Why did Craig succeed when Dalton failed?

191012141520

Comments

  • Posts: 6,601
    Gosh, that was a long post from getafix. I see the effort, but on a whole, its worth nothing. In the end, that cannot be rewritten, your Dallton was a downed duck. Not enough liked him back then, which is not directed to him, as the same can happen to DC. But the effort to make him something, he will never be is ........
  • Posts: 11,425
    Germanlady wrote: »
    Gosh, that was a long post from getafix. I see the effort, but on a whole, its worth nothing. In the end, that cannot be rewritten, your Dallton was a downed duck. Not enough liked him back then, which is not directed to him, as the same can happen to DC. But the effort to make him something, he will never be is ........

    Don't worry @Germanlady - it didn't take me long. It's a review by Roger Ebert, one of the foremost American film critics, from when the film came out in 1989.

    Just trying to shoot down a few myths that seem to surround Dalton and LTK. From what I've been able to discover, LTK was actually pretty well reviewed in the US. What it lacked was a decent marketing effort.

    But the film did very well in Europe and elsewhere anyway.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Like I said, there were exceptions, but the general vibe was that he wasn't working out. I seemed to have spent a lot of time defending him.

    I'd agree with that. I don't recall there being any enthusiasm for him during his run among the masses.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Getafix wrote: »
    Was it @NicNac on this thread or another one who said Dalton was actually best in the action scenes? I hadn't thought this before, but Ebert seems to have made that point 25 plus years ago.

    I did, but it wasn't pinched from Ebert, I have always been very complimentary about Dalton's ability in the tough stuff.

    Connery had a certain aggression in fight scenes that was convincing in a brutal way, Lazenby was a graceful fighter (if there is such a thing), but both looked like they knew they would win in the end.

    Dalton genuinely looked like he was making it up as he went along, which is very realistic. The thing I enjoyed about LTK apart from the enjoyable bar room fight is the climatic tanker pursuit - it's among the best action scenes in the entire franchise, it was that good.

    There, don't ever ask me to be nice about LTK again. ;-)
  • Posts: 15,124
    You found two positive reviews. And while Ebert was a respected critic, his opinion never made or broke public perception.
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    What you mean like that little known critic, Roger Ebert, on July 14 1989. :
    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.


    Admitedly it's not a 5* review, but it's not exactly a bad review either


    Like I said, there were exceptions, but the general vibe was that he wasn't working out. I seemed to have spent a lot of time defending him.

    Fair enough, but the response of critics and movie goers is often different. You said this before:
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Well, there are always exceptions. Most critics were underwhelmed. I did say that I liked his portrayal, for the most part. As did the few die hard fans that I knew.

    I was just making the point that a lot of critics, even in the US, seemed to have quite liked Dalton and his two films. Infact when you actually look at the newspaper and TV reviews from that time, they seem to fly in the face of this idea that critics didn't like Dalton - quite the opposite in fact. A lot of them seemed to really embrace his take on Bond after the Moore era.

    As for general movie goers in the US not having been very keen on Dalton I am not qualified to say, but assume from a lot of the comments I see from fans on here that that was probably true. Obviously we'll never know if Dalton could have overcome that in GE, as he wasn't given the chance, due to a studio exec at MGM who Barbara Brocolli has described in very choice language.

    All I have to say is that Moore's tenure as Bond got off to a rocky start, and TMWTGG did not do well at all at the BO, but his third is a classic that cemented him as Bond legend.

    Any way, I know that you're a Dalton defender, so I'm not having a go at you. I just think myths develop around certain actors and films. Like the myth that OHMSS was a disaster that persisted into the 1980s, before it began to be rehabilitated. Even though the film did well at the BO at the time and was even reasonably well reviewed. So I'm just challenging the myth that LTK was poorly received by critics, because actually it really wasn't.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited February 2015 Posts: 17,801
    Getafix wrote: »
    I was just making the point that a lot of critics, even in the US, seemed to have quite liked Dalton and his two films. Infact when you actually look at the newspaper and TV reviews from that time, they seem to fly in the face of this idea that critics didn't like Dalton - quite the opposite in fact.

    From The New York Times, 1989:
    "Though ''Licence to Kill'' is his second appearance as 007, Mr. Dalton is still the new James Bond, and the only element in the 27-year-old series that can offer a hint of surprise. The film retains its familiar, effective mix of despicably powerful villains, suspiciously tantalizing women and ever-wilder special effects. But Mr. Dalton's glowering presence adds a darker tone. The screenwriters Michael G. Wilson and Richard Maibaum have accommodated this moodier Bond, and have even created a script that makes him fit for the 90's.

    The story begins in Key West, Fla., where Bond and his friend, a United States Drug Enforcement Agent named Felix Leiter, take a detour on their way to Leiter's wedding. Before the title credits roll, Bond takes a short ride on top of a small plane to capture a Latin American drug lord and political tyrant named Sanchez, a topical villain who seems unmistakably modeled on Gen. Manuel Antonio Noriega.

    When Sanchez escapes and literally throws Bond's best friend to a shark, 007 gnashes his teeth with grief, scowls at the ineptitude of the American officials and vows to get Sanchez himself. Bond's superior, M, revokes his license to kill, an order that does nothing to slow him down. He simply moves on to Isthmus, the fictional country where Sanchez lives in a seaside mansion with all the garish furnishings drug money can buy.

    The plot, of course, hardly matters, as long as it keeps Bond moving. Over the years, it has become harder for the series to keep up with all the splashy special-effects films it helped to inspire. Though ''Licence to Kill'' is more volatile than ''The Living Daylights,'' Mr. Dalton's first Bond film, it may seem tame next to hyperactive movies like ''Lethal Weapon 2.'' Here Bond faces a ninja and makes several underwater escapes. But the spectacular action is saved for the big final shootout, involving a convoy of tank trucks carrying cocaine-spiked gasoline; the possibilities for reckless driving, exploding trucks and flying bodies on a fiery, winding road are countless.
    The nonviolent action includes a duel for Bond's affection, such as it is. Talisa Soto is Sanchez's disillusioned lover, Lupe Lamora, eager to betray him with just about anybody, but especially with Bond. And Carey Lowell becomes the most playful, modern Bond heroine in years as Pam Bouvier, a former Army pilot who helps to outwit Sanchez. When she and 007 meet in a dingy Bimini bar, Pam carries a gun much bigger than Bond's and seems at least as seductive and tough as he is. But in Isthmus, Bond forces her to pose as his secretary, introducing her as Miss Kennedy. ''It's Ms. Kennedy, and why can't you be my executive secretary?'' she asks, and Bond answers suavely, ''It's south of the border; it's a man's world.'' This ruse is a clever way for the writers to preserve, if only for old time's sake, some of Bond's traditional macho chauvinism, and it doesn't prevent Pam from packing a gun in her garter.

    The endearing special-weapons wizard Q (Desmond Llewelyn) also arrives in Isthmus. He carries a satchel full of new toys, including an exploding alarm clock ''guaranteed never to wake up anyone who uses it.''

    And in a bit of casting that is literally inspirational, Wayne Newton plays a slimy television evangelist whose ministry is a front for the drug operation. Clients phone in their pledges in a dial-a-drug scheme where a $500 donation means an order for 500 kilos of coke.
    For all its clever updatings, stylish action and witty escapism, ''Licence to Kill,'' which opens today at Loews Astor Plaza and other theaters, is still a little too much by the book. Mr. Dalton is perfectly at home as an angry Bond, and as a romantic lead and as an action hero, but he never seems to blend any two of those qualities at once. He does not seem at ease with all of Bond's lines, and to the actor's immense credit he seems least comfortable when M meets him at Hemingway's house, a Key West tourist attraction, and tells him to turn over his gun. ''I guess it's a farewell to arms,'' says Mr. Dalton, not quite cringing. They have to stop writing lines like that for the Dalton Bond, or he'll really be full of angst. Meanwhile, he is beginning to hold his own with the shadows of his former self."

    Not bad for a movie everyone hated...
  • Posts: 15,124
    Reading from Wikipedia, it seems that the reviews at the time were very mixed: some laudatory, some disliking LTK, many at best lukewarm.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think anyone said that everyone hated it. It just wasn't very popular.
    Yes, I was overstating it, sorry.

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    As much as I like Dalton's Bond he isn't the full package, yes he looks dangerous and he could handle the action. The PTS to TLD is one of the best of the series but that bit with the girl on the boat at the end is a throwback to Rog

    His arrogant delivery of she'll call you back and him reporting in is fine but when he says better make that 2 it sounds seriously lame and his delivery is awkward.

    Craig can be dangerous, suave and seductive and also do that dry sardonic wit. Dalton could have done the most Fleming like interpretation of the series but the general public didn't warm to him and a bunch of random reviews and some fans on this forum aren't going to change that.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Dalton could have done the most Fleming like interpretation of the series but the general public didn't warm to him
    They didn't warm to him BECAUSE he did the most Flemingesque interpretation of the series. I know because I was one of them. To my eternal shame. At least I woke up & read the books...
    ;)
  • Posts: 11,425
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think anyone said that everyone hated it. It just wasn't very popular.

    I don't know how scientific the review aggregator on Rotten Tomatoes is but LTK gets 76%, which seems fairly solid. A lot of the historic reviews from the time the movie came out seem to have been pretty positive.

    @Shardlake, the LA Times and Roger Evert are hardly random. And there are plenty more good reviews from the time.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited February 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think anyone said that everyone hated it. It just wasn't very popular.

    I don't know how scientific the review aggregator on Rotten Tomatoes is but LTK gets 76%, which seems fairly solid. A lot of the historic reviews from the time the movie came out seem to have been pretty positive.

    @Shardlake, the LA Times and Roger Evert are hardly random. And there are plenty more good reviews from the time.

    @Getafix I just remember folks not being enthusiastic about Dalton. They didn't dislike him (certainly not when TLD came out) but there was no passion for him either. I recall the usual interest for a new Bond, but it wasn't like when CR was released. Of course, Dalton did not pose in swimwear, and that may have had something to do with it. :)

    In 1989, there were just so many other films that the public was craving other than Bond, regardless of the positive reviews that you cited. That year was dominated by the Bat in particular and Indie as well. LTK just got lost in the shuffle. In fact, I think 1989 was one of the most crowded release schedules of all time. 2015 interestingly, is similar.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited February 2015 Posts: 7,551
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think anyone said that everyone hated it. It just wasn't very popular.

    I don't know how scientific the review aggregator on Rotten Tomatoes is but LTK gets 76%, which seems fairly solid. A lot of the historic reviews from the time the movie came out seem to have been pretty positive.

    @Shardlake, the LA Times and Roger Evert are hardly random. And there are plenty more good reviews from the time.

    As far as I understand, Rotten Tomatoes' review system works as reviewers write the review, and tell RT whether or not the film gets the binary "Fresh" or "Rotten" qualification. In this way, a 6/10 (Fresh) works the same as a 10/10 (Fresh) review.

    A film with that gets 6/10 and 7/10 would be 100% Fresh on RT, where a film that gets 4/10, 9/10 and 10/10 would be 66% Fresh. I'll see if I can find my source for this.

    At the end of the day, RT is bad.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    No accounting for taste
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    bondjames wrote: »
    I just remember folks not being enthusiastic about Dalton. They didn't dislike him (certainly not when TLD came out) but there was no passion for him either. I recall the usual interest for a new Bond, but it wasn't like when CR was released. Of course, Dalton did not pose in swimwear, and that may have had something to do with it. :)
    We (the basic fans & such) were ready for Our Man Brosnan. Tim was a great break from the Moore silly years, but he wasn't quite the super cool Conneryesque agent we expected.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I wasn't looking forward to Brosnan
    You were not a fan of Remington Steele, I take it?
    :-??
  • Posts: 15,124
    Getafix wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I don't think anyone said that everyone hated it. It just wasn't very popular.

    I don't know how scientific the review aggregator on Rotten Tomatoes is but LTK gets 76%, which seems fairly solid. A lot of the historic reviews from the time the movie came out seem to have been pretty positive.

    @Shardlake, the LA Times and Roger Evert are hardly random. And there are plenty more good reviews from the time.

    As far as I understand, Rotten Tomatoes' review system works as reviewers write the review, and tell RT whether or not the film gets the binary "Fresh" or "Rotten" qualification. In this way, a 6/10 (Fresh) works the same as a 10/10 (Fresh) review.

    A film with that gets 6/10 and 7/10 would be 100% Fresh on RT, where a film that gets 4/10, 9/10 and 10/10 would be 66% Fresh. I'll see if I can find my source for this.

    At the end of the day, RT is bad.

    And if I'm not mistaken RT does not merely show the reviews on release. Beside they are mainly from the English speaking world.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    I sometimes read revues before I have seen the film, but never ever refer back to them afterwards. By then I can make my own decisions.

    I have little respect for film critics, unless like the great Pauline Kael they are true students of movie history and not just some kid with a degree who probably hasn't seen Birth Of A Nation or The Crowd.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think Brosnan would have been abysmal eight years earlier.
    He looked like a kid then.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I think Brosnan would have been abysmal eight years earlier.
    He looked like a kid then.
    Agreed. He's always looked 10 years younger than his age.
    pierce1.jpg
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. He's always looked 10 years younger than his age.
    pierce1.jpg
    The second season Remington Steele opener (Steele Away With Me) had a very Bondish score. The whole 2 hr episode seemed like a screen test for a Moore-type Bond movie.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Agreed. He's always looked 10 years younger than his age.
    pierce1.jpg
    The second season Remington Steele opener (Steele Away With Me) had a very Bondish score. The whole 2 hr episode seemed like a screen test for a Moore-type Bond movie.

    Agreed. It even did the DAH DAH BWAAAAA DAH DAH BWAAAAA DAH DA DEH DAH DAHH!
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Back on topic, if Dalton failed then please God let me see more failures.
  • ThomasCrown76ThomasCrown76 Augusta, ks
    Posts: 757
    Hmmm, he brought James Bond back. Just not enough people got it at the time
  • edited February 2015 Posts: 1,310
    I think saying that Dalton failed is a bit extreme. Strictly from a money standpoint, both of his films were financial successes to some extent - even LTK had decent international grosses. I also think many would agree that his films were AT THE VERY LEAST fair, and not total embarrassments. (I happen to be a big fan of TLD, and like LTK a bit, too.)

    I think the unfortunate way Dalton got shafted out of a third film is what kind of screws his reputation up. Because he only did two, people unfamiliar with the franchise immediately assume everyone hated him, but I don't ever recall that being the case. It's just that a lot of people don't remember him after the runaway success of the Brosnan films.

    While I do prefer Dalton to Brosnan as Bond himself, I feel that GoldenEye is a far slicker (and certainly more interesting to look at) film than Licence to Kill. The movies looked cool again with GE, and that might have been another factor against the Dalton films. If they shot GoldenEye in the exact same way and put Dalton in the role, I think it would have semi-reinvented the franchise in its own way. No longer were the Bond movies flatly lit, workmanlike pictures, but rather, flashy and modern...for better or for worse. (And this is coming from someone who prefers Daylights to all the Brosnan films.)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    SJK91 wrote: »
    No longer were the Bond movies flatly lit, workmanlike pictures, but rather, flashy and modern...for better or for worse. (And this is coming from someone who prefers Daylights to all the Brosnan films.)
    Excellent point.
    Personally, I quite enjoy the workman-like look to Dalton's movies- it lends a focus on character IMHO, but GE, and later TND looked so damned beautiful.

  • Posts: 15,124
    SJK91 wrote: »
    I think saying that Dalton failed is a bit extreme. Strictly from a money standpoint, both of his films were financial successes to some extent - even LTK had decent international grosses. I also think many would agree that his films were AT THE VERY LEAST fair, and not total embarrassments. (I happen to be a big fan of TLD, and like LTK a bit, too.)

    I think the unfortunate way Dalton got shafted out of a third film is what kind of screws his reputation up. Because he only did two, people unfamiliar with the franchise immediately assume everyone hated him, but I don't ever recall that being the case. It's just that a lot of people don't remember him after the runaway success of the Brosnan films.

    While I do prefer Dalton to Brosnan as Bond himself, I feel that GoldenEye is a far slicker (and certainly more interesting to look at) film than Licence to Kill. The movies looked cool again with GE, and that might have been another factor against the Dalton films. If they shot GoldenEye in the exact same way and put Dalton in the role, I think it would have semi-reinvented the franchise in its own way. No longer were the Bond movies flatly lit, workmanlike pictures, but rather, flashy and modern...for better or for worse. (And this is coming from someone who prefers Daylights to all the Brosnan films.)

    Failed is maybe an exaggeration, but I couldn't have written "did not have as much success as we'd expected, and is overall not enjoyed as much by the general public" in a title.

    And I agree with you about the looks of Dalton's films.
  • Posts: 6,601
    If you read through this thread, its mostly a gathering of Daltonites who are just tireless in their effort to declare him the King of cool and his rather lame reception as a result of audiences not ready for the new approach. Fair enough but I would say, its also fair to go by the title, which is Why did DC succeed, where he failed? IMO the answer is very easy. I am old enough to have seen the films in the theater. As a Bond fan, who had seen them all, it was a sure thing to go and watch the new Bond. I went with a bunch of friends and we came out ALL agreeing, that this new Bond just didnt HAVE it. Not sexy, not attractive enough. And with DC not on the plate for ages, you can hardly blame that with my later found fandom. But this is the difference, audiences, women and men, went crazy over DC after CR. THIS is what you need for Bond. Everything else will result in meh, like it did. To be fair, the new direction didnt help, but with a more interesting actor in the role, it wouldnt have mattered.

  • AceHoleAceHole Belgium, via Britain
    edited May 2015 Posts: 1,731
    Germanlady wrote: »
    If you read through this thread, its mostly a gathering of Daltonites who are just tireless in their effort to declare him the King of cool and his rather lame reception as a result of audiences not ready for the new approach. Fair enough but I would say, its also fair to go by the title, which is Why did DC succeed, where he failed? IMO the answer is very easy. I am old enough to have seen the films in the theater. As a Bond fan, who had seen them all, it was a sure thing to go and watch the new Bond. I went with a bunch of friends and we came out ALL agreeing, that this new Bond just didnt HAVE it. Not sexy, not attractive enough. And with DC not on the plate for ages, you can hardly blame that with my later found fandom. But this is the difference, audiences, women and men, went crazy over DC after CR. THIS is what you need for Bond. Everything else will result in meh, like it did. To be fair, the new direction didnt help, but with a more interesting actor in the role, it wouldnt have mattered.

    Well, I'm not so sure you & your friends' appraisal of Dalton is shared by all that many other women. Most of the ladies I have discussed 007 matters with think Tim Dalton was a bona fide sex god when he played Bond.
    Dark, enigmatic & masculine, far more alluring than either his predecessor or successor...
    And as a bloke I can sort of see where they are coming from.

    DC has quite a bit of that as well. But he does approach the 007 role in a more cinematic, 'mass-appeal' friendly fashion. Dalton was just too subtle for most audiences...
This discussion has been closed.