Would Goldeneye have been a success with Dalton?

BAIN123

Campbell is a rather hit-and-miss director away from Bond. But he has at least made a small handful of decent things. Glen found far more success as an editor. As a director, his credentials are practically non-existent.

Getafix

The first Zorro film is pretty good, I will give you that.

CR is all about Craig though. Without him it could very easily have been a dud. Not even the Fleming material could have saved it with Cavill in the lead.

bondjames

CR is far more than Daniel Craig. He delivered an excellent performance in the film certainly. Of that there can be no doubt. However from my perspective it is a film filled with tremendous performances. Mickelsen, Giannini and Green elevate the film as much as Craig does in my humble estimation.

It didn't hurt that they had a very good script to work with, which benefited from a Haggis dialogue polish.

Most of all though, Campbell provided superior direction, as he did for GE. The man just gets Bond & gets the most out of the respective actor playing the part while helping him to subtly capture the essential attributes of the character.

MajorDSmythe

Getafix wrote: »

Well with Cavill it would have been sh*t, soo....

There are a number of bits in CR that drag or are superfluous and/or the script is very ropey. Craig holds it together in a way that Brosnan or Cavill never would have been able to.

At least the immature depiction of Bond would have been believable with a younger Bond. Even after seeing The Man From U.N.C.L.E, I am still not sold on Cavil. Just like Brosnan is a younger Moore, I see Cavil as a younger Brosnan.

Going back to a post by @Getafix on the previous page, what if MGW took on full writing duties for Bond #17? Who would sit in the directors chair is another question. Glen is in my top 3 Bond directors, but 5 consecutive films was enough. Bond #17 was time for a new director. Assuming that Cubby would still have been a producer, what if he had picked someone from the Bond team.

Ludovico

bondjames wrote: »

Some good posts above.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. Time is a key element here. Once a certain amount of time has passed, it's then appropriate to recast in order to reignite public interest in a product. I don't personally believe that GE would have been anywhere near as successful with Dalton as opposed to Brosnan. Part of that is because LTK was a darker film in comparison of course, but part of that is because after 6 years (and 8 since TLD), it was time for someone new. Also, see 2. below.

2. Dalton did not blast out of the blocks box office wise in comparison to his predecessors (Lazenby excepted) or successors. Normally, a new Bond actor's first film is a roaring success globally. TLD certainly did better than AVTAK, but it wasn't explosive. Part of that could be down to the more Fleming based reset, part of it could have been D'Abo, part of it could have been the relative lack of tropes, one liners and skin, part of it could have been Glen (perhaps his style of direction was getting tired in comparison to the contemporary fare), and part of it could have been changing tastes. Many possible factors at play here in addition to Dalton.

I think perhaps the Bond brand was at its weakest during the 80's (in terms of box office pull) as tastes seemed to have changed rapidly during this time and new credible action heroes came to the fore. In an era where macho megawatt charisma stars like Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were chewing it up on the big screen, EON perhaps needed to take a different, suaver approach, rather than take them head on in a battle it couldn't win. A question of approach and timing.

3. I've seen many attribute the success or failure of a Bond film on an actor's feet. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case. I believe that ultimately if the film resonates for some reason (plot, characters, visuals, sound, performances, and yes, even timing), then it will be successful because the Bond brand is rock solid. The actor is perhaps secondary. The trick is to provide the public with something which most viewers find compelling and cohesive. Something unique for the year. Something fresh (and part of that is also actor tenure imho). Those are the films that tend to do best at the box office.

I'd add to this that Dalton and Glen had bad chemistry and it did hurt to a degree the films.

Mathis1

Ludovico wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Some good posts above.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. Time is a key element here. Once a certain amount of time has passed, it's then appropriate to recast in order to reignite public interest in a product. I don't personally believe that GE would have been anywhere near as successful with Dalton as opposed to Brosnan. Part of that is because LTK was a darker film in comparison of course, but part of that is because after 6 years (and 8 since TLD), it was time for someone new. Also, see 2. below.

2. Dalton did not blast out of the blocks box office wise in comparison to his predecessors (Lazenby excepted) or successors. Normally, a new Bond actor's first film is a roaring success globally. TLD certainly did better than AVTAK, but it wasn't explosive. Part of that could be down to the more Fleming based reset, part of it could have been D'Abo, part of it could have been the relative lack of tropes, one liners and skin, part of it could have been Glen (perhaps his style of direction was getting tired in comparison to the contemporary fare), and part of it could have been changing tastes. Many possible factors at play here in addition to Dalton.

I think perhaps the Bond brand was at its weakest during the 80's (in terms of box office pull) as tastes seemed to have changed rapidly during this time and new credible action heroes came to the fore. In an era where macho megawatt charisma stars like Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were chewing it up on the big screen, EON perhaps needed to take a different, suaver approach, rather than take them head on in a battle it couldn't win. A question of approach and timing.

3. I've seen many attribute the success or failure of a Bond film on an actor's feet. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case. I believe that ultimately if the film resonates for some reason (plot, characters, visuals, sound, performances, and yes, even timing), then it will be successful because the Bond brand is rock solid. The actor is perhaps secondary. The trick is to provide the public with something which most viewers find compelling and cohesive. Something unique for the year. Something fresh (and part of that is also actor tenure imho). Those are the films that tend to do best at the box office.

I'd add to this that Dalton and Glen had bad chemistry and it did hurt to a degree the films.

In what way? As i said before, read John Glens book 'For My Eyes Only'. Glen states they had discussions/clashes about how Dalton played the role, but i still think they had respect for each other, Glen in that he admired Dalton for going to the books for his inspiration, Dalton in his quote for his admiration of Glen for "his visual clarity" as a Director! My own take on it is that it was more on Glens side as he got on so well with Moore that he was a bit nervous at breaking in a new Bond. (He states in his book he was relieved Moore agreed to do FYEO as he didnt want to blood a new actor!)

Ludovico

They may have had respect for each other but it was not the "couples" that were say Connery-Young, Campbell-Brosnan or Campbell-Craig. I always found Dalton a bit out of tune with his environment in Bond movies.

Mathis1

Dalton rose above all that! Still believe his was the definitive Bond portrayal! And am sure had Fleming seen him, would have approved greatly!

bondjames

Many apparently have not seen his 'definitive' portrayal. He's a bit forgotten imho among the masses.

peter

Greatest face to play Bond, but TD wrestles not to be at the bottom of my favourites (vs PB)... and it just may be his face that eventually pulls him out of my cellar (he was more hammy of an actor than PB, but executed with more intensity).

BAIN123

I'm not sure about that "Fleming wanting Roger Moore" claim as I once heard the man himself say he'd never heard about that.

I can believe though that Fleming would have liked Moore as a Bond "type". I said in another thread that Moore is the only actor of the 6 to really play "Commander" Bond.

Revelator

Birdleson wrote: »

Obviously we'll never know, but the only two actors that at some point Fleming said he would have liked to see play Bond that actually did play the character were David Niven and Roger Moore.

Moore is a bit iffy--Broccoli claimed Fleming had seen Moore in the Saint and wanted him for Bond, but the Saint didn't air until after Dr. No had been filmed.
For what it's worth, Fleming's first recorded choice for Bond was Richard Burton--a theatrically-trained Welsh actor like Dalton.

BAIN123

...and as we know, Burton appeared in The Wild Geese with...who was it again ;)

Re Dalton, i do think that Fleming would have appreciated the more serious edge that Dalton brought back to the character.

bondjames

I always loved that last scene Burton had with Stewart Granger. Definitely Bond like. No mercy.

bondsum

bondjames wrote: »

Some good posts above.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. Time is a key element here. Once a certain amount of time has passed, it's then appropriate to recast in order to reignite public interest in a product. I don't personally believe that GE would have been anywhere near as successful with Dalton as opposed to Brosnan. Part of that is because LTK was a darker film in comparison of course, but part of that is because after 6 years (and 8 since TLD), it was time for someone new. Also, see 2. below.

2. Dalton did not blast out of the blocks box office wise in comparison to his predecessors (Lazenby excepted) or successors. Normally, a new Bond actor's first film is a roaring success globally. TLD certainly did better than AVTAK, but it wasn't explosive. Part of that could be down to the more Fleming based reset, part of it could have been D'Abo, part of it could have been the relative lack of tropes, one liners and skin, part of it could have been Glen (perhaps his style of direction was getting tired in comparison to the contemporary fare), and part of it could have been changing tastes. Many possible factors at play here in addition to Dalton.

I think perhaps the Bond brand was at its weakest during the 80's (in terms of box office pull) as tastes seemed to have changed rapidly during this time and new credible action heroes came to the fore. In an era where macho megawatt charisma stars like Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were chewing it up on the big screen, EON perhaps needed to take a different, suaver approach, rather than take them head on in a battle it couldn't win. A question of approach and timing.

3. I've seen many attribute the success or failure of a Bond film on an actor's feet. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case. I believe that ultimately if the film resonates for some reason (plot, characters, visuals, sound, performances, and yes, even timing), then it will be successful because the Bond brand is rock solid. The actor is perhaps secondary. The trick is to provide the public with something which most viewers find compelling and cohesive. Something unique for the year. Something fresh (and part of that is also actor tenure imho). Those are the films that tend to do best at the box office.

All valid points. Though, I think TLD did provide viewers with something compelling for 1987, the reintroduction of the tricked-out Aston Martin, plus authentic aerial stunts. After having seen TLD at the Royal Premiere I went to see it a number of times afterwards, with my girlfriend and with friends on the other occasions, the cinema was jammed-packed every time, queues running round the block in all the central London big theaters. There was also tons of merchandise being sold in the foyer for TLD: neck-ties, poker cards/chips, keyfobs, sweatshirts, T-shirts, toys, merchandise of the like I've never seen before or since. From a London centric point-of-view, TLD did great business. LTK less so, for the obvious reason it excluded the younger crowd with its older certificate rating. I think this was a major mistake at the time due to the miss-reading of the cinemagoer's wants and needs. Audiences went to see Lethal Weapon 2 because they had enjoyed the first one and it still felt fresh. Batman had a phenomenal marketing campaign. Fortunately I saw Batman a good 3 weeks before it went public at a press screening. You know, I actually had touts outside offering me £100 for my ticket, such was the anticipation for the movie?

But, not every movie starring the Big 4 was a runaway success; Tequila Sunrise also performed badly, as did Tango & Cash, and Lock Up, plus Red Heat, and Bruce's successful transition from TV to the big screen was soon cast in doubt after the Bonfire of the Vanities, Hudson Hawk and the Last Boy Scout. Previously, Die Hard had a lot going for it and had a villain that bested Bond's most recent villains in the form of Alan Rickman, who was getting great press coverage for his portrayal. In the right movie, both Mel, Sly and Willis were successful, despite Arnie having a surprise hit with Twins, even he couldn't sustain his lightning in a bottle with more comedy roles - I smartly avoided Kindergarten Cop as a manipulative piece of trash. The late 80s and 90s became a period where hotshot producers felt they could manipulate the markets and audiences. It would usher in a rapid decline for the big action movie just as soon as it had begun. I feel LTK is sort of mixed up in all that decline of the action movie chaos. It's also an odd Bond movie; for the first time it gets an adult certificate but it's the villains that we get to see being badass, not so much Bond. I think adding humor to the movie felt at odds with its adult themes. Sadly, the part where Bond ignites Sanchez with his lighter was heavily cut at the time, which would have been the only true instance in the movie where Bond gets truly violent, the killing of the DEA agent aside. I didn't care much for the title song or music either.

Getafix

bondsum wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Some good posts above.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. Time is a key element here. Once a certain amount of time has passed, it's then appropriate to recast in order to reignite public interest in a product. I don't personally believe that GE would have been anywhere near as successful with Dalton as opposed to Brosnan. Part of that is because LTK was a darker film in comparison of course, but part of that is because after 6 years (and 8 since TLD), it was time for someone new. Also, see 2. below.

2. Dalton did not blast out of the blocks box office wise in comparison to his predecessors (Lazenby excepted) or successors. Normally, a new Bond actor's first film is a roaring success globally. TLD certainly did better than AVTAK, but it wasn't explosive. Part of that could be down to the more Fleming based reset, part of it could have been D'Abo, part of it could have been the relative lack of tropes, one liners and skin, part of it could have been Glen (perhaps his style of direction was getting tired in comparison to the contemporary fare), and part of it could have been changing tastes. Many possible factors at play here in addition to Dalton.

I think perhaps the Bond brand was at its weakest during the 80's (in terms of box office pull) as tastes seemed to have changed rapidly during this time and new credible action heroes came to the fore. In an era where macho megawatt charisma stars like Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were chewing it up on the big screen, EON perhaps needed to take a different, suaver approach, rather than take them head on in a battle it couldn't win. A question of approach and timing.

3. I've seen many attribute the success or failure of a Bond film on an actor's feet. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case. I believe that ultimately if the film resonates for some reason (plot, characters, visuals, sound, performances, and yes, even timing), then it will be successful because the Bond brand is rock solid. The actor is perhaps secondary. The trick is to provide the public with something which most viewers find compelling and cohesive. Something unique for the year. Something fresh (and part of that is also actor tenure imho). Those are the films that tend to do best at the box office.

All valid points. Though, I think TLD did provide viewers with something compelling for 1987, the reintroduction of the tricked-out Aston Martin, plus authentic aerial stunts. After having seen TLD at the Royal Premiere I went to see it a number of times afterwards, with my girlfriend and with friends on the other occasions, the cinema was jammed-packed every time, queues running round the block in all the central London big theaters. There was also tons of merchandise being sold in the foyer for TLD: neck-ties, poker cards/chips, keyfobs, sweatshirts, T-shirts, toys, merchandise of the like I've never seen before or since. From a London centric point-of-view, TLD did great business. LTK less so, for the obvious reason it excluded the younger crowd with its older certificate rating. I think this was a major mistake at the time due to the miss-reading of the cinemagoer's wants and needs. Audiences went to see Leathal Weapon 2 because they had enjoyed the first one and it still felt fresh. Batman had a phenomenal marketing campaign. Fortunately I saw Batman a good 3 weeks before it went public at a press screening. You know, I actually had touts outside offering me £100 for my ticket, such was the anticipation for the movie?

But, not every movie starring the Big 4 was a runaway success; Tequila Sunrise also performed badly, as did Tango & Cash, and Lock Up, plus Red Heat, and Bruce's successful transition from TV to the big screen was soon to become questionable again after the Bonfire of the Vanities, Hudson Hawk and the Last Boy Scout. In the right movie, both Mel, Sly and Willis were successful, despite Arnie having a surprise hit with Twins, even he couldn't sustain his lightning in a bottle with more comedy roles - I smartly avoided Kindergarten Cop as a manipulative piece of trash. The late 80s and 90s became a period where hotshot producers felt they could manipulate the markets and audiences. It would usher in a rapid decline for the big action movie just as soon as it had suddenly started. I feel LTK is sort of mixed up in all that decline of the action movie chaos. It's also an odd Bond movie; for the first time it gets an adult certificate but it's the villains that we get to see being violent, not so much Bond. I think adding humor to the movie felt at odds with its adult themes. Sadly, the part where Bond ignites Sanchez with his lighter was heavily cut at the time, which would have been the only true instance in the movie where Bond gets truly violent, hanging the traitor in the water aside. I didn't care much for the title song or music either.

Fascinating insights into TLD's reception in London. Even though I was just a kid I do remember it having excellent marketing and (it seemed to me) a very warm UK reception. I think there was a lot of goodwill and enthusiasm for Dalton in the UK after TLD. For the younger generation some of that was lost when they were excluded from seeing LTK - I remember being totally gutted that LTK was a 15! I can't remember when I was first saw LTK but it would have been on TV several years later. I agree that making a film that excluded kids was a mistake.

I have a feeling this was before the UK introduced the 12 cert though.

bondsum

Yes, I believe it was. I think it was Batman, a few week's or so later, that saw the introduction of the new PG12 certificate in Britain. I do believe Cubby and Co lost sight of the importance of the pre-pubescent crowd, wrongfully believing the exact same audience that had made both Die Hard and Lethal Weapon major hits, would do the same for Bond. Of course, some of that same audience did go to see LTK, just not the same expected numbers. Also, Die Hard had a great selling point with Alan Rickman's ubervillian, that critics felt had outdone Bond at the time. People went to see Die Hard not just for the action but also the interplay of Rickman's character.

PS. You know how we've discussed the what ifs, but I only discovered recently that the original LTK story was intended to be shot in China and would have featured a chase sequence along the Great Wall, as well as a fight scene amongst the Terracotta Army. Wilson also wrote two plot outlines about a drug lord in the Golden Triangle before the plans fell through due to the popularity of The Last Emporer having beaten the production into being the first westerners to film in China. I think if they'd stuck with China, then LTK could've been a much bigger and widely watched movie than crumby old Mexico.

Getafix

Yes China would have lifted it. An ancient culture, great locations etc. what a shame!

LTK sets were of course also not shot at Pinewood due to (I think) some rather unfavourable tax changes introduced to the UK around that time.

It definitely suffered on the production front. Having said that, LTK still features some of the best action in the series!

bondsum

Yes, that's right, LTK wasn't shot in Pinewood, another thing that took away the DNA texture of it not feeling like a normal Bond movie. The name change from License Revoked and the overcrowded summer releases certainly didn't do it any favours. Ghostbusters 2 was the movie that was breaking records just prior to Batman's release. I just feel LTK was also majorly and severely handicapped by its decision to not shoot somewhere more exotic, like China, and the 15 certification just added to its woes. Just imagine if LTK had been marketed for its Great Wall of China motorbike chase stunts rather than its pedestrian Miami scenes, the movie would've been more of a global event.

Getafix

Bond always falls a bit flat in the US for some reason.

BAIN123

The US is almost too urban for Bond and doesn't have that sense of mystery or glamour that other destinations have. We've seen the likes of Miami, San Francisco, New York etc countless times. Plus I think Kill did suffer from fairly bland direction, which made the locations look rather...ordinary.

China would have been good.

Ludovico

Mathis1 wrote: »

Dalton rose above all that! Still believe his was the definitive Bond portrayal! And am sure had Fleming seen him, would have approved greatly!

A bit hazardous to make the dead talk. I think Dalton tried hard and very seriously but the scripts let him down and he was fighting a ghost at the same time. A ghost of tomorrow no less.

MajorDSmythe

bondjames wrote: »

Many apparently have not seen his 'definitive' portrayal. He's a bit forgotten imho among the masses.

The very same masses who enjoy the uber talented dynasty we know as the Kardashians. If he is forgotten among the masses, that is their loss.

Agent_99

bondsum wrote: »

There was also tons of merchandise being sold in the foyer for TLD: neck-ties, poker cards/chips, keyfobs, sweatshirts, T-shirts, toys, merchandise of the like I've never seen before or since.

Oh, you're just torturing me now. *goes off to check eBay*

bondjames

bondsum wrote: »

bondjames wrote: »

Some good posts above.

A few points I'd like to make:

1. Time is a key element here. Once a certain amount of time has passed, it's then appropriate to recast in order to reignite public interest in a product. I don't personally believe that GE would have been anywhere near as successful with Dalton as opposed to Brosnan. Part of that is because LTK was a darker film in comparison of course, but part of that is because after 6 years (and 8 since TLD), it was time for someone new. Also, see 2. below.

2. Dalton did not blast out of the blocks box office wise in comparison to his predecessors (Lazenby excepted) or successors. Normally, a new Bond actor's first film is a roaring success globally. TLD certainly did better than AVTAK, but it wasn't explosive. Part of that could be down to the more Fleming based reset, part of it could have been D'Abo, part of it could have been the relative lack of tropes, one liners and skin, part of it could have been Glen (perhaps his style of direction was getting tired in comparison to the contemporary fare), and part of it could have been changing tastes. Many possible factors at play here in addition to Dalton.

I think perhaps the Bond brand was at its weakest during the 80's (in terms of box office pull) as tastes seemed to have changed rapidly during this time and new credible action heroes came to the fore. In an era where macho megawatt charisma stars like Arnie, Bruce, Mel and Sly were chewing it up on the big screen, EON perhaps needed to take a different, suaver approach, rather than take them head on in a battle it couldn't win. A question of approach and timing.

3. I've seen many attribute the success or failure of a Bond film on an actor's feet. I think we have enough evidence to suggest that this is not necessarily the case. I believe that ultimately if the film resonates for some reason (plot, characters, visuals, sound, performances, and yes, even timing), then it will be successful because the Bond brand is rock solid. The actor is perhaps secondary. The trick is to provide the public with something which most viewers find compelling and cohesive. Something unique for the year. Something fresh (and part of that is also actor tenure imho). Those are the films that tend to do best at the box office.

All valid points. Though, I think TLD did provide viewers with something compelling for 1987, the reintroduction of the tricked-out Aston Martin, plus authentic aerial stunts. After having seen TLD at the Royal Premiere I went to see it a number of times afterwards, with my girlfriend and with friends on the other occasions, the cinema was jammed-packed every time, queues running round the block in all the central London big theaters. There was also tons of merchandise being sold in the foyer for TLD: neck-ties, poker cards/chips, keyfobs, sweatshirts, T-shirts, toys, merchandise of the like I've never seen before or since. From a London centric point-of-view, TLD did great business. LTK less so, for the obvious reason it excluded the younger crowd with its older certificate rating. I think this was a major mistake at the time due to the miss-reading of the cinemagoer's wants and needs. Audiences went to see Lethal Weapon 2 because they had enjoyed the first one and it still felt fresh. Batman had a phenomenal marketing campaign. Fortunately I saw Batman a good 3 weeks before it went public at a press screening. You know, I actually had touts outside offering me £100 for my ticket, such was the anticipation for the movie?

But, not every movie starring the Big 4 was a runaway success; Tequila Sunrise also performed badly, as did Tango & Cash, and Lock Up, plus Red Heat, and Bruce's successful transition from TV to the big screen was soon cast in doubt after the Bonfire of the Vanities, Hudson Hawk and the Last Boy Scout. Previously, Die Hard had a lot going for it and had a villain that bested Bond's most recent villains in the form of Alan Rickman, who was getting great press coverage for his portrayal. In the right movie, both Mel, Sly and Willis were successful, despite Arnie having a surprise hit with Twins, even he couldn't sustain his lightning in a bottle with more comedy roles - I smartly avoided Kindergarten Cop as a manipulative piece of trash. The late 80s and 90s became a period where hotshot producers felt they could manipulate the markets and audiences. It would usher in a rapid decline for the big action movie just as soon as it had begun. I feel LTK is sort of mixed up in all that decline of the action movie chaos. It's also an odd Bond movie; for the first time it gets an adult certificate but it's the villains that we get to see being badass, not so much Bond. I think adding humor to the movie felt at odds with its adult themes. Sadly, the part where Bond ignites Sanchez with his lighter was heavily cut at the time, which would have been the only true instance in the movie where Bond gets truly violent, the killing of the DEA agent aside. I didn't care much for the title song or music either.

@bondsum, undoubtedly TLD offered something compelling for 1987. There was a new Bond after all. The first in 12+ years. That certainly would have been expected to provide a suitable draw, particularly since Moore was well past his best in AVTAK. I can imagine something similar will occur when Craig finally bows out.

Having said that, the numbers don't lie. His was far and away the weakest debut of any Bond actor in inflation adjusted terms (doing worse than OP and even worse than AVTAK in US inflation adjusted terms. His two films are the weakest performers stateside). The points I noted earlier likely were possibly to blame, including changing tastes and the more Fleming and less cinematic approach (less babes, less charismatic villain etc.). As a kid living in Harrow at the time I can vaguely remember his introduction and the resulting hoopla on various news outlets. I certainly recall my parents discussing him. I was not aware that LTK had a more adult certification rating - that certainly would have impacted things. Still, I recall the discussion being all about Batman in the summer of 1989. The Bat symbol was inside every tube station.

I am including some (unadjusted for inflation) box office data that I was able to locate on a site called 25thframe. What it suggests is that LTK did better than TLD in the UK, and that AVTAK surpassed TLD in the UK as well. This squares with IMDb data as well. I can imagine that 1989 was a bumper year for box office generally, given the massive firepower of the heavy hitters out that year (like 2015), and a rising tide lifted all boats.

AVTAK - £$8,082m (EDIT: see correction below)
TLD - £5,547m
LTK - £7,551m
--

EDIT: When x-referencing the 25thframe data to IMDb, I noticed that It appears the 25thframe data for AVTAK mistakenly shows £ when it should be $. So the AVTAK UK gross is $8,082m and the equivalent TLD UK gross is $8,161m. That's still hardly an improvement given Dalton was replacing an aged Moore, and actually once adjusting for 2 years worth of ticket price inflation, it's still less.

I only can find the £ gross for LTK at £7,551m, which is still quite a bit higher than both when converted into $.

bondsum

I wish you luck in tracking down the original official merchandise, @Agent_99. I lost my own purchases decades ago. The only thing I managed to hang onto was the original posters and autographed Premiere brochure - the sweatshirt, deck of cards and necktie disappeared into an Eighties black hole. Someone somewhere must have collected them, but damned if there are any photos I can find on the net. Maybe the Making of book by Charles Helfenstein features them? I haven't seen many items available from that period. You might still be able to find the old keyfinder somewhere...

ForYourEyesOnly

Dalton was definitely caught at a bad time. Action blockbusters were on the rise, the AIDS crisis abounded, and despite his attempt at reinventing Bond's character, it appeared that Bond was just retreading old ground. And of course, the litigation issues arose shortly after Licence to Kill.

So I think he was fighting an uphill battle. However, I think he was also just not as big of a cinematic draw. Screen charisma was not his strong suit; that was Shakespearean theatrics. Dalton could absolutely nail the spirit of Fleming's Bond, but he was uninterested in/unable to capture the cinematic Bond. His interpretation didn't resonate soundly with audiences who had been used to corny jokes and Bond tropes since 1971 (yes, even before Moore) and it didn't help that they had been watching established actors for all that time as well. It's a bit of homesickness, if you will.

All the same, I think he was just ahead of his time. Had he worked with something more groundbreaking like CR, he'd probably have won over more people. That reminds me of something I read relating to The Living Daylights and how it was a good movie but "nobody left the cinema shaken or stirred". It just wasn't big enough. LTK, of course, was completely lost in the summer blockbuster madness of 1989.

Dalton was certainly dealt the most unfair hand of any of the Bonds thus far. Even Roger Moore required TSWLM to cement his status. If we had only LALD and TMWTGG to judge him by, he wouldn't receive anywhere near the acclaim that he does now, and I honestly think people would likely think less of him than Dalton today.

noSolaceleft

Birdleson wrote: »

Burton would have an outstanding Bond.

I very very much prefer him as Alec Leamas in the spy who came out of the cold.

bondsum

I'm afraid I don't put that much faith in these revised/adjusted for inflation figures that are found on the net, @bondjames. Even you noticed discrepancies with IMDb. Bottom line, if TLD had underperformed as much as these figures indicate then the UK press would've been all over it like a rash. I'm reminded of the myth throughout the late 70s and 80s that OHMSS performed badly, when the opposite was eventually proven to be true. What isn't in dispute is that LTK underperformed, which the U.K. press were quick to report at the time.

I remember my dad used to bring home Variety every weekend throughout the 70s, which used to list all the BO takings, with an annual bumper edition that had the All Time US BO in order, top-to-bottom. Amazingly, I can still recall Gone With the Wind, The Sound of Music, Love Story, Patton, The Exorcist plus Tora Tora Tora nestling just below Jaws and The Sting. Some of that movie list hadn't changed that much in 20 years. Thunderball was in that Top 30 somewhere. Of course Variety newspaper was primarily just for the North American takings, but it was figures I felt I could trust. It seems anyone nowadays can misquote a BO figure and it becomes gospel. The reason why I mentioned Tora Tora Tora was that it was in the Top 10 list back in '75, but if you look at IMDb, it has The Exorcist on an incredibl high BO return and Tora on an incredibly low one (as if it flopped), but these were both in the Top 10 in the mid-Seventies BO charts. The mind boggles.

bondjames

@bondsum, those numbers are definitely accurate for the UK box office gross. The UK website I initially quoted just didn't use the correct currency prefix.

TLD didn't underperform in the UK, but it didn't blow the house down. It was on par (or slighly less, after inflation) in comparison to AVTAK. LTK did better in the UK (despite the age rating) but severely underperformed in the US market. The same goes for OHMSS.

I can imagine that there was a large marketing push in the UK to introduce a new Bond in 1987, including merchandising. That would have been as expected for the time.