92 replies to this topic

[Royal Dalton]

Well, in that case he probably means "damn good" in his terms, which would be more towards the serious side and less with the jokes.

Of course there are going to be parameters. But his point really was that the actor should play the character, rather than the character being tailored to fit the actor.

If I recall correctly, he even went to Russia, either before or while he was writing, to scout out locations and get a feel for the locale -- and I think it shows in the script.

That's right, he went to Moscow. Which they ended up changing to St. Petersburg in the film, anyway! Time well spent. They did get the statue graveyard bit from that visit, though.

Do you have both of those, then? I'd love to have a look at them and compare...

I've only got the second Caine script. It's a hard copy, though. Might be able to scan it at some point.

[iBond]

Of course there are going to be parameters. But his point really was that the actor should play the character, rather than the character being tailored to fit the actor.

Check this out. I found a video on YouTube that has him interviewed on the film at the premiere and this is what he says:

Q: "Why do you think it needed to be changed so radically?"
A: "Well, I don't know that it did need to be changed, um, I just believe those original movies were my favorites. And they reflected the sense of the books and they would be the only kind of Bond movies that I could make and they'd be the only kind of movies I'd want to go and see. So that's why we're doing them this way."
Q: "Does that imply that you think they were slightly taking the Mickey in previous ones?"
A: "Well, I mean they [Moore's films] were wonderfully done. But they were comedic and they were a send up and they were tongue-in-cheek and that's not really a Bond story. A Bond story should be believable. Everybody should be able to get involved-I mean it is a fantasy but you've got to go along with and to do it for real is exciting!"

I was unable to put the video on here but here is the link if you're interested in viewing it.

[Royal Dalton]

Thanks. He's not contradicting anything I've (or, rather, he's) said there, though.

[iBond]

I'm sure if they went towards comedy, he wouldn't have made it.

[Royal Dalton]

Depends what kind of comedy it was. He was all for putting in grown-up humour.

[Dekard77]

The leap from bike to plane is plain comedic, it ruined the sense of adventure that scene had before, but the rest of the movie was well managed, Moore would have played Bond with a bit of tongue and cheek but he made it his own, can't really blame him.

[iBond]

The leap from bike to plane...

It was pretty kick- though.

Edited by iBond, 08 June 2011 - 08:56 AM.

[Dekard77]

Smashing through a wall in a tank was awesome. But the bike/plane/dive/plane leap was a bit out of sorts. GE had an excellent marketing campaign and the right posters to go with it .

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I'm sure if they went towards comedy, he wouldn't have made it.

Depends what kind of comedy it was. He was all for putting in grown-up humour.

I think Dalton signed to play Bond against the understanding the movies were going to differ following the Moore era and that Broccoli wished to change direction. I'm not sure he would have signed to play a character that, in his words, solely 'becomes the instrument or vehicle through which a high-tech adventure story is told'.* In 1992 Dalton said of LTK '...I would have liked to seen more humour. Not silly or camp humour, but good mature adult humour',* which if a third Dalton film had been made it would have been interesting to see if and how this materialised.

*Quoted from 'The Incredible World of James Bond" by Pfeiffer and Lisa.

[Miles Miservy]

The leap from bike to plane is plain comedic, it ruined the sense of adventure that scene had before, but the rest of the movie was well managed, Moore would have played Bond with a bit of tongue and cheek but he made it his own, can't really blame him.

I liked the pre-title sequence.
1) It had never been done before. (Who boards a plane about to crash on purpose?)
2) Ever since TSWLM, every opening sequence has tried to out-do the one that preceded it.

I think that as soon as you run out of new & creative ways of killing Bond (attempting, at least), that will be the death of the series.

Edited by Miles Miservy, 08 June 2011 - 02:48 PM.

[iBond]

The leap from bike to plane is plain comedic, it ruined the sense of adventure that scene had before, but the rest of the movie was well managed, Moore would have played Bond with a bit of tongue and cheek but he made it his own, can't really blame him.

I liked the pre-title sequence.
1) It had never been done before. (Who boards a plane about to crash on purpose?)
2) Ever since TSWLM, every opening sequence has tried to out-do the one that preceded it.

I think that as soon as you run out of new & creative ways of killing Bond (attempting, at least), that will be the death of the series.

I much preferred the whole jumping from a bike to a plane than the scene with Bond and Mitchel falling in the glass in Quantum. I know it was a small scene, but still, it just wasn't believable and you could tell that CGI played a huge role.

http://img146.images...20/23773371.jpg

[Dekard77]

Agreed, action overload with that scene in QOS

[Capsule in Space]

The leap from bike to plane is plain comedic, it ruined the sense of adventure that scene had before, but the rest of the movie was well managed, Moore would have played Bond with a bit of tongue and cheek but he made it his own, can't really blame him.

I liked the pre-title sequence.
1) It had never been done before. (Who boards a plane about to crash on purpose?)
2) Ever since TSWLM, every opening sequence has tried to out-do the one that preceded it.

I think that as soon as you run out of new & creative ways of killing Bond (attempting, at least), that will be the death of the series.

I much preferred the whole jumping from a bike to a plane than the scene with Bond and Mitchel falling in the glass in Quantum. I know it was a small scene, but still, it just wasn't believable and you could tell that CGI played a huge role.

http://img146.images...20/23773371.jpg

Whoa is that a screen shot from an MSDOS video game?

The "bike-to-plane" thing was a little too much for me. Pity that it came after the spectacular bungee jump, and the exiting scenes in the facility. It kind of ended the opening sequence on a bad note.

[Miles Miservy]

The leap from bike to plane is plain comedic, it ruined the sense of adventure that scene had before, but the rest of the movie was well managed, Moore would have played Bond with a bit of tongue and cheek but he made it his own, can't really blame him.

I liked the pre-title sequence.
1) It had never been done before. (Who boards a plane about to crash on purpose?)
2) Ever since TSWLM, every opening sequence has tried to out-do the one that preceded it.

I think that as soon as you run out of new & creative ways of killing Bond (attempting, at least), that will be the death of the series.

I much preferred the whole jumping from a bike to a plane than the scene with Bond and Mitchel falling in the glass in Quantum. I know it was a small scene, but still, it just wasn't believable and you could tell that CGI played a huge role.

http://img146.images...20/23773371.jpg

Whoa is that a screen shot from an MSDOS video game?

The "bike-to-plane" thing was a little too much for me. Pity that it came after the spectacular bungee jump, and the exiting scenes in the facility. It kind of ended the opening sequence on a bad note.

I don't think that was CGI. I think is was done "old-school" with rear projection & a suspended harness.

[The Shark]

The leap from bike to plane is plain comedic, it ruined the sense of adventure that scene had before, but the rest of the movie was well managed, Moore would have played Bond with a bit of tongue and cheek but he made it his own, can't really blame him.

I liked the pre-title sequence.
1) It had never been done before. (Who boards a plane about to crash on purpose?)
2) Ever since TSWLM, every opening sequence has tried to out-do the one that preceded it.

I think that as soon as you run out of new & creative ways of killing Bond (attempting, at least), that will be the death of the series.

I much preferred the whole jumping from a bike to a plane than the scene with Bond and Mitchel falling in the glass in Quantum. I know it was a small scene, but still, it just wasn't believable and you could tell that CGI played a huge role.

http://img146.images...20/23773371.jpg

Whoa is that a screen shot from an MSDOS video game?

The "bike-to-plane" thing was a little too much for me. Pity that it came after the spectacular bungee jump, and the exiting scenes in the facility. It kind of ended the opening sequence on a bad note.

I don't think that was CGI. I think is was done "old-school" with rear projection & a suspended harness.

It was done using blue screen, with the art gallery set a composite, and the surrounding tower, dome and rooftops above being CGI.

[byline]

Here's the bigger version I found! Enjoy!

This is brilliant. I echo others' sentiments: Why wasn't it used?

[Professor Pi]

I remember seeing a TV ad where they used rap music to promote the movie. Rap?!

Also, a San Diego TV movie critic reviewed the film, "The new 007 movie is oh, oh, awful. The worst Bond movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Finally, Sheila Benson of the L.A. Times referred to it as "the first film not to use a Fleming title, and the furthest in spirit from them." There was even a letters to the editor section the following weeks discussing what went wrong with Bond.

However misinformed these comments are, it was clear the public was having a hard time accepting the direction of Bond at the time.

[Dekard77]

I remember seeing a TV ad where they used rap music to promote the movie. Rap?!

Also, a San Diego TV movie critic reviewed the film, "The new 007 movie is oh, oh, awful. The worst Bond movie since On Her Majesty's Secret Service."

Finally, Sheila Benson of the L.A. Times referred to it as "the first film not to use a Fleming title, and the furthest in spirit from them." There was even a letters to the editor section the following weeks discussing what went wrong with Bond.

However misinformed these comments are, it was clear the public was having a hard time accepting the direction of Bond at the time.

Well said

[iBond]

I'm sure Dalton's Bond would have fit much better in the current times.

Edited by iBond, 10 June 2011 - 08:50 AM.

[Simon]

I happened to be working in New York and in the UK during that summer and I think the campaigns in the UK and US, in their own right, were perfectly acceptable.

To be sure in the US there was comment about name changes, spelling changes and the fantastically dire main release poster, but in the end, I would hazard that any campaign that didn't have Batman in the title would have been knocked into hell. In NY, one in ten t-shirts were sporting the Batman logo - it was just insane.

In the UK, I think it was business as usual and the UK artwork was certainly no worse or no less inspired than any subsequent Bond film to present day.

I think the film's comparative lack of success was more down to word of mouth and perhaps Dalton's take on the role. Certainly his Acting in this film is as over-the-top dramatic as Brosnan's was in TWODDLE. Indeed, I would suggest Dalton's acting was the low point of this film by comparison to the rest of the cast; and this is at odds with his easy and at-ease style in the preceding film - which should have been the one where he was more nervous.

Both LTK and TWODDLE suffer from superb premises, but just end up in not delivering.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I happened to be working in New York and in the UK during that summer and I think the campaigns in the UK and US, in their own right, were perfectly acceptable.

To be sure in the US there was comment about name changes, spelling changes and the fantastically dire main release poster, but in the end, I would hazard that any campaign that didn't have Batman in the title would have been knocked into hell. In NY, one in ten t-shirts were sporting the Batman logo - it was just insane.

In the UK, I think it was business as usual and the UK artwork was certainly no worse or no less inspired than any subsequent Bond film to present day.

Heavily agreed , and kind of echoing my feelings mentioned earlier in this thread.

[doublenoughtspy]

The LTK campaign is certainly the nadir of Bond advertising, made all the worse because the scrapped Peak stuff was so wonderful.

Title changes, Dalton's head pasted on a different body for the teaser, the US and UK one sheets just scream lameness to me.

But back to the original point - what if LTK had an amazing advertising campaign instead of a bad one?

If you quantify it, at a reasonable, believable rate, I still don't think it would have made a major difference.

Figure a 10%, 20%, or 25% increase in box office even (which would be an amazing jump) because of an incredible ad campaign, better posters, more trailers, etc. - LTK would still be a huge under performer.

As others have said, word of mouth is key.

And when you think about it - has anyone here honestly made a theatrical ticket purchase decision based SOLELY on a poster? I can't say that I have. I love posters, have a great collection, but I see films based on so many factors, and posters isn't even in the top 10 for why I'd see a film.

And let's take the previous box office under performing champ - TMWGG. While the main poster was very derivative of the previous film, L&LD, there were two great teaser posters - the wonderful Villains style, and the teaser poster of the Golden Gun in its components, there were lots of tie in posters (Guiness, travel posters, 2 Roger Moore contest ones, etc.) The film was, I think its safe to say, pretty well marketed. It just didn't do well.

[Cornbread17]

I understand that this was called License Revoked, and millions was spent on print and film ads before being renamed LTK, but I believe this was not the failure of the film, well... underperformance. I concur, this was caused by that great year of 1989, arguably the finest year of summer blockbusters, such as Batman, Indy 3, The Abyss, Uncle Buck and many more. This was just too overpacked a summer, and coulda used a fall date to make it better received.

The films rating was fine, as TLD was pushing that PG, hell even AVTAK was pushing it, but this one deserved it and is a better movie for it. Also, that rating also turned off many families, as the Bond's are known as family films as well, but all modern ones have been PG-13, and still generate familes, but I guess the talk of drug barons, cruel punishments, and several account of gore and deadly maggots turned off audiences.

Still, I love the film...

[iBond]

The LTK campaign is certainly the nadir of Bond advertising, made all the worse because the scrapped Peak stuff was so wonderful.

Title changes, Dalton's head pasted on a different body for the teaser, the US and UK one sheets just scream lameness to me.

But back to the original point - what if LTK had an amazing advertising campaign instead of a bad one?

If you quantify it, at a reasonable, believable rate, I still don't think it would have made a major difference.

Figure a 10%, 20%, or 25% increase in box office even (which would be an amazing jump) because of an incredible ad campaign, better posters, more trailers, etc. - LTK would still be a huge under performer.

As others have said, word of mouth is key.

And when you think about it - has anyone here honestly made a theatrical ticket purchase decision based SOLELY on a poster? I can't say that I have. I love posters, have a great collection, but I see films based on so many factors, and posters isn't even in the top 10 for why I'd see a film.

And let's take the previous box office under performing champ - TMWGG. While the main poster was very derivative of the previous film, L&LD, there were two great teaser posters - the wonderful Villains style, and the teaser poster of the Golden Gun in its components, there were lots of tie in posters (Guiness, travel posters, 2 Roger Moore contest ones, etc.) The film was, I think its safe to say, pretty well marketed. It just didn't do well.

But it wasn't dark. So, I'm sure it would have been more acceptable to viewers and not a total outcast like Licence to Kill. But yeah, I see the point you're making. The posters don't really make that much of a difference, but if they had those kept those Peck posters, I'm sure it would have at least make people think twice about seeing this movie. That artwork was different than what came before, and I'm sure that if it was used, it would have interested a lot of people because some people do judge a movie by it's poster. I don't. Honestly, I could care less about the poster. But at the same time, you want to draw your viewers into something. For example, when I saw Jurassic Park III, I was so disappointing because after seeing the poster with the new logo, it looked like something new and different...but it was just a disappointment for me. So I just tend to see a movie for the movie itself and not the posters. But, it just works differently with everyone.

The films rating was fine, as TLD was pushing that PG, hell even AVTAK was pushing it, but this one deserved it and is a better movie for it. Also, that rating also turned off many families, as the Bond's are known as family films as well, but all modern ones have been PG-13, and still generate familes...

It's funny how all this has changed.

Edited by iBond, 11 June 2011 - 06:28 AM.

[Simon]

The LTK campaign is certainly the nadir of Bond advertising, made all the worse because the scrapped Peak stuff was so wonderful.

Title changes, Dalton's head pasted on a different body for the teaser, the US and UK one sheets just scream lameness to me.

But in and of itself, how is that any different to Moore's super long legs and slim figure for the Oct and AVTAK posters, or FAVTAK's title change, or Brosnan's head stuck on bodies for TWINE and DAD posters, or Craig's photo stance for all his posters.

This has all been business as usual for a long time now and LTK in this respect, was absolutely no different.

I think people look at the worse-than-usual photo based US poster and say the 'entire' campaign was crap. The UK quad poster design for TND with Brosnan's head stuck against a bunch of TV screens was certainly no worse, the Speed 2 design for the middle teaser poster for DAD was just as dire...

[Safari Suit]

This is brilliant. I echo others' sentiments: Why wasn't it used?

The tagline lets it down though.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

This is brilliant. I echo others' sentiments: Why wasn't it used?

The tagline lets it down though.

Yeah but the tagline 'glimpse behind' was to entice you to open up the flyer (of which that image was on the cover) and therefore sell the film. It wasn't really a poster tagline. Maybe I'll upload the flyer here for folks to see.

[iBond]

Please do!

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

EDITED

[iBond]

The LTK campaign is certainly the nadir of Bond advertising, made all the worse because the scrapped Peak stuff was so wonderful.

Title changes, Dalton's head pasted on a different body for the teaser, the US and UK one sheets just scream lameness to me.

But in and of itself, how is that any different to Moore's super long legs and slim figure for the Oct and AVTAK posters, or FAVTAK's title change, or Brosnan's head stuck on bodies for TWINE and DAD posters, or Craig's photo stance for all his posters.

This has all been business as usual for a long time now and LTK in this respect, was absolutely no different.

I think people look at the worse-than-usual photo based US poster and say the 'entire' campaign was crap. The UK quad poster design for TND with Brosnan's head stuck against a bunch of TV screens was certainly no worse, the Speed 2 design for the middle teaser poster for DAD was just as dire...

I appreciated those other campaigns. And plus, at the time, photo manipulation became more accepted and better-kept than it was in Licence to Kill. Yet at the same time I do appreciate the 1989 campaign. Especially the one with Bond and that image of Sanchez all fiery red.

Edited by iBond, 17 June 2011 - 11:12 PM.