For my own taste, Dalton should have debuted with OP, and made Bonds into the early '90s...but Cubby's loyalty to Moore made the former impossible, and Eon's forced hiatus after LTK made the latter equally so. Both OP and AVTAK have solid stories at their core.
Come to think of it, I'd also rather Glen had been a one-off director, and departed after FYEO :v Dalton would have benefitted from a different director.
Yes to all of that. Cubby was indeed loyal, and to some degree risk averse. 70's Bond whist not my cup of Oolong was very popular and profitable.
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Moore was generally beloved as Bond. I consider myself part of a minority who did not care for him in the roll or most of the films he was in. Except for AVTAK the Moore films were very successful. I really liked Dalton as Bond. LTK with its revenge theme and violence was certainly a gamble but EON really is to blame for the film's disappointing box office by releasing it in the summer against a bunch of other monster releases that year. A late fall release could have made a significant difference, especially in the USA. Dalton, with a little help in the hair department could have easily played Bond into the mid to late 90's. A bad choice for a release date and EON's legal troubles killed Dalton's tenure as Bond.
but EON really is to blame for the film's disappointing box office by releasing it in the summer against a bunch of other monster releases that year.
Just one question:
Is EON to blame for releasing SPECTRE in the winter 2015 and therefore against Star Wars - The Force Awakens (MONSTER RELEASE!!!!) - or is that only mythbuilding which will be repeated from now on and on? :v
My theory is that - unless you are extremely short on the money - multiple "monster releases" are good for the market.
It makes the cinema more attractive and more people go there instead of other activities.
And let's have a look at the timeline for summer 1989:
May 24 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is released.
June 13 - The James Bond film Licence to Kill is released. Almost 3 weeks later - time enough to recover financially
June 16 - Ghostbusters II is released.
June 23 - Batman is released
June 23 - Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is released
Indiana Jones is not Bond!
Batman is not Bond and if these theories where true, people would have shot their gunpowder on Indiana Jones and Bond and Batman would have been the one that's flopped. But it didn't!
And for those who want to compare Bond with Ghostbusters and Honey, I shrunk the kids
Now some smart people may object that the marketing campaign was not good/strong enough for LTK.
I always believed, that at first, the product must be good and then you can build a marketing campaign on it.
Reality is that people voted with their cinema tickets that they did not like Bond at that time and the new actor.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
but EON really is to blame for the film's disappointing box office by releasing it in the summer against a bunch of other monster releases that year.
Just one question:
Is EON to blame for releasing SPECTRE in the winter 2015 and therefore against Star Wars - The Force Awakens (MONSTER RELEASE!!!!) - or is that only mythbuilding which will be repeated from now on and on? :v
^ Is that a serious question? SW released when SP was closing out. In NA, SP was released on Nov 6th and not in Dec
My theory is that - unless you are extremely short on the money - multiple "monster releases" are good for the market.
It makes the cinema more attractive and more people go there instead of other activities.
And let's have a look at the timeline for summer 1989:
May 24 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is released.
June 13 - The James Bond film Licence to Kill is released. Almost 3 weeks later - time enough to recover financially
June 16 - Ghostbusters II is released.
June 23 - Batman is released
June 23 - Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is released
Indiana Jones is not Bond!
Batman is not Bond and if these theories where true, people would have shot their gunpowder on Indiana Jones and Bond and Batman would have been the one that's flopped. But it didn't!
And for those who want to compare Bond with Ghostbusters and Honey, I shrunk the kids
Now some smart people may object that the marketing campaign was not good/strong enough for LTK.
I always believed, that at first, the product must be good and then you can build a marketing campaign on it.
Summer time is usually good for family oriented films. LTK was perceived to be more violent. Since families are already spending money on various family entertainers, there is a risk to films such as LTK
Reality is that people voted with their cinema tickets that they did not like Bond at that time and the new actor.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig
That conclusion may not be accurate as LTK did well in other markets, if I m not wrong
^ Is that a serious question? SW released when SP was closing out. In NA, SP was released on Nov 6th and not in Dec
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade released in May, LTK in June.
So?
The excuse that the strong competition ruined LTK's box office founds on the assumption that people choose - when having the choice between 2 or more movies for only one - because of money/time restrictions.
This has certainly not been the case with SPECTRE though Star Wars was already knocking on the doors.
Summer time is usually good for family oriented films. LTK was perceived to be more violent. Since families are already spending money on various family entertainers, there is a risk to films such as LTK
and so it was for most of the previous Bond movies - most of them started in summer!
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade released in May, LTK in June.
So?
Not apples to apples as:
a) IJ was released earlier so people would have spent some of their budget for the summer. And as you listed, a bunch of family entertainers came out in June
b) The time difference b/w SP and SW is higher
and so it was for most of the previous Bond movies - most of them started in summer!
Again not apples to apples as the "certification" and perception about violence is being ignored
You are aware how important the US market was since Goldfinger and still is for the Bond franchise?
And in which market particularly did LTK well?
The point is related to the product being good. It did well in market such as UK .... The factors for why it did not do relatively well in NA have been discussed
personally I think the poor reception of LTK is a real shame.
I don't know if this helps the discussion, but I've dug up some old clippings from '88 that compare the three top blockbusters and (sadly) you can see that LTK doesn't do so well at many points.
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
If one accounts for factors such as:
a) Budget allocated to the film
b) The film having to be shot in Mexico because of factors such as additional taxes on foreign actors in UK implemented at that time
c) Inadequate marketing (from what I understand, many of the posters had been printed as Licence Revoked)
d) John Glen was directing his 5th Bond film so the fatigue factor could creep in (Though per Glen, LTK is his best film)
e) The loss of John Berry due to throat surgery
f) The film's certification and perception of violence
g) Released at a time when family entertainers hold the fort
h) etc.
The case of LTK is more like a car having to take a lot of diversion and eventually making it to the destination vs. one which has a relatively smoother ride .... Considering many things, I believe that the film did well overall
Objectively, I have given TD's films an avg score of 42.5 / 50 (3rd best) and RM's 41.4 (4th best). .... GL (for OHMSS) and SC are top two with 48 and 44.3 respectively .... Though many RM's films are individually rated higher or equal to TD's films
) ) calling your totally subjective ratings "objectively" bears some irony ) )
Subjectively, SC and RM are my favorite two Bonds .... but objectively, the avg score of their films is at #2 and #4 respectively. GL's film is at #1 .... So, unlike some misty-eyed fans, I have tried to be as objective as I possibly can
Presenting an undisputable fact ( one person can't perform an objective rating of any kind which is only based on that person's point of view) is enough - like it or not!
You're just making yourself a bigger fool by repeating that claim!
And I'll stop now that pointless discussion with you {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Presenting an undisputable fact ( one person can't perform an objective rating of any kind which is only based on that person's point of view) is enough - like it or not!
You're just making yourself a bigger fool by repeating that claim!
And I'll stop now that pointless discussion with you {[]
As expected, you have no viable alternate solution
I can see you supporting the Geocentric model because of how you feel vs. Heliocentric one )
What would be the best example of an objective rating?
No such thing.
But Tim IS the best Bond.
Based on criteria such as a) ratings for his films, b) closeness of his character to Fleming's book, c) how the actor wanted to play the character, d) how the actor was perceived to be as Bond, e) etc., a strong case can be made for TD (but eventually, it may not hold up that well)
Comments
Onatopp not so much, I can't imagine him between Xenia's thighs :v
Yes to all of that. Cubby was indeed loyal, and to some degree risk averse. 70's Bond whist not my cup of Oolong was very popular and profitable.
I would not even think about touching your very own glass
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
"Me too" - Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye.
Just one question:
Is EON to blame for releasing SPECTRE in the winter 2015 and therefore against Star Wars - The Force Awakens (MONSTER RELEASE!!!!) - or is that only mythbuilding which will be repeated from now on and on? :v
My theory is that - unless you are extremely short on the money - multiple "monster releases" are good for the market.
It makes the cinema more attractive and more people go there instead of other activities.
And let's have a look at the timeline for summer 1989:
May 24 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is released.
June 13 - The James Bond film Licence to Kill is released. Almost 3 weeks later - time enough to recover financially
June 16 - Ghostbusters II is released.
June 23 - Batman is released
June 23 - Honey, I Shrunk the Kids is released
Indiana Jones is not Bond!
Batman is not Bond and if these theories where true, people would have shot their gunpowder on Indiana Jones and Bond and Batman would have been the one that's flopped. But it didn't!
And for those who want to compare Bond with Ghostbusters and Honey, I shrunk the kids
Now some smart people may object that the marketing campaign was not good/strong enough for LTK.
I always believed, that at first, the product must be good and then you can build a marketing campaign on it.
Reality is that people voted with their cinema tickets that they did not like Bond at that time and the new actor.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Possible I don't remember it, but wasn't Brosnan saying that line only in TND?
But his father is!
that's quite possibly the best comment of the week
^ Is that a serious question? SW released when SP was closing out. In NA, SP was released on Nov 6th and not in Dec
Summer time is usually good for family oriented films. LTK was perceived to be more violent. Since families are already spending money on various family entertainers, there is a risk to films such as LTK
That conclusion may not be accurate as LTK did well in other markets, if I m not wrong
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade released in May, LTK in June.
So?
The excuse that the strong competition ruined LTK's box office founds on the assumption that people choose - when having the choice between 2 or more movies for only one - because of money/time restrictions.
This has certainly not been the case with SPECTRE though Star Wars was already knocking on the doors.
and so it was for most of the previous Bond movies - most of them started in summer!
You are aware how important the US market was since Goldfinger and still is for the Bond franchise?
And in which market particularly did LTK well?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Not apples to apples as:
a) IJ was released earlier so people would have spent some of their budget for the summer. And as you listed, a bunch of family entertainers came out in June
b) The time difference b/w SP and SW is higher
Again not apples to apples as the "certification" and perception about violence is being ignored
The point is related to the product being good. It did well in market such as UK .... The factors for why it did not do relatively well in NA have been discussed
I don't know if this helps the discussion, but I've dug up some old clippings from '88 that compare the three top blockbusters and (sadly) you can see that LTK doesn't do so well at many points.
a) Budget allocated to the film
b) The film having to be shot in Mexico because of factors such as additional taxes on foreign actors in UK implemented at that time
c) Inadequate marketing (from what I understand, many of the posters had been printed as Licence Revoked)
d) John Glen was directing his 5th Bond film so the fatigue factor could creep in (Though per Glen, LTK is his best film)
e) The loss of John Berry due to throat surgery
f) The film's certification and perception of violence
g) Released at a time when family entertainers hold the fort
h) etc.
The case of LTK is more like a car having to take a lot of diversion and eventually making it to the destination vs. one which has a relatively smoother ride .... Considering many things, I believe that the film did well overall
{[]
The higher certification was a killer for it along with the poor marketing.
Tim Dalton! :v
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
That's for the misty-eyed ones to remember
Objectively, I have given TD's films an avg score of 42.5 / 50 (3rd best) and RM's 41.4 (4th best). .... GL (for OHMSS) and SC are top two with 48 and 44.3 respectively .... Though many RM's films are individually rated higher or equal to TD's films
And Dalton was the main actor and the locomotive for the EON tanker at that time.
Not only the Dalton critics would see it that way 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Subjectively, SC and RM are my favorite two Bonds .... but objectively, the avg score of their films is at #2 and #4 respectively. GL's film is at #1 .... So, unlike some misty-eyed fans, I have tried to be as objective as I possibly can
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
What would be the best example of an objective rating? .... Criticism w/o presenting a viable alternate solution is usually not that creditable
You're just making yourself a bigger fool by repeating that claim!
And I'll stop now that pointless discussion with you {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As expected, you have no viable alternate solution
I can see you supporting the Geocentric model because of how you feel vs. Heliocentric one
But Tim IS the best Bond.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
We've just been on such an amicable path - and you ruin everything with just one post 8-)
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Based on criteria such as a) ratings for his films, b) closeness of his character to Fleming's book, c) how the actor wanted to play the character, d) how the actor was perceived to be as Bond, e) etc., a strong case can be made for TD (but eventually, it may not hold up that well)