46 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

LTK was a great film lost in a changed marketplace that wanted the big BOND extravaganza, not a gritty revenge thriller.

Agreed.

It's also not as though it really matters why LTK failed at the US box office. The success of SKYFALL has proven that something like this most likely won't happen again either ever or for a very, very long time. If a mediocre film like SKYFALL can make close to a billion dollars in a dire global economy like the one we're currently living in, despite having a marketing campaign even worse than LICENCE TO KILL's, then I have to wonder if they can ever pull off a box office failure like that again. It would take a real disaster of a movie, one to make DIE ANOTHER DAY look like a piece of cinematic perfection, to cause such a failure at the box office.

Skyfall's marketing campaign has been epic and the best of any Bond and one of the best of any movie. No need to say provocative things if they have no base in reality.

Aside from being handed an poorly-done short film during the Olympics ceremony, the SKYFALL campaign has hardly been 'epic'. It's been one piss poor trailer after another and then the worst poster campaign in the history of the franchise.

[Hockey Mask]

There was advertising ALL OVER the internet, I couldn't watch a video without seeing a Skyfall clip. Skyfall was the ONLY thing that permeated the election ads in the U.S. Add in the massive television coverage that preceded the movie by months and the world-wide exposure at the Olympics and there has NEVER been a Bond promoted like this one.

You may not like the quality (I did) but the quantity can't be disputed.

Edited by 00Hockey Mask, 02 December 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[tdalton]

Quantity is not the end-all-be-all of marketing, though. It's a part of it, of course, but there has to be something of quality behind it as well, something that the EON/SONY partnership has proven to be clueless about.

They could have plastered those awful posters for LICENCE TO KILL on every telephone pole in the US back in 1989 and people still wouldn't have gone to see it.

Regardless of one's opinions on the marketing for SKYFALL, I do think the new Bond film has proven that a LICENCE TO KILL-type failure isn't on the horizon for the Bond franchise for a very long time, if ever again. With as many people as there are struggling economically in both the US and Europe and pretty much everywhere else for that matter, for SKYFALL to become the biggest Bond film in the US, taking in over 200 million, and shatter records in Europe as well, I think that shows that it would be nearly impossible for them to pull off a LICENCE TO KILL-type box office tank job. The fact that the world's economy is walking the fine line between Recession and Depression, SKYFALL is about to become a billion-dollar Bond movie, which indicates to me that EON could do practically whatever they want with the franchise moving forward and not have it suffer financially for quite some time.

[Hockey Mask]

If you put up out a crappy Bond in a crappy movie we will see another LTK performance. As long a Craig is involved I think =Bond is in safe hands.

[SecretAgentFan]

While I love SKYFALL I do agree with tdalton on one thing: the posters were a letdown and could have been handled so much better. And I also think he´s right in pointing out that BOND right now is a hot commodity that will make audiences hungry for the next entry if not entries.

Timothy Dalton just came in at the wrong time. If he had succeeded Roger Moore after MOONRAKER I´m sure he would have been a hugely successful Bond. And I know everything.

[Hockey Mask]

I think the Bond posters are really just an issue for the devoted Bond fans. I can't see how having better posters could have added to the mammoth box office. Has anyone not gone to see Skyfall that would have had there been a better poster? I don't think so. Is there anyone that refused to see Skyfall because of poor poster art? I don't think so.

Personally, I am a big fan of the Craig lying down poster and it screams Skyfall to me now.

[plankattack]

I think the Bond posters are really just an issue for the devoted Bond fans. I can't see how having better posters could have added to the mammoth box office. Has anyone not gone to see Skyfall that would have had there been a better poster? I don't think so. Is there anyone that refused to see Skyfall because of poor poster art? I don't think so.

Personally, I am a big fan of the Craig lying down poster and it screams Skyfall to me now.

As the chap who originally brought up the posters, I do want to explain what I mean. Hockey, you're right - a bad/good poster doesn't necessarily attribute to box office, but in '89 it was indicative of MGM/UA doing a half-assed job of promoting LTK. They seemed uncommitted to the film all the way along - from ambivalence about the original title, the star, the series itself. The poster and publicity campaign seemed to indicate that they either believed that LTK would sell itself or that they weren't that bothered if it didn't

Obviously IMHO the SF posters are mediocre, but the internet presence (and the internet has really minimized the need for full-on print campaign) was in-line with the standard of modern franchises. From official websites, web videos, interviews etc, the internet has arguably even sidelined the importance of getting the mainstream media on-side. The studio has a much more direct route to the potential ticket-buyer than even a decade ago.

All those who say it would almost be impossible for a Bond film to tank in this day and age are spot-on. If one did, it would be fault of the studio alone, in failing it cultivate interest and build anticipation. If LTK happened now, with a lead that the audience were unsure about, I suspect it would still do okay.

[Turn]

Poster art is a lot less important in the marketing these days. How many DVDs/Blu-rays even use it anymore? I used to collect a lot of posters from films I like and these days unless I come across a really good deal on Bond posters I don't really even bother anymore.

I don't mind the SF campaign. It's not the worst thing, but won't threaten the memories of the classic era, when these meant a lot more. Often the only way to know a new film was coming was seeing it framed in a cinema's lobby under coming attraction. They didn't broadcast commercials all over the 300 cable/satellite channels or have them as pop-ups on the Internet.

My least favorite poster has to be the DAD main poster with Brosnan and Berry seeming to fly with their guns. Somebody had a pretty good line about like James Bond and his little sister save the world."

[plankattack]

My least favorite poster has to be the DAD main poster with Brosnan and Berry seeming to fly with their guns. Somebody had a pretty good line about like James Bond and his little sister save the world."

Turn, this is entirely incorrect.

It wasn't his sister, it was his "Momma"!!!

[Hockey Mask]

I think the Bond posters are really just an issue for the devoted Bond fans. I can't see how having better posters could have added to the mammoth box office. Has anyone not gone to see Skyfall that would have had there been a better poster? I don't think so. Is there anyone that refused to see Skyfall because of poor poster art? I don't think so.

Personally, I am a big fan of the Craig lying down poster and it screams Skyfall to me now.

As the chap who originally brought up the posters, I do want to explain what I mean. Hockey, you're right - a bad/good poster doesn't necessarily attribute to box office, but in '89 it was indicative of MGM/UA doing a half-assed job of promoting LTK. They seemed uncommitted to the film all the way along - from ambivalence about the original title, the star, the series itself. The poster and publicity campaign seemed to indicate that they either believed that LTK would sell itself or that they weren't that bothered if it didn't

Obviously IMHO the SF posters are mediocre, but the internet presence (and the internet has really minimized the need for full-on print campaign) was in-line with the standard of modern franchises. From official websites, web videos, interviews etc, the internet has arguably even sidelined the importance of getting the mainstream media on-side. The studio has a much more direct route to the potential ticket-buyer than even a decade ago.

All those who say it would almost be impossible for a Bond film to tank in this day and age are spot-on. If one did, it would be fault of the studio alone, in failing it cultivate interest and build anticipation. If LTK happened now, with a lead that the audience were unsure about, I suspect it would still do okay.

Agreed but I wonder if any Bond that doesn't out perform its predecessor won't be seen as a failure.

US Box Office: SF > QoS > CR > DAD > TWINE > TND > GE

It has been a heck of a run but something has to give and Skyfall's box office performance may have set the bar too high. Or will is just fuel the excitement for Bond 24?

[FlemingBond]

I tend to think there was more at work there also. It's true, 1989 was one of the biggest blockbuster summers of all time. LTK got released at the end of that, and it received a not very good marketing campaign. And the poster....didn't look like a Bond movie, where as The Living Daylights poster was unmistakable.

[graric]

I tend to think there was more at work there also. It's true, 1989 was one of the biggest blockbuster summers of all time. LTK got released at the end of that, and it received a not very good marketing campaign. And the poster....didn't look like a Bond movie, where as The Living Daylights poster was unmistakable.

Exactly, LTK's posters could have been just about any B-grade Action Movie. Skyfall's final poster wasn't much better but the teaser poster of Craig walking down the gunbarrel was the perfect poster for the 50th anniversary, there was no doubt it was a Bond film. It was extremely well received by a fair portion of the internet (along with a very strong teaser trailer that got alot of the casual audience thinking that Skyfall was more than just another Bond film ) this campaign did an incredible job of building up the hype for Skyfall and making an audiences believe that a Bond film was an event once more.

Despite what Tdalton may feel this campaign was handled much better than LTK, as others have said a fair portion of the American audience didn't know LTK had even been released while there is no doubt that the audience's knew Skyfall's release. In any case despite any problems Tdalton might have personally with Skyfall, it clearly did a fair bit right that LTK got wrong: it had a strong promotional campaign, it was not opening against a host of other action films, it has gotten some of the strongest critical praise in the series history (whether you agree with the praise is entirely subjective) and it used all of this to build strong word of mouth that has gotten the audience to come back multiple times.
In any case even with a strong advertising campaign LTK would have faced an uphill battle: it needed strong word of mouth and the ability to show why Bond is different from seeing just about any other action hero

[tdalton]

it was not opening against a host of other action films

This is, IMO, the only thing that SKYFALL did right that LICENCE TO KILL didn't. SKYFALL did pick its spot perfectly, opening against a ridiculous vampire series and a historical drama in limited release (during its first week, anyway). The critical praise for SKYFALL is so unwarranted that it's just astounding that it's receiving it. They let so many things slide in SKYFALL that they, as a community, would have (and did) torn apart previous Bond films for doing the exact same thing, mainly because they want to reward the film for not being QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

Anyway, with that said, I don't think that any of this really matters in the long run. The public has cast their vote. They like now (Craig) what they didn't like then (Dalton), and that's really what the whole debate boils down to, I think.

Edited by tdalton, 02 December 2012 - 04:47 PM.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Interesting topic...but you forgot to mention...

http://www.imdb.com/...roadhouse&s=all

[Piz Gloria 1969]

Bondposters 1962-87......RIP

 

I agree , LTK was pooly advertised.

Edited by Piz Gloria 1969, 27 December 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Dan Gale]

GoldenEye was bigger because it and Brosnan were better,

The list of continuity mistakes, plot holes and poorly conceived scenes was certainly 'bigger' in G*ldeneye and Brosnan was 'better' at acting like a stiff arse Brit. I agree with you, there.

[Hockey Mask]

 

GoldenEye was bigger because it and Brosnan were better,

The list of continuity mistakes, plot holes and poorly conceived scenes was certainly 'bigger' in G*ldeneye and Brosnan was 'better' at acting like a stiff arse Brit. I agree with you, there.

 

HA!  I see what you did there.  You didn't agree with me at all but made it look like you did.