b) Is it not a speculation too to suggest that LTK would definitely not have made up an extra 10% to 20% in spite of marketing initiatives?
Of course it is!
Exactly so there was no point in writing things such as these - " Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation" when it would have NOT is a speculation too
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Timothy Dalton: still the subject of flame wars...25+ years on :007)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The premise to Licence to Kill was revenge. It took him out of his comfort zone and put him on a path of revenge. He went directly after the villain. A close friend was damaged (and his wife killed) and it gave him solid motivation to get to the villain.
It had never been done before. Though it was alluded to in the books and they tried something new. They should be applauded for that. I wonder if it was too abstract for you. It took you out of your comfort zone but in Britain it was received very well
Miami Vice? What a load of crap. I can see why they went for Key West and the only dangerous people in those days were the drug kingpins. Didn't Noriega run Panama? Didn't Pablo Escobar run Colombia? They had governments in their pockets...
Today, we have some excellent TV series such as Narcos, which are based on similar subjects, on Netflix. But LTK is still a good watch. It has aged well
Saying that people did not watch LTK because of similarities with MV is like saying that people would not watch a Batman film because of the TV series or cartoon or something like that )
Some of the reasons as to why LTK under-performed relatively esp. in the US are:
a) LTK is a different Bond film. The typical Bond and general audience went in expecting the film to be similar to TLD, AVTAK, etc.
b) Inadequate marketing (from what I understand, many of the posters had been printed as Licence Revoked)
c) John Glen was directing his 5th Bond film so the fatigue factor could creep in (Though per Glen, LTK is his best film)
c) The loss of John Barry due to throat surgery
e) The film's certification and perception of violence
f) Released at a time when family entertainers hold the fort and against some great direct competition
h) etc.
The performance of the film at BO could have been improved by:
a) Communicating how different the film is so that audiences were prepared for a change
b) Highlighting Dalton's terrific performance, which would have further helped to differentiate the film from its competition
c) Focusing on generating a buzz to get a huge opening weekend
d) Identifying the optimum release date for the film
e) etc.
And the above is esp. important for LTK as many times when EON has tried something new, the BO has not responded as well as it should have as can be seen from the relative BO performance of films such as OHMSS (A new Bond and a relatively more realistic or back to basics approach), TMWTGG (Different concept, no special gadgets for Bond, etc.), etc.
It was actually available through Amazon Prime, so I watched about 10 minutes the other day. But I ended up bored with it, which is usually what happens.
The movie picks up once Bond goes rogue .... Some of the movie highlights such as the Seaplane capture, setting up Milton, Q as a field agent, the truck chase, etc. come later on
How Bond makes Sanchez doubt the "loyalty" of his team is similar to Yojimbo and A fistful of dollars
The movie picks up once Bond goes rogue .... Some of the movie highlights such as the Seaplane capture, setting up Milton, Q as a field agent, the truck chase, etc. come later on
How Bond makes Sanchez doubt the "loyalty" of his team is similar to Yojimbo and A fistful of dollars
Being a Kurosawa fan I picked up on that easily. {[]
The premise to Licence to Kill was revenge. It took him out of his comfort zone and put him on a path of revenge. He went directly after the villain. A close friend was damaged (and his wife killed) and it gave him solid motivation to get to the villain.
It had never been done before. Though it was alluded to in the books and they tried something new. They should be applauded for that. I wonder if it was too abstract for you. It took you out of your comfort zone but in Britain it was received very well
Miami Vice? What a load of crap. I can see why they went for Key West and the only dangerous people in those days were the drug kingpins. Didn't Noriega run Panama? Didn't Pablo Escobar run Colombia? They had governments in their pockets...
Today, we have some excellent TV series such as Narcos, which are based on similar subjects, on Netflix. But LTK is still a good watch. It has aged well
Saying that people did not watch LTK because of similarities with MV is like saying that people would not watch a Batman film because of the TV series or cartoon or something like that )
Some of the reasons as to why LTK under-performed relatively esp. in the US are:
a) LTK is a different Bond film. The typical Bond and general audience went in expecting the film to be similar to TLD, AVTAK, etc.
b) Inadequate marketing (from what I understand, many of the posters had been printed as Licence Revoked)
c) John Glen was directing his 5th Bond film so the fatigue factor could creep in (Though per Glen, LTK is his best film)
c) The loss of John Barry due to throat surgery
e) The film's certification and perception of violence
f) Released at a time when family entertainers hold the fort and against some great direct competition
h) etc.
The performance of the film at BO could have been improved by:
a) Communicating how different the film is so that audiences were prepared for a change
b) Highlighting Dalton's terrific performance, which would have further helped to differentiate the film from its competition
c) Focusing on generating a buzz to get a huge opening weekend
d) Identifying the optimum release date for the film
e) etc.
And the above is esp. important for LTK as many times when EON has tried something new, the BO has not responded as well as it should have as can be seen from the relative BO performance of films such as OHMSS (A new Bond and a relatively more realistic or back to basics approach), TMWTGG (Different concept, no special gadgets for Bond, etc.), etc.
{[]
+1 -{
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
The premise to Licence to Kill was revenge. It took him out of his comfort zone and put him on a path of revenge. He went directly after the villain. A close friend was damaged (and his wife killed) and it gave him solid motivation to get to the villain.
It had never been done before. Though it was alluded to in the books and they tried something new. They should be applauded for that. I wonder if it was too abstract for you. It took you out of your comfort zone but in Britain it was received very well
Miami Vice? What a load of crap. I can see why they went for Key West and the only dangerous people in those days were the drug kingpins. Didn't Noriega run Panama? Didn't Pablo Escobar run Colombia? They had governments in their pockets...
"poo", "crap" ... 8-) LTK premiered in July 1989, after 110 episodes of Miami Vice - all but one. If you didn't notice a similarity at the time maybe you were too young to stay up that long? After four years of MV, coming up with a drug dealer plot wasn't the brightest idea ...
And what was new about the revenge theme that "had never been done before"? Have you ever seen a Bronson or Eastwood film? All done multiple times before.
LTK seems to be rated higher now as it is watched without the context of its time - those thinking that LTK is so much better and highly original should have to watch all 32 DVDs of the Complete Miami Vice Collection before.
Fact is that LTK performed particularly poorly in the USA, with only 22% of its worldwide box office coming from the US. But even when theoretically doubling the US BO (that would bring US BO to about more typical 34% of worldwide) LTK would still be one of the least successful films in the series (it would rise from #36 to #18 for 1989 - with AVTAK as #13 for 1985 and TLD #19 for 1987). Nothing would change that both Dalton films are among the three least successful - that's no coincidence.
There are no excuses because of the PG-13 rating or the summer release date. Batman and IJ Last Crusade were also rated PG-13, Lethal Weapon 2 even rated R. Films don't have to be PG to be financially successful.
A summer release was the standard for Bond films, the last film with an autumn/winter release before was TMWTGG, and we all know that this was a financial disappointment. A Bond film should be able to do well regardless of the competition. TSWLM started the same week that Star Wars had its wide release, and it still was a great success. Batman was a new franchise and I wouldn't have thought of Michael Keaton as a superstar then. But Keaton filled theatres, Dalton just didn't - he didn't in TLD (which was just a bit up from AVTAK because of curiosity about the new guy but certainly no blockbuster) and without the curiosity factor LTK had to be the box office disappointment it was.
A third Dalton film wouldn't have changed the public's opinion about him, and reading the plot rumors (with female killer robots ) we can all be thankful that this third film didn't happen - so the franchise is still alive and we have a forum to talk about it. -{
It got it's share of mediocre reviews (though some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked it a bit more), but more importantly, bad word of mouth.
Ebert actually liked it a lot--he gave it 3 and a half stars out of four. Here's the text of the review:
The James Bond movies have by now taken on the discipline of a sonnet or a kabuki drama: Every film follows the same story outline so rigidly that we can predict almost to the minute such obligatory developments as (1) the introduction of the villain's specialized hit man; (2) the long shot that establishes the villain's incredibly luxurious secret hideout; (3) the villain's fatal invitation to Bond to spend the night; (4) the moment when the villain's mistress falls for Bond; (5) the series of explosions destroying the secret fortress, and (6) the final spectacular stunt sequence.
Connoisseurs evaluate the elements in a Bond picture as if they were movements in a symphony, or courses in a meal. There are few surprises, and the changes are evolutionary, so that the latest Bond picture is recognizable as a successor to the first, "Dr. No," in 1962. Within this framework of tradition, "Licence to Kill" nevertheless manages to spring some interesting surprises. One is that the Bond character, as played now for the second time by Timothy Dalton, has become less of a British icon and more of an international action hero. The second is that the tempo has been picked up, possibly in response to the escalating pace of the Rambo and Indiana Jones movies. The third is that the villain has fairly modest aims, for a change; he doesn't want to rule the world, he only wants to be a cocaine billionaire.
I've grown uneasy lately about the fashion of portraying drug smugglers in glamorous lifestyles; they're viewed with some of the same glamor as gangsters were, in films of the 1930s. Sure, they die in the end, but they have a lot of fun in the meantime. In "Licence to Kill," however, the use of a drug kingpin named Sanchez (Robert Davi) and his henchmen (Anthony Zerbe, Frank McRae) is apparently part of an attempt to update the whole series and make it feel more contemporary.
There are still, of course, the obligatory scenes. The film begins with a sensationally unbelievable stunt sequence (Bond and friend lasso a plane, then parachute to a wedding ceremony). But then the action switches to the recognizable modern world in and around Key West, Fla., where the British agent finds himself involved in an operation to capture Sanchez and cut his pipeline of cocaine.
Like all Bond villains, Sanchez has unlimited resources and a beautiful mistress. His operation uses an underwater shark-nabbing company as its cover, and keeps a few sharks on hand so they can dine on federal agents. After Bond's friend, Felix Leiter, is mistreated by the bad guys, 007 begins a savage vendetta against Sanchez, which involves elaborate and violent stunt sequences in the air, on land, and underwater.
He is aided in his campaign by the beautiful Pam Bouvier (Carey Lowell, introduced as "Miss Kennedy, my executive secretary"), and saved more than once by Sanchez' beautiful mistress, Lupe Lamora (Talisa Soto). Both women are as beautiful as the historical Bond standard, but more modern - more competent, intelligent and capable, and not simply sex objects. This is no doubt part of the plan, announced before Dalton's first Bond picture, to de-emphasize the character's promiscuous sex life. Compared to his previous films, 007 is practically chaste this time.
My favorite moments in all the Bond pictures involve The Fallacy of the Talking Killer, in which the villain has Bond clearly in his power, and then, instead of killing him instantly, makes the mistake of talking just long enough for Bond to make a plan. The fallacy saves Bond's life two or three times in this movie - especially once when all that Davi has to do is slice his neck.
"Licence to Kill" ends, as all the Bond films do, with an extended chase and stunt sequence. This one involves some truly amazing stunt work, as three giant gasoline trucks speed down a twisting mountain road, while a helicopter and a light aircraft also join in the chase. There were moments when I was straining to spot the trickery, as a big semi-rig spun along tilted to one side, to miss a missile aimed by the bad guys. But the stunts all look convincing, and the effect of the closing sequence is exhilarating.
On the basis of this second performance as Bond, Dalton can have the role as long as he enjoys it. He makes an effective Bond - lacking Sean Connery's grace and humor, and Roger Moore's suave self-mockery, but with a lean tension and a toughness that is possibly more contemporary. The major difference between Dalton and the earlier Bonds is that he seems to prefer action to sex. But then so do movie audiences, these days. "Licence to Kill" is one of the best of the recent Bonds.
Pretty good then, especially since it came from the most famous and popular reviewer of the period. It would be also interesting to see a broader sample of reviews. On the other hand, the Bond films have never been critical darlings (especially not in the Moore era and the 80s) and reviews have little to do with their success. As for "word of mouth," it's an overused concept (especially since it's often dependent on marketing) and extremely hard to actually prove or quantify.
Back in 1989 I actually didn't think LTK was all that. Why? Two reasons:
1) I was distracted by Batman- to this day still one of my all-time favourite films.
2) I was a 29 year old IDIOT; a dullard that had never poured over the Fleming novels. This has been rectified by time & reading. )
Comments
Exactly so there was no point in writing things such as these - " Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation" when it would have NOT is a speculation too
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Again not apples to apples comparison as
a) GE was released 6 years later
b) Its budget was approx. 50% more
c) It can be speculated that TD would have made it a success too
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I am having a
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Today, we have some excellent TV series such as Narcos, which are based on similar subjects, on Netflix. But LTK is still a good watch. It has aged well
Saying that people did not watch LTK because of similarities with MV is like saying that people would not watch a Batman film because of the TV series or cartoon or something like that
Some of the reasons as to why LTK under-performed relatively esp. in the US are:
a) LTK is a different Bond film. The typical Bond and general audience went in expecting the film to be similar to TLD, AVTAK, etc.
b) Inadequate marketing (from what I understand, many of the posters had been printed as Licence Revoked)
c) John Glen was directing his 5th Bond film so the fatigue factor could creep in (Though per Glen, LTK is his best film)
c) The loss of John Barry due to throat surgery
e) The film's certification and perception of violence
f) Released at a time when family entertainers hold the fort and against some great direct competition
h) etc.
The performance of the film at BO could have been improved by:
a) Communicating how different the film is so that audiences were prepared for a change
b) Highlighting Dalton's terrific performance, which would have further helped to differentiate the film from its competition
c) Focusing on generating a buzz to get a huge opening weekend
d) Identifying the optimum release date for the film
e) etc.
And the above is esp. important for LTK as many times when EON has tried something new, the BO has not responded as well as it should have as can be seen from the relative BO performance of films such as OHMSS (A new Bond and a relatively more realistic or back to basics approach), TMWTGG (Different concept, no special gadgets for Bond, etc.), etc.
{[]
The movie picks up once Bond goes rogue
How Bond makes Sanchez doubt the "loyalty" of his team is similar to Yojimbo and A fistful of dollars
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
+1
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
+1 -{
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1) Argument
2) Constitutional peasant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY
3) Cheese shop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0
4) The Spanish Inqui....
Four favourite Python skits:
1) Argument
2) Constitutional peasant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY
3) Cheese shop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3KBuQHHKx0
4) The Yorkshiremen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
5) The Spanish Inquisi....
Five favourite Python skits....
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Ebert actually liked it a lot--he gave it 3 and a half stars out of four. Here's the text of the review:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/licence-to-kill-1989
Pretty good then, especially since it came from the most famous and popular reviewer of the period. It would be also interesting to see a broader sample of reviews. On the other hand, the Bond films have never been critical darlings (especially not in the Moore era and the 80s) and reviews have little to do with their success. As for "word of mouth," it's an overused concept (especially since it's often dependent on marketing) and extremely hard to actually prove or quantify.
1) I was distracted by Batman- to this day still one of my all-time favourite films.
2) I was a 29 year old IDIOT; a dullard that had never poured over the Fleming novels. This has been rectified by time & reading.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
How do you think that it's gotten any better after 27 years :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I feel like it would have been a fantastic film to do so.
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Can assure you that you haven't missed anything then
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming