9 replies to this topic

[Righty007]

Does anyone know why there was a six year gap between Licence to Kill and Goldeneye?

[Se]

I thought they had some financial trouble and a law suit going on. At least that's what the little book inside the GoldenEye DVD says...

[Dr Noah]

LTK underperformed at the box office, living MGM in a vulnable financial state. Some guy attempted to take it over, and as part of his take-over bid, he tried to sell off the Bond movies very cheaply to tv and satalite companies. EON objected to it and launced legal action, a series (I think) of law suits followed.

[Blue Eyes]

It's extremely complicated but Dr Noah does hit it pretty square on. Basically the then-MGM owners intended to sell of the tv rights to the Bond catalogue at a cheap price, which would have devalued the value of the Bond series and everything associated with it.

As a result Cubby and Michael G Wilson launched an injunction to stop the sale of the Bond catalogue.

I do, however, believe there is something missing from that story. The legal mess had to do with the past Bond films, I don't really see why it affected a new Bond film.

[kevrichardson]

Sony , Kevin McClory attempt to infinge on the Bond films . The MGM financial condition . Which had nothing to do with the proformmance of "LTK" . The use of the Bond film Television rights . Which Cubby Broccoli thought were not in EON favor. Dalton resigning in 1993 .

[ChandlerBing]

MGM was very reluctant to okay another Bond film with Dalton. Despite worldwide grosses that were rather nice, they still underperformed in the States. Daylights had the worst attendence since The Man With The Golden Gun and then Licence To Kill was even worse. You know you have a problem when Star Trek V makes more money than your Bond movie. What to do, what to do. Cubby and Dalton got along fine, unlike the previous situation with Lazenby, and Cubby was not about to fire him. Cubby was, if anything, loyal to a fault. When Cubby's health went south, his kids realized they had to make a change if they wanted to have any chance whatsoever at making another Bond. Despite my negative feelings about Dalton, he did finally have the common sense to finally step aside and let someone else who actually was enthused about playing James Bond take the part. One of Dalton's problems is that when he was Bond, the mainstream public didn't know who the hell he was. They were going to see Bond just because it was Bond, and that will only get you so much of the audience. When Sean, Roger, and now Pierce play Bond, the audience is going on name recognition. They know they are going to have a good time, have a few laughs, and will enjoy themselves, which the Bond films produced by Eon have always tried to do in some way, shape, or form.
As a counterargument, you could make the case as to why Roger was allowed by MGM to come back as Bond for Spy in 1977. Golden Gun was a huge disappointment on the lines of License To Kill in 89, but Roger's first Bond, Live and Let Die, was actually a very big hit. It was the most profitable Bond for UA since Thunderball in 1965. Unfortunately, they got greedy and rushed back to the well too quickly with the next one in 74 and rushed it out to capitalize on their prior success.

[ray t]

Licence may have dissappointed stateside but did make good money globally. Daylights, however, was a big hit world-wide....bigger than AVTAK which preceeded it.

the "3rd Dalton" was slated for its usual 1991 spot. i.e. 2 year cyclical release with a treatment involving high tech robots/androids and dalton's girlfriend, whoopie goldberg as a hench-woman/villian, but the legal developments with the brocollis and MGM's liquidity problems scuttered those plans for 2-3 years.

by 1994, dalton, who had been associated with the 007 role for 8 years - since 1986 - had (to his good credit and MGMs relief) stepped aside and brosnan took over the mantle that he was born and bred for

[Dr Noah]

I actually think the long gap worked in Bond's favour. It allowed antcipation to see a new Bond movie build up and it charged up EON's creative batteries.

[ChandlerBing]

I still believe that Dalton's 3rd Bond would have really killed Bond for good. I mean, Whoopi Goldberg, for Christ's Sake? I was about to say, it could have been Fran Drescher, but there was always The Beautician and the Beast, for you Dalton fans who have to see everything your favorite actor is in.
I again reiterate that Dalton was not a household name. Most people didn't know him, didn't care. Brosnan was a bigger name. He's still not up there on the A-list, witness Evelyn getting dumped on by UA and Grey Owl going straight to video, but he's still had Thomas Crown. Brosnan has a persona that fits perfectly with Bond. He's kind of along the lines of Roger Moore. Moore was great in the suave Cary Grant-type stuff. Brosnan has that same type of thing. Dalton? Well, a lot of you think he's a good actor, but I can't think of much else.
When people hear about a new Bond movie, they ask if Pierce is in it. They generally are enthused about it when he is. When Dalton was in it, it was just a new Bond with that one guy in it.
Bond benefits from having someone they can identify. Connery may not have been known much in Dr. No, but that quickly changed. I am a supporter for Hugh Jackman for Bond.

[antonio damas]

I think there are james bond movie done between those years, but it is not official. all of the actors that take the roll of james bond are all americans and those movies are not so popular.