It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Eon were not at fault for the diabolical advertising campaign, this was entirely the fault of MGM as they rejected Eon's own teaser posters created by Bob Peak, along with their title Licence Revoked. All this can be laid at the feet of MGM.
So we could start up the FBFS (fake Bond fan society). All comers welcome.
Count me in as I find LTK very flawed to say the least. I always wondered why it was held in such high esteem.
That's 3 members already!
So, sorry to all the LTK fans that I might've pissed off with some of my earlier remarks. Though some of my gripes still stand, they're pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Now I really wish that I'd gotten to see that third Dalton 007 movie before he finally retired.
Let's not open that can of worms.
Thank you. Didn't know Clapton recorded a theme song.
All is forgiven and welcome to the club! I rank the film pretty much the way you do--not as great as the Connery classics or OHMSS, but one of the best in between those and CR.
Indeed. Perhaps he'd have enjoyed Moore's third-charm luck. We'll never know, alas.
Judging by what we know, it definitely would have been a larger scale film.
Multiple reasons, I think.
The American grosses for the Bond films seem to have been on a downward trajectory after Moonraker, with only occasional bumps. And for whatever reason, American audiences didn't take to Dalton--TLD did better than AVTAK, but it didn't ensure a larger audience for its follow-up.
1989 was also the year where Americans had more than enough new and shiny native franchises to choose from, all of which seemed to have vastly better ad campaigns and promotion. One also has to remember that back then films ran for a much longer time in theaters. I saw Batman (which opened in June) in early October 1989. That was the exciting and heavily promoted new franchise of the summer. Had Bond opened in fall he would have been a welcome diversion during Oscar-bait season, rather than an old franchise in a pool of youngsters.
I also think that Bond had become so familiar to American audiences, thanks to repeated formula of the Moore years, that he ended up between a rock and a hard place. The old formula had grown stale, but attempts to radically change the formula (as in LTK) didn't sell. It turns out that what Americans wanted, as shown in GoldenEye, was a mix of Connery and Moore (as Brosnan was repeatedly described) with a 90s generic action film patina. The film was superficially game-changing (Russian locales! Female M! Bond being called out for misogyny!) but was ultimately comforting (familiar TV star as Bond; standard Bond tropes like the good and evil babes, the evil villain's lair, the countdown to doom, etc) with a modern veneer (bigger and better explosions, Bond machine-gunning hundreds of people, etc).
I also think by the mid-90s the new American franchises had already exhausted themselves or lost their novelty, so Bond became like an old friend who'd returned from a long absence with a reassuring new facelift.
On the positive side, she's not a super agent/female Bond type like XXX or Jinx. Isn't it refreshing she's not captured by the enemy or in need of rescue? She's very self-reliant and a great help to Bond, but this is where I get so frustrated by the little jealous moments. I still think many of Lowell's line readings are flat.
As far as reasoning why LTK underperformed in the U.S., I recall being shocked at how little it did on opening weekend the following Monday. Back then I had to rely on USA Today to get such info and bought a copy when I went to my summer college course and my jaw dropped when I saw the gross.
My guess is we had that new breed of hero like John McClane of Die Hard and Martin Riggs of Lethal Weapon the younger audience was more interested in. Four years prior, Rambo: First Blood II also trounced AVTAK as they opened the same weekend, though not at bad as LTK. It's strange because I was 22 at the time and most of us who made up the audience at the time had grown up on Bond movies, he was one of our heroes.
There was marketing, but it was largely uninspired. There were contests and some MTV coverage and ABC reran Bond films each Sunday evening that summer.
It just seemed like MGM was lazy and just thought they could throw a Bond film out there with the minimum effort and it would do great business, but they really underestimated it. I believe LTK left the first-run cinema in my town after just two weeks or so. My second viewing LTK came at a second-run theater with a friend not long after. Of course, this was before we had a multiplex, just five screens and a drive-in, but nonetheless it was when the big summer films were slowing down.
Interesting about the new American franchises that had gone stale. LTK had Die Hard to be conpared to while GE had... Die Hard 3.
GoldenEye also had the good sense to open in November, whereas Die Hard 3 and Batman Forever opened in May and June. Those were the only action franchises from that year (aside from Under Siege 2), and it's worth noting that both went off the rails afterward: Batman derailed with Batman and Robin and Die Hard didn't return until 2007.
Back in the mid 90s, audiences were ready for something... old.
Which brings me back to LTK: I always thought it embraced too much the action movies canvas of its time. The Bond formula was a bit lost in it to the point where I felt that Bond had a looong cameo in another genre. It's a Bond movie like TSWLM is a Bond novel. So I would have Britishized it, so to speak and played down the loner going against a druglord for revenge elements. Have some scenes set in the UK before he goes directly against Sanchez. Maybe have Bond take holidays? And make Sanchez more of a narcoterrorist. It was hinted at in the movie but never developed. Oh and make Bond a more capable fighter.
The big movie to compare GE to at the time was True Lies rather than the Die Hard series.
Of course I remember '89 vividly. Everything was building up for Batman. The press were going bananas over it, featuring something about it almost daily. To all intents and purposes, it appeared to suck the life right out of Bond's new release, which almost became a footnote in our own papers. Maybe the fact that the UK press saw Batman ostensibly as a British production, that may have helped them switch their loyalties? I honestly don't know. But much like Star Wars, the media's attention was primarily focused on Batman that summer. I also agree that the "new breed of hero" in the form of Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters 2 and Die Hard would've helped play a part in taking the gloss off LTK in the US, plus Bond had also been in sharp decline since FYEO.
As you quite rightly pointed out, GE was released to a much bigger fanfare and not as a summer release in an already over-crowded market, unlike LTK. It also benefited by having its production budget doubled, no doubt thanks to the huge success of True Lies.
For the record, I saw both Batman, True Lies and GE as advanced screenings long before they went on general public release. To give those an idea of just how huge a deal Batman was and who weren't around in '89, I recall standing in line outside The Empire Leicester Square and ticket touts offering me £100 for it! I would've been lucky to get £30 for LTK had I been in the same situation. Of course, the ticket tout would've sold it on for £200 upwards such was the frenzy to see Batman before anyone else had!!
I can remember the 007 magazine, the film magazines running specials, the Royal Premier TV special etc.
I can't speak for the USA where I assume, (as already stated), they were in the midst of Batman fever, but in the UK it was publicised every bit as much as previous films.
It'll be interesting to see how some of you contribute to improving GE, especially as it was such a watershed moment in your lives for the vast majority. It might be difficult for some of you to be objective about it as it was such a defining moment in your appreciation of all things Bond. Personally, I can't wait to stick the boot into Alan Cumming and Eric Serra.
I'd also be interested to see some of the film magazines running specials on LTK @NicNac. Sadly, the first issue of Empire came out a little too late for LTK and only featured Dennis Quaid's Great Balls of Fire on its cover as its major attraction. Issue 2 of course had Batman Exclusives along with Ghostbusters 2 and by issue 3 had moved onto Indiana Jones 3. Apart from obscure titles like 007 magazine and Cinefantastique which weren't readily available in your local newsagents, I honestly didn't see that much in the way of LTK publicity in the printed form, aside from the uninspiring movie posters on the London tube and the occasional woman's magazine cover. Of course we had John Gardener's novelization of the movie and Mike Grell's the Official Comic Book Adaptation. The Gladys Knight song which did perform well in the UK charts and was available in both CD and vinyl, despite me not particularly liking it very much. That said, I still feel the other blockbusters sucked the life right out LTK that summer and was soon crowded out, even with the two TV specials we both mentioned previously. It was hot for about a week then was quickly usurped by the other movies that have been discussed. However, I do feel that the UK handled LTK much better than the US by all accounts.
A further thought, I don't recall anybody at the time of LTK discussing it being the end of 007 because it had under performed in the US. Of course we had the 6 year hiatus in which these stories began to surface, but I honestly don't recall the press calling for Dalton's head at any time. It seems that these things were mostly being discussed behind closed doors by vice-presidents of the movie industry looking for a reason as to why Dalton wasn't selling as many tickets as Moore had previously done in America. I suppose it's easy for some of us to forget that this is a business first. I was just reading that 1985's A View To A Kill, which was Roger Moore's last outing as Bond, took 12 years to recoup its production costs. Licence to Kill, which starred Dalton in June 1989, had failed to recoup its initial investment after seven years. These are all details we aren't privy to. We only see the smoke and mirrors that they want us to believe. A good reason why I distrust most of the talk about BO numbers that do the rounds here.
I agree. I also rank the film pretty much the way you 2 do--not as great as the Connery classics or OHMSS, but one of the best in between those and CR.
Daltons third film would have poor I believe. After LTK failed to be the financial success Cubby wanted he would have gone down the 'Moonraker' route......overt humour, big cartoon stunts and less Flemingesque story. The 'robot element' hinted at in drafts of the unmade script sounds awful too.
That was par for the course with the press though. We can all remember the crap they printed about Craig during CR production. They always try to upset the apple cart early on.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/showbiz-tv/hot-tv/698569/007-James-Bond-Daniel-Craig-wife-Rachel-Weisz-dress-up-as-bond-girl
I honestly don't think it was up to Cubby @sauvejmf about the route they should take after LTK. I think it would be more of a compromise with the studio heads who were financing the movie. Just taking a look at the DVD extras for LTK, Cubby made it quite clear that if they didn't shoot in Mexico then there would be no 16th adventure of 007. Sometimes his hands were completely tied and he either went along with the financiers or he didn't have a movie.
Thanks for the additional reminder @NicNac.
PS. What are you doing reading the Daily Star @BAIN123?
A parody of James Bond rather than a sequel of an immensely popular and influential American action movie. That in itself is telling.
The story was mentioned on another Bond site a few weeks ago @bondsum
GE didn't have anything to compete with around its release date in late November. Especially as Die Hard with a Vengeance had already been released as far back as 15 May in America, and Batman Forever in 9 June had also been and gone.
@BAIN123 is right about True Lies having a direct influence on GE. It's huge popularity combined with the biggest budget in movie history up till then, was enough to convince the head honchos that presided over Bond to give GE a huge cash injection in hope that they could also reap what the espionage thriller True Lies had sown.