I never said budgets alone guaranteed a movie's success , what I meant is that the marketing, lead actor and stiff competition would have hurt Bond in '89. I had to answer a question from a poster why a Budget is important to an Event Movie!! QOS is the best example I can give a film that maintains classy Bond.
I had to cut and paste the article as I was constantly being told how I was re writing history etc.

Out of curiosity - what was the exact budget for LICENCE TO KILL and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? But that's not the budget as stated in Wikipedia, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, yet the expenses combined to make a feature film?

Ha? So what killed LTK box office in USA? Common if the studios needed their star they would get it. Of course they have their own agenda considering they fund the movie but the producers have to be clever to fight it or give in when necessary. If Cubby wanted RM for FYEO or OP then he would get him , if the the studio wanted SC for DAF they would ask him to come and work with Cubby. I guess it's fair considering both are looking after their own future. The studio didn't want Dalton and it's stated due his poor performance in USA. This was in Mi6 article as well unless you think it's wrong.
You claim the wrong people saw LTK? Right ........so does it mean the people in the States that went to see the movie could have been the wrong crowd while the others just waited at home giving a pass to the movie so they can watch someting better was the right crowd? Eh? Why did the wrong crowd go to see LTK ? The right crowd didn't like a movie they couldn't care less or had bad word of mouth? What is your lame excuse for that?

You pretty much proved you have no idea about what is being discussed. Thanks . Now I can finally stop responding to you.

Right. I was trying to make this peter out on civil terms. In the long haul of life this is not up there with my priorities.

My quip about "the wrong people" watching LICENCE TO KILL was an attempt at sarcasm. It was meant as a quip. You know - comedy? A gentle touch? But if people have no sense of humour then that is their loss. It certainly ain't mine.

Unfortunately I think it is you Deckard77 who doesn't really have a clue about what is going on in the instance of 1989's James Bond entry - especially when your views appear to be formulated by cut and paste jobs based on other people's efforts (always a bad thing in my book).

A few facts -

LICENCE TO KILL was NOT "killed" at the US box office. If you want to speak to Eon and Danjaq's accountants of the time I can give you their numbers? It was no THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER granted, but it made its money. The Eon mantra is if a Bond film makes at least one dollar profit then they will do another.

Can I mention the word "ratings" to you? Does that ring any bells? A certain proportion of James Bond's casual fans (good point by the way earlier in this thread from someone) were unable to see the film as its darker tone meant that in some territories (including Britain) the film received a higher and financially restrictive rating, disabling certain younger people from seeing it. The film did not merit such a restriction (though the violent very adult world of the South American drug cartels are one of those ratings pariahs, for good and bad reasons).

Part of LICENCE TO KILL's ridiculous '15' rating that was because, in the example of Great Britain, the BBFC (the British Board Of Film Classification) were going through a change in their ratings system and that uncertainty made LICENCE TO KILL one of its high profile victims. It was wrong for the BBFC to draw their line in the sand with a Bond film though the film was different to what had gone before.

The new '12' rating (which LICENCE TO KILL should have got first time round) was being eased in. The '12' rating had not yet been established, certainly not in the public's psyche. MADAME SOUSZATZKA was the first '12' followed by BATMAN, which everyone remembers as being the first mainstream, widely seen film under that new banner. A year or so later the boundaries started to weaken a bit and the likes of TERMINATOR II were granted a '15' certificate when it was blatantly an '18'.
LICENCE TO KILL did lose some of its younger audiences (at the cinema), but the film was eventually granted that deserved '12' upon video release (though not in its first run). It is worth remembering that KILL did very well on video release and that is part of its overall 'takings' tally too.

But if you think what I have just said shows I have "no idea of what is being discussed" then perhaps further discussion with you on this subject is indeed futile.

And as dedicated and as meticulous as a fan site like MI6 is, they are not the last word in the reality and history of making James Bond films. In fact, the release reaction to LICENCE TO KILL was not quite like MI6 have reported it. To give one very small example of the articles you keep pasting up and their overall accuracy, the night of the LICENCE TO KILL premiere in London was VERY HOT. London was a sticky ghost town that evening (as is evident in ITV's then coverage of the premiere). And a very high profile '15' rated Bond film (something that had riled Timothy Dalton who made his views known when interviewed at the time) had instantly cancelled its younger fans who are the mainstay of the crowds at such an event, regardless of whether they are going to see the film or not. The Prince and Princess Of Wales well documented marriage problems sat uneasy with their presence too.

There is always a wider perspective. MI6 have tried to highlight the stats but they tend not to - as most "this is how it was" reports on Bond and cinema - look at the contexts, cultural conditions and realities of the 'business' we call 'show'.

I am honestly not trying to lock horns for the sake of it. It just personally riles me when people quote people quoting people and chinese whispers start to erode the truth, especially with 007 films which I hold very dear for a variety of personal and enjoyment reasons.

An excellent post. And proof - not that I, for one, needed any - that if anyone doesn't know what he's talking about on this thread, it isn't you...

Ok bad weather and ratings. Thanks for the valuable insight. No more proof needed.

Charmed I'm sure. I will know better than to let personal insight and experience get in the way of what the internet tells me. My fault.

[Dekard77]

Yes quite agree on that, certain area's and overall Bond look was a bit missing even for '89. I have been attacked many times for pointing it. TWINE also had a good budget but as a film it was rather uneven(mostly the story and direction). I never said budgets alone guaranteed a movie's success , what I meant is that the marketing, lead actor and stiff competition would have hurt Bond in '89. I had to answer a question from a poster why a Budget is important to an Event Movie!! QOS is the best example I can give a film that maintains classy Bond.
I had to cut and paste the article as I was constantly being told how I was re writing history etc.

Out of curiosity - what was the exact budget for LICENCE TO KILL and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? But that's not the budget as stated in Wikipedia, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, yet the expenses combined to make a feature film?

Ha? So what killed LTK box office in USA? Common if the studios needed their star they would get it. Of course they have their own agenda considering they fund the movie but the producers have to be clever to fight it or give in when necessary. If Cubby wanted RM for FYEO or OP then he would get him , if the the studio wanted SC for DAF they would ask him to come and work with Cubby. I guess it's fair considering both are looking after their own future. The studio didn't want Dalton and it's stated due his poor performance in USA. This was in Mi6 article as well unless you think it's wrong.
You claim the wrong people saw LTK? Right ........so does it mean the people in the States that went to see the movie could have been the wrong crowd while the others just waited at home giving a pass to the movie so they can watch someting better was the right crowd? Eh? Why did the wrong crowd go to see LTK ? The right crowd didn't like a movie they couldn't care less or had bad word of mouth? What is your lame excuse for that?

You pretty much proved you have no idea about what is being discussed. Thanks . Now I can finally stop responding to you.

Right. I was trying to make this peter out on civil terms. In the long haul of life this is not up there with my priorities.

My quip about "the wrong people" watching LICENCE TO KILL was an attempt at sarcasm. It was meant as a quip. You know - comedy? A gentle touch? But if people have no sense of humour then that is their loss. It certainly ain't mine.

Unfortunately I think it is you Deckard77 who doesn't really have a clue about what is going on in the instance of 1989's James Bond entry - especially when your views appear to be formulated by cut and paste jobs based on other people's efforts (always a bad thing in my book).

A few facts -

LICENCE TO KILL was NOT "killed" at the US box office. If you want to speak to Eon and Danjaq's accountants of the time I can give you their numbers? It was no THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER granted, but it made its money. The Eon mantra is if a Bond film makes at least one dollar profit then they will do another.

Can I mention the word "ratings" to you? Does that ring any bells? A certain proportion of James Bond's casual fans (good point by the way earlier in this thread from someone) were unable to see the film as its darker tone meant that in some territories (including Britain) the film received a higher and financially restrictive rating, disabling certain younger people from seeing it. The film did not merit such a restriction (though the violent very adult world of the South American drug cartels are one of those ratings pariahs, for good and bad reasons).

Part of LICENCE TO KILL's ridiculous '15' rating that was because, in the example of Great Britain, the BBFC (the British Board Of Film Classification) were going through a change in their ratings system and that uncertainty made LICENCE TO KILL one of its high profile victims. It was wrong for the BBFC to draw their line in the sand with a Bond film though the film was different to what had gone before.

The new '12' rating (which LICENCE TO KILL should have got first time round) was being eased in. The '12' rating had not yet been established, certainly not in the public's psyche. MADAME SOUSZATZKA was the first '12' followed by BATMAN, which everyone remembers as being the first mainstream, widely seen film under that new banner. A year or so later the boundaries started to weaken a bit and the likes of TERMINATOR II were granted a '15' certificate when it was blatantly an '18'.
LICENCE TO KILL did lose some of its younger audiences (at the cinema), but the film was eventually granted that deserved '12' upon video release (though not in its first run). It is worth remembering that KILL did very well on video release and that is part of its overall 'takings' tally too.

But if you think what I have just said shows I have "no idea of what is being discussed" then perhaps further discussion with you on this subject is indeed futile.

And as dedicated and as meticulous as a fan site like MI6 is, they are not the last word in the reality and history of making James Bond films. In fact, the release reaction to LICENCE TO KILL was not quite like MI6 have reported it. To give one very small example of the articles you keep pasting up and their overall accuracy, the night of the LICENCE TO KILL premiere in London was VERY HOT. London was a sticky ghost town that evening (as is evident in ITV's then coverage of the premiere). And a very high profile '15' rated Bond film (something that had riled Timothy Dalton who made his views known when interviewed at the time) had instantly cancelled its younger fans who are the mainstay of the crowds at such an event, regardless of whether they are going to see the film or not. The Prince and Princess Of Wales well documented marriage problems sat uneasy with their presence too.

There is always a wider perspective. MI6 have tried to highlight the stats but they tend not to - as most "this is how it was" reports on Bond and cinema - look at the contexts, cultural conditions and realities of the 'business' we call 'show'.

I am honestly not trying to lock horns for the sake of it. It just personally riles me when people quote people quoting people and chinese whispers start to erode the truth, especially with 007 films which I hold very dear for a variety of personal and enjoyment reasons.

An excellent post. And proof - not that I, for one, needed any - that if anyone doesn't know what he's talking about on this thread, it isn't you...

Ok bad weather and ratings. Thanks for the valuable insight. No more proof needed.

Charmed I'm sure. I will know better than to let personal insight and experience get in the way of what the internet tells me. My fault.

Ok I will add what 'internet' also to the list of my Bond mags, movie mags and other info I had seen into a list of things I should not use to understand the film (or any other movie). I might as well sit in meditation chamber of Prof Joe Butcher and wonder what really happened. The ratings for Batman was also PG-13 in USA but didn't hurt the movie? Bond was trying to be edgier and while I did like it it never managed to get more people into the cinema's Stateside. Otherwise the numbers would have shown. Most posters also pointed out how audience wanted a change from Bond so maybe like what I said before it wouldn't have mattered at that time.
Having been to and standing out at a few Bond premiers I can tell you that the cold weather was no incentive but tha fans all waited to catch a glimpse of 007 and his co stars and well wishers. Oh well I guess none of that will matter beyond your thoughts.
My point still stands , LTK didn't get the high numbers it was hoping for or even close to it's competitors that year in USA. Most people here said TD was not accepted well in TLD and LTK was expected to be a drop. Did you not agree to that? Others claim too many Bonds etc but etiher way it did nothing to help Bond in '89. The direction of a serious Bond needed argument can be taken into account after seeing the joke that was ATAK but the problem in America was TD wasn't favoured that much.

[Zorin Industries]

Yes quite agree on that, certain area's and overall Bond look was a bit missing even for '89. I have been attacked many times for pointing it. TWINE also had a good budget but as a film it was rather uneven(mostly the story and direction). I never said budgets alone guaranteed a movie's success , what I meant is that the marketing, lead actor and stiff competition would have hurt Bond in '89. I had to answer a question from a poster why a Budget is important to an Event Movie!! QOS is the best example I can give a film that maintains classy Bond.
I had to cut and paste the article as I was constantly being told how I was re writing history etc.

Out of curiosity - what was the exact budget for LICENCE TO KILL and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? But that's not the budget as stated in Wikipedia, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, yet the expenses combined to make a feature film?

Ha? So what killed LTK box office in USA? Common if the studios needed their star they would get it. Of course they have their own agenda considering they fund the movie but the producers have to be clever to fight it or give in when necessary. If Cubby wanted RM for FYEO or OP then he would get him , if the the studio wanted SC for DAF they would ask him to come and work with Cubby. I guess it's fair considering both are looking after their own future. The studio didn't want Dalton and it's stated due his poor performance in USA. This was in Mi6 article as well unless you think it's wrong.
You claim the wrong people saw LTK? Right ........so does it mean the people in the States that went to see the movie could have been the wrong crowd while the others just waited at home giving a pass to the movie so they can watch someting better was the right crowd? Eh? Why did the wrong crowd go to see LTK ? The right crowd didn't like a movie they couldn't care less or had bad word of mouth? What is your lame excuse for that?

You pretty much proved you have no idea about what is being discussed. Thanks . Now I can finally stop responding to you.

Right. I was trying to make this peter out on civil terms. In the long haul of life this is not up there with my priorities.

My quip about "the wrong people" watching LICENCE TO KILL was an attempt at sarcasm. It was meant as a quip. You know - comedy? A gentle touch? But if people have no sense of humour then that is their loss. It certainly ain't mine.

Unfortunately I think it is you Deckard77 who doesn't really have a clue about what is going on in the instance of 1989's James Bond entry - especially when your views appear to be formulated by cut and paste jobs based on other people's efforts (always a bad thing in my book).

A few facts -

LICENCE TO KILL was NOT "killed" at the US box office. If you want to speak to Eon and Danjaq's accountants of the time I can give you their numbers? It was no THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER granted, but it made its money. The Eon mantra is if a Bond film makes at least one dollar profit then they will do another.

Can I mention the word "ratings" to you? Does that ring any bells? A certain proportion of James Bond's casual fans (good point by the way earlier in this thread from someone) were unable to see the film as its darker tone meant that in some territories (including Britain) the film received a higher and financially restrictive rating, disabling certain younger people from seeing it. The film did not merit such a restriction (though the violent very adult world of the South American drug cartels are one of those ratings pariahs, for good and bad reasons).

Part of LICENCE TO KILL's ridiculous '15' rating that was because, in the example of Great Britain, the BBFC (the British Board Of Film Classification) were going through a change in their ratings system and that uncertainty made LICENCE TO KILL one of its high profile victims. It was wrong for the BBFC to draw their line in the sand with a Bond film though the film was different to what had gone before.

The new '12' rating (which LICENCE TO KILL should have got first time round) was being eased in. The '12' rating had not yet been established, certainly not in the public's psyche. MADAME SOUSZATZKA was the first '12' followed by BATMAN, which everyone remembers as being the first mainstream, widely seen film under that new banner. A year or so later the boundaries started to weaken a bit and the likes of TERMINATOR II were granted a '15' certificate when it was blatantly an '18'.
LICENCE TO KILL did lose some of its younger audiences (at the cinema), but the film was eventually granted that deserved '12' upon video release (though not in its first run). It is worth remembering that KILL did very well on video release and that is part of its overall 'takings' tally too.

But if you think what I have just said shows I have "no idea of what is being discussed" then perhaps further discussion with you on this subject is indeed futile.

And as dedicated and as meticulous as a fan site like MI6 is, they are not the last word in the reality and history of making James Bond films. In fact, the release reaction to LICENCE TO KILL was not quite like MI6 have reported it. To give one very small example of the articles you keep pasting up and their overall accuracy, the night of the LICENCE TO KILL premiere in London was VERY HOT. London was a sticky ghost town that evening (as is evident in ITV's then coverage of the premiere). And a very high profile '15' rated Bond film (something that had riled Timothy Dalton who made his views known when interviewed at the time) had instantly cancelled its younger fans who are the mainstay of the crowds at such an event, regardless of whether they are going to see the film or not. The Prince and Princess Of Wales well documented marriage problems sat uneasy with their presence too.

There is always a wider perspective. MI6 have tried to highlight the stats but they tend not to - as most "this is how it was" reports on Bond and cinema - look at the contexts, cultural conditions and realities of the 'business' we call 'show'.

I am honestly not trying to lock horns for the sake of it. It just personally riles me when people quote people quoting people and chinese whispers start to erode the truth, especially with 007 films which I hold very dear for a variety of personal and enjoyment reasons.

An excellent post. And proof - not that I, for one, needed any - that if anyone doesn't know what he's talking about on this thread, it isn't you...

Ok bad weather and ratings. Thanks for the valuable insight. No more proof needed.

Charmed I'm sure. I will know better than to let personal insight and experience get in the way of what the internet tells me. My fault.

Ok I will add what 'internet' also to the list of my Bond mags, movie mags and other info I had seen into a list of things I should not use to understand the film (or any other movie). I might as well sit in meditation chamber of Prof Joe Butcher and wonder what really happened. The ratings for Batman was also PG-13 in USA but didn't hurt the movie? Bond was trying to be edgier and while I did like it it never managed to get more people into the cinema's Stateside. Otherwise the numbers would have shown. Most posters also pointed out how audience wanted a change from Bond so maybe like what I said before it wouldn't have mattered at that time.
Having been to and standing out at a few Bond premiers I can tell you that the cold weather was no incentive but tha fans all waited to catch a glimpse of 007 and his co stars and well wishers. Oh well I guess none of that will matter beyond your thoughts.
My point still stands , LTK didn't get the high numbers it was hoping for or even close to it's competitors that year in USA. Most people here said TD was not accepted well in TLD and LTK was expected to be a drop. Did you not agree to that? Others claim too many Bonds etc but etiher way it did nothing to help Bond in '89. The direction of a serious Bond needed argument can be taken into account after seeing the joke that was ATAK but the problem in America was TD wasn't favoured that much.

Who said A VIEW TO A KILL was "a joke"? Not the studios as they bankrolled another Bond film immediately that eventually became THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

[byline]

Some have said that the U.S. LTK poster wasn't much/any different than Lethal Weapon 2 and that may be true.

FWIW, here they are; I don't see a lot of similarity (unless it's the first poster we're talking about in this group, compared with the second one in the "Lethal Weapon 2" group): "Lethal Weapon 2" posters

Edited by byline, 06 July 2009 - 02:55 PM.

[Mike00spy]

but the problem in America was TD wasn't favoured that much.

Maybe.

However, with the rapid decline of any Bond film (no matter what the actor), it is really hard to make that point.

[Dekard77]

but the problem in America was TD wasn't favoured that much.

Maybe.

However, with the rapid decline of any Bond film (no matter what the actor), it is really hard to make that point.

I guess so . The rapid decline was due to remote control set up of Bond films. It seemed the same people behind the movies without being able to do much. FYEO and OP quite good but things may have got slow later on. Rogs age is not the worst thing abt ATAK but the bland script and direction was. I still standby the fact Glen and Dalton not very good combo. TLD opens great but the final act doesn't do much.

[Dekard77]

Yes quite agree on that, certain area's and overall Bond look was a bit missing even for '89. I have been attacked many times for pointing it. TWINE also had a good budget but as a film it was rather uneven(mostly the story and direction). I never said budgets alone guaranteed a movie's success , what I meant is that the marketing, lead actor and stiff competition would have hurt Bond in '89. I had to answer a question from a poster why a Budget is important to an Event Movie!! QOS is the best example I can give a film that maintains classy Bond.
I had to cut and paste the article as I was constantly being told how I was re writing history etc.

Out of curiosity - what was the exact budget for LICENCE TO KILL and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? But that's not the budget as stated in Wikipedia, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, yet the expenses combined to make a feature film?

Ha? So what killed LTK box office in USA? Common if the studios needed their star they would get it. Of course they have their own agenda considering they fund the movie but the producers have to be clever to fight it or give in when necessary. If Cubby wanted RM for FYEO or OP then he would get him , if the the studio wanted SC for DAF they would ask him to come and work with Cubby. I guess it's fair considering both are looking after their own future. The studio didn't want Dalton and it's stated due his poor performance in USA. This was in Mi6 article as well unless you think it's wrong.
You claim the wrong people saw LTK? Right ........so does it mean the people in the States that went to see the movie could have been the wrong crowd while the others just waited at home giving a pass to the movie so they can watch someting better was the right crowd? Eh? Why did the wrong crowd go to see LTK ? The right crowd didn't like a movie they couldn't care less or had bad word of mouth? What is your lame excuse for that?

You pretty much proved you have no idea about what is being discussed. Thanks . Now I can finally stop responding to you.

Right. I was trying to make this peter out on civil terms. In the long haul of life this is not up there with my priorities.

My quip about "the wrong people" watching LICENCE TO KILL was an attempt at sarcasm. It was meant as a quip. You know - comedy? A gentle touch? But if people have no sense of humour then that is their loss. It certainly ain't mine.

Unfortunately I think it is you Deckard77 who doesn't really have a clue about what is going on in the instance of 1989's James Bond entry - especially when your views appear to be formulated by cut and paste jobs based on other people's efforts (always a bad thing in my book).

A few facts -

LICENCE TO KILL was NOT "killed" at the US box office. If you want to speak to Eon and Danjaq's accountants of the time I can give you their numbers? It was no THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER granted, but it made its money. The Eon mantra is if a Bond film makes at least one dollar profit then they will do another.

Can I mention the word "ratings" to you? Does that ring any bells? A certain proportion of James Bond's casual fans (good point by the way earlier in this thread from someone) were unable to see the film as its darker tone meant that in some territories (including Britain) the film received a higher and financially restrictive rating, disabling certain younger people from seeing it. The film did not merit such a restriction (though the violent very adult world of the South American drug cartels are one of those ratings pariahs, for good and bad reasons).

Part of LICENCE TO KILL's ridiculous '15' rating that was because, in the example of Great Britain, the BBFC (the British Board Of Film Classification) were going through a change in their ratings system and that uncertainty made LICENCE TO KILL one of its high profile victims. It was wrong for the BBFC to draw their line in the sand with a Bond film though the film was different to what had gone before.

The new '12' rating (which LICENCE TO KILL should have got first time round) was being eased in. The '12' rating had not yet been established, certainly not in the public's psyche. MADAME SOUSZATZKA was the first '12' followed by BATMAN, which everyone remembers as being the first mainstream, widely seen film under that new banner. A year or so later the boundaries started to weaken a bit and the likes of TERMINATOR II were granted a '15' certificate when it was blatantly an '18'.
LICENCE TO KILL did lose some of its younger audiences (at the cinema), but the film was eventually granted that deserved '12' upon video release (though not in its first run). It is worth remembering that KILL did very well on video release and that is part of its overall 'takings' tally too.

But if you think what I have just said shows I have "no idea of what is being discussed" then perhaps further discussion with you on this subject is indeed futile.

And as dedicated and as meticulous as a fan site like MI6 is, they are not the last word in the reality and history of making James Bond films. In fact, the release reaction to LICENCE TO KILL was not quite like MI6 have reported it. To give one very small example of the articles you keep pasting up and their overall accuracy, the night of the LICENCE TO KILL premiere in London was VERY HOT. London was a sticky ghost town that evening (as is evident in ITV's then coverage of the premiere). And a very high profile '15' rated Bond film (something that had riled Timothy Dalton who made his views known when interviewed at the time) had instantly cancelled its younger fans who are the mainstay of the crowds at such an event, regardless of whether they are going to see the film or not. The Prince and Princess Of Wales well documented marriage problems sat uneasy with their presence too.

There is always a wider perspective. MI6 have tried to highlight the stats but they tend not to - as most "this is how it was" reports on Bond and cinema - look at the contexts, cultural conditions and realities of the 'business' we call 'show'.

I am honestly not trying to lock horns for the sake of it. It just personally riles me when people quote people quoting people and chinese whispers start to erode the truth, especially with 007 films which I hold very dear for a variety of personal and enjoyment reasons.

An excellent post. And proof - not that I, for one, needed any - that if anyone doesn't know what he's talking about on this thread, it isn't you...

Ok bad weather and ratings. Thanks for the valuable insight. No more proof needed.

Charmed I'm sure. I will know better than to let personal insight and experience get in the way of what the internet tells me. My fault.

Ok I will add what 'internet' also to the list of my Bond mags, movie mags and other info I had seen into a list of things I should not use to understand the film (or any other movie). I might as well sit in meditation chamber of Prof Joe Butcher and wonder what really happened. The ratings for Batman was also PG-13 in USA but didn't hurt the movie? Bond was trying to be edgier and while I did like it it never managed to get more people into the cinema's Stateside. Otherwise the numbers would have shown. Most posters also pointed out how audience wanted a change from Bond so maybe like what I said before it wouldn't have mattered at that time.
Having been to and standing out at a few Bond premiers I can tell you that the cold weather was no incentive but tha fans all waited to catch a glimpse of 007 and his co stars and well wishers. Oh well I guess none of that will matter beyond your thoughts.
My point still stands , LTK didn't get the high numbers it was hoping for or even close to it's competitors that year in USA. Most people here said TD was not accepted well in TLD and LTK was expected to be a drop. Did you not agree to that? Others claim too many Bonds etc but etiher way it did nothing to help Bond in '89. The direction of a serious Bond needed argument can be taken into account after seeing the joke that was ATAK but the problem in America was TD wasn't favoured that much.

Who said A VIEW TO A KILL was "a joke"? Not the studios as they bankrolled another Bond film immediately that eventually became THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Can I count in Rog? He did say it was his least favourite too. It's just one of those films that never worked. Not when I saw it then or now. Terrible Bond flick . Did I say the film was a flop? MGM/UA would do anything to get Bond movies made at that time to keep the studio afloat.

[Zorin Industries]

Yes quite agree on that, certain area's and overall Bond look was a bit missing even for '89. I have been attacked many times for pointing it. TWINE also had a good budget but as a film it was rather uneven(mostly the story and direction). I never said budgets alone guaranteed a movie's success , what I meant is that the marketing, lead actor and stiff competition would have hurt Bond in '89. I had to answer a question from a poster why a Budget is important to an Event Movie!! QOS is the best example I can give a film that maintains classy Bond.
I had to cut and paste the article as I was constantly being told how I was re writing history etc.

Out of curiosity - what was the exact budget for LICENCE TO KILL and THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH? But that's not the budget as stated in Wikipedia, IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes, yet the expenses combined to make a feature film?

Ha? So what killed LTK box office in USA? Common if the studios needed their star they would get it. Of course they have their own agenda considering they fund the movie but the producers have to be clever to fight it or give in when necessary. If Cubby wanted RM for FYEO or OP then he would get him , if the the studio wanted SC for DAF they would ask him to come and work with Cubby. I guess it's fair considering both are looking after their own future. The studio didn't want Dalton and it's stated due his poor performance in USA. This was in Mi6 article as well unless you think it's wrong.
You claim the wrong people saw LTK? Right ........so does it mean the people in the States that went to see the movie could have been the wrong crowd while the others just waited at home giving a pass to the movie so they can watch someting better was the right crowd? Eh? Why did the wrong crowd go to see LTK ? The right crowd didn't like a movie they couldn't care less or had bad word of mouth? What is your lame excuse for that?

You pretty much proved you have no idea about what is being discussed. Thanks . Now I can finally stop responding to you.

Right. I was trying to make this peter out on civil terms. In the long haul of life this is not up there with my priorities.

My quip about "the wrong people" watching LICENCE TO KILL was an attempt at sarcasm. It was meant as a quip. You know - comedy? A gentle touch? But if people have no sense of humour then that is their loss. It certainly ain't mine.

Unfortunately I think it is you Deckard77 who doesn't really have a clue about what is going on in the instance of 1989's James Bond entry - especially when your views appear to be formulated by cut and paste jobs based on other people's efforts (always a bad thing in my book).

A few facts -

LICENCE TO KILL was NOT "killed" at the US box office. If you want to speak to Eon and Danjaq's accountants of the time I can give you their numbers? It was no THUNDERBALL or MOONRAKER granted, but it made its money. The Eon mantra is if a Bond film makes at least one dollar profit then they will do another.

Can I mention the word "ratings" to you? Does that ring any bells? A certain proportion of James Bond's casual fans (good point by the way earlier in this thread from someone) were unable to see the film as its darker tone meant that in some territories (including Britain) the film received a higher and financially restrictive rating, disabling certain younger people from seeing it. The film did not merit such a restriction (though the violent very adult world of the South American drug cartels are one of those ratings pariahs, for good and bad reasons).

Part of LICENCE TO KILL's ridiculous '15' rating that was because, in the example of Great Britain, the BBFC (the British Board Of Film Classification) were going through a change in their ratings system and that uncertainty made LICENCE TO KILL one of its high profile victims. It was wrong for the BBFC to draw their line in the sand with a Bond film though the film was different to what had gone before.

The new '12' rating (which LICENCE TO KILL should have got first time round) was being eased in. The '12' rating had not yet been established, certainly not in the public's psyche. MADAME SOUSZATZKA was the first '12' followed by BATMAN, which everyone remembers as being the first mainstream, widely seen film under that new banner. A year or so later the boundaries started to weaken a bit and the likes of TERMINATOR II were granted a '15' certificate when it was blatantly an '18'.
LICENCE TO KILL did lose some of its younger audiences (at the cinema), but the film was eventually granted that deserved '12' upon video release (though not in its first run). It is worth remembering that KILL did very well on video release and that is part of its overall 'takings' tally too.

But if you think what I have just said shows I have "no idea of what is being discussed" then perhaps further discussion with you on this subject is indeed futile.

And as dedicated and as meticulous as a fan site like MI6 is, they are not the last word in the reality and history of making James Bond films. In fact, the release reaction to LICENCE TO KILL was not quite like MI6 have reported it. To give one very small example of the articles you keep pasting up and their overall accuracy, the night of the LICENCE TO KILL premiere in London was VERY HOT. London was a sticky ghost town that evening (as is evident in ITV's then coverage of the premiere). And a very high profile '15' rated Bond film (something that had riled Timothy Dalton who made his views known when interviewed at the time) had instantly cancelled its younger fans who are the mainstay of the crowds at such an event, regardless of whether they are going to see the film or not. The Prince and Princess Of Wales well documented marriage problems sat uneasy with their presence too.

There is always a wider perspective. MI6 have tried to highlight the stats but they tend not to - as most "this is how it was" reports on Bond and cinema - look at the contexts, cultural conditions and realities of the 'business' we call 'show'.

I am honestly not trying to lock horns for the sake of it. It just personally riles me when people quote people quoting people and chinese whispers start to erode the truth, especially with 007 films which I hold very dear for a variety of personal and enjoyment reasons.

An excellent post. And proof - not that I, for one, needed any - that if anyone doesn't know what he's talking about on this thread, it isn't you...

Ok bad weather and ratings. Thanks for the valuable insight. No more proof needed.

Charmed I'm sure. I will know better than to let personal insight and experience get in the way of what the internet tells me. My fault.

Ok I will add what 'internet' also to the list of my Bond mags, movie mags and other info I had seen into a list of things I should not use to understand the film (or any other movie). I might as well sit in meditation chamber of Prof Joe Butcher and wonder what really happened. The ratings for Batman was also PG-13 in USA but didn't hurt the movie? Bond was trying to be edgier and while I did like it it never managed to get more people into the cinema's Stateside. Otherwise the numbers would have shown. Most posters also pointed out how audience wanted a change from Bond so maybe like what I said before it wouldn't have mattered at that time.
Having been to and standing out at a few Bond premiers I can tell you that the cold weather was no incentive but tha fans all waited to catch a glimpse of 007 and his co stars and well wishers. Oh well I guess none of that will matter beyond your thoughts.
My point still stands , LTK didn't get the high numbers it was hoping for or even close to it's competitors that year in USA. Most people here said TD was not accepted well in TLD and LTK was expected to be a drop. Did you not agree to that? Others claim too many Bonds etc but etiher way it did nothing to help Bond in '89. The direction of a serious Bond needed argument can be taken into account after seeing the joke that was ATAK but the problem in America was TD wasn't favoured that much.

Who said A VIEW TO A KILL was "a joke"? Not the studios as they bankrolled another Bond film immediately that eventually became THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS.

Can I count in Rog? He did say it was his least favourite too. It's just one of those films that never worked. Not when I saw it then or now. Terrible Bond flick . Did I say the film was a flop? MGM/UA would do anything to get Bond movies made at that time to keep the studio afloat.

And still will now... you watch what happens to the release time of BOND 23.

I am obviously biased on A VIEW TO A KILL but my defence for the jury...