I was one of the people who went and saw Licence to Kill, Indiana Jones, Batman and much to my chagrin Lethal Weapon II (I was going out with someone who loved the cinema). I was twenty at the time
But Licence to Kill was the better effort out of all of them.
Don't give a **** whether it was filmed in Mexico, looked like cutprice Miami Vice....but it has the most powerful protagonist....in Tim Dalton
**** the American hordes. He still my man. My Bond.
Too bad that wasn't enough to make it a bigger hit.
In the 80s, a teen in US who is also a big Bond fan is a relatively small sample size .... Vs. families who would go to movies targeted at them. Also since a bunch of such family focused releases, there could be constraints on time, budget, etc. as well .... Therefore, marketing initiatives targeted towards general audiences play a key role, along with certification
Teens were and have been a major part of the target audience for movies for at least 40 years, especially since Spielberg and Lucas figured out a B movie idea with a big budget is what they want to see. The 18-34-year-old white male demographic was and mostly still is the sweet spot for the majority of films, and they tend to track down rather than up age-wise for additional audiences.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Teens were and have been a major part of the target audience for movies for at least 40 years, especially since Spielberg and Lucas figured out a B movie idea with a big budget is what they want to see. The 18-34-year-old white male demographic was and mostly still is the sweet spot for the majority of films, and they tend to track down rather than up age-wise for additional audiences.
No doubt about it.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In the 80s, a teen in US who is also a big Bond fan is a relatively small sample size .... Vs. families who would go to movies targeted at them. Also since a bunch of such family focused releases, there could be constraints on time, budget, etc. as well .... Therefore, marketing initiatives targeted towards general audiences play a key role, along with certification
Teens were and have been a major part of the target audience for movies for at least 40 years, especially since Spielberg and Lucas figured out a B movie idea with a big budget is what they want to see. The 18-34-year-old white male demographic was and mostly still is the sweet spot for the majority of films, and they tend to track down rather than up age-wise for additional audiences.
In your original post talked about teens (see below). Now you have expanded the demographics to 18-34 .... Let me remind you that teens age range from 13 to 19 (not 18-34) .... Of those 13-19 age group, those who would be big Bond fans and ready to skip some of the other movies because of time and/or budget constraints would be a relatively small sample size
It may have been in Europe but not in the U.S. Teens, of which I was one, regularly went to see "R" rated films in the U.S. rather than the "PG" ones, which were considered lame at the time. The "PG-13" rating was also lame, but certainly better in the eyes of many than a "PG."
In terms of marketing, this may have been true of general audiences. But Bond fans certainly were ready for the film, and it had publicity. What I recall is that audiences mostly thought it was too much a Miami Vice episode, which they were tired of from TV.
If we go by your 2nd para in the post above on Bond fans being ready for the film, it can be implied that the relatively less success of LTK in US could be because of either Dalton's unpopularity or the film being not good (or too similar to a TV episode!), which in turn goes against your stand of rating both TD and LTK highly
And if marketing to general audiences was inadequate, that goes with the general points on the thread that LTK was relatively less successful in US because of a variety of factors (not necessarily film's quality and/or actor's popularity) including inadequate marketing, certification, etc. (and thus general audience, in a way, automatically become the bigger demographics)
I said 18-34-year-old white males were the sweet spot, not the only one, and that additional audiences of importance tend to track down (were younger, which would include the teens you refer to) rather than up. In other words, most films are created to appeal primarily to the 18-34-year-old white male and, additionally, those younger. This was certainly true in the 1980s when I took marketing courses. It's true now. Note that that is white males (and straight rather than gay). Not families, not women, not minorities. This has been the standard in film marketing in general in both the U.S. and Europe for decades. Only more recently is Hollywood waking up to the idea that there are other audiences. For instance, China is now a much bigger market, and there is growing recognition of women and minorities in the U.S. As white audiences continue to shrink, we will see more and more films aimed at audiences mostly ignored in the past.
I don't rate Licence to Kill very highly, nor do I recall ever feeling that way. I was disappointed with the film when it came out. I feel much better about The Living Daylights, which is not a bad film at all and has many of the elements I want in a Bond film. But it, too, didn't quite accomplish the job.
The overall point, though, is that teens were not a small sample size by any stretch, then or now, and as I suggested when saying teens routinely went to see R-rated films, were certainly a large part of the mix regardless of who the films were aimed at.
One last point about marketing: First, it starts with conception. The base principle of marketing is to find an audience and fulfill a need that it has. So, the question becomes what do 18-to-34-year-old straight white males (and those younger) want to see? For years, the standard has been a white hero, a white love interest, a villain outside the social norm for white culture, a minority or two in supporting roles to avoid the issue of racism, sex and violence (in the U.S., violence tends to be more acceptable), lots of special effects, some stunts, some chases, some explosions, and a happy ending when the guy gets the girl and by implication they and their culture are superior. That's everything from Bond to Die Hard to Iron Man to Batman Begins to Star Trek. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are just that -- a variation on the formula. The lens still tends to be "What does an 18-34-year-old white male want to see?"
Advertising is a paid tool in marketing. In other words, spending money on commercials and advertisements. Promotion is the unpaid tool. In other words, having actors show up on talk shows or at comic conventions to promote the films. Both are important, but neither tends to polish a turd, as they used to say. For instance, Disney spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising both The Lone Ranger and John Carter of Mars, which were box office disasters. Licence to Kill may have had less-than-stellar advertising compared to previous films, but it was also viewed as a turd by many people, especially 18-to-34-year-old white males and teens of the era. They avoided it and instead spent their money on movies like Batman and Indiana Jones. I remember. I was there. Word of mouth on film was don't bother -- it's just a lame Miami Vice episode. I don't know how a mass media campaign would have turned that around.
Teens were and have been a major part of the target audience for movies for at least 40 years, especially since Spielberg and Lucas figured out a B movie idea with a big budget is what they want to see. The 18-34-year-old white male demographic was and mostly still is the sweet spot for the majority of films, and they tend to track down rather than up age-wise for additional audiences.
No doubt about it.
{[] It's funny how little people understand about pop culture and who it is primarily aimed at.
I said 18-34-year-old white males were the sweet spot, not the only one, and that additional audiences of importance tend to track down (were younger, which would include the teens you refer to) rather than up. In other words, most films are created to appeal primarily to the 18-34-year-old white male and, additionally, those younger. This was certainly true in the 1980s when I took marketing courses. It's true now. Note that that is white males (and straight rather than gay). Not families, not women, not minorities. This has been the standard in film marketing in general in both the U.S. and Europe for decades. Only more recently is Hollywood waking up to the idea that there are other audiences. For instance, China is now a much bigger market, and there is growing recognition of women and minorities in the U.S. As white audiences continue to shrink, we will see more and more films aimed at audiences mostly ignored in the past.
I have not countered that "18-34" point yet ) .... My point was that my earlier post was in response to your "teen" comment. Teen's demographics is 13-19 not 18-34 years old white male which you are "now" discussing
Also 18-34 white male demographics could be broken down in to Bond fans and general fans for whom marketing initiatives are important
I don't rate Licence to Kill very highly, nor do I recall ever feeling that way. I was disappointed with the film when it came out. I feel much better about The Living Daylights, which is not a bad film at all and has many of the elements I want in a Bond film. But it, too, didn't quite accomplish the job.
Good to get this clarification .... However, I am surprised that you recommended LTK, a film that you don't rate highly, as one of Dalton's films to be realized after some film in your earlier hypothesis on the order of TD films
The overall point, though, is that teens were not a small sample size by any stretch, then or now, and as I suggested when saying teens routinely went to see R-rated films, were certainly a large part of the mix regardless of who the films were aimed at.
We are speaking "relatively". You yourself shifted to "18-34 years old white male" demographics vs 13-19 years implying that the former is a larger one for e.g.
One last point about marketing: First, it starts with conception. The base principle of marketing is to find an audience and fulfill a need that it has. So, the question becomes what do 18-to-34-year-old straight white males (and those younger) want to see? For years, the standard has been a white hero, a white love interest, a villain outside the social norm for white culture, a minority or two in supporting roles to avoid the issue of racism, sex and violence (in the U.S., violence tends to be more acceptable), lots of special effects, some stunts, some chases, some explosions, and a happy ending when the guy gets the girl and by implication they and their culture are superior. That's everything from Bond to Die Hard to Iron Man to Batman Begins to Star Trek. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are just that -- a variation on the formula. The lens still tends to be "What does an 18-34-year-old white male want to see?"
It is "understood" how the film would have been conceived .... this is not a key point of discussion
Advertising is a paid tool in marketing. In other words, spending money on commercials and advertisements. Promotion is the unpaid tool. In other words, having actors show up on talk shows or at comic conventions to promote the films. Both are important, but neither tends to polish a turd, as they used to say. For instance, Disney spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising both The Lone Ranger and John Carter of Mars, which were box office disasters. Licence to Kill may have had less-than-stellar advertising compared to previous films, but it was also viewed as a turd by many people, especially 18-to-34-year-old white males and teens of the era. They avoided it and instead spent their money on movies like Batman and Indiana Jones. I remember. I was there. Word of mouth on film was don't bother -- it's just a lame Miami Vice episode. I don't know how a mass media campaign would have turned that around.
Facts:
* LTK's opening weekend gross is among the lowest for Bond films. In fact, it is 20% lower than TLD's ----> This is where marketing initiatives relating to advertising and promotions play a key role. Also a large portion of the family audiences could have been drawn in to make LTK one of their summer picks, highlighting the importance of perception about certification and violence
* LTK's suffered on the A&P front. Examples include posters printed as Licence Revoked
* As you said, the movie competed with IJ and Batman, so there were other factors in play as well
* If I am not wrong, no 007 film since LTK has been released in summer in the US (an example of lesson learned)
So how would a better marketing initiative, along with other factors, helped LTK? By following:
* Improved its opening weekend gross by generating additional hype about the film
* Market research (marketing) would have helped to determine the most appropriate release date
* TD's performance could have been leveraged upon which would have helped the film to differentiate itself from the likes of Miami Vice or whatever
* Promotions could have helped generate a better word of mouth
* Quality of Bond films is proven. However, since LTK is a relatively different type of Bond film that aspect needed to be communicated too, helping to ease audiences in to a different type of Bond film and also generate a better WoM
* etc, etc, etc
Since you took a course on marketing, I am surprised that we have to get in to such basics
I'm not sure you're reading my posts correctly or entirely. The fact that the sweet spot for making the films is 18-34-year-old white males does not preclude teens. In fact, what I basically said was the younger teens were the next largest audience for consideration, and in the 1980s, teens regularly went to see films that were marketed for even older white males. It's not a shifting of the demographic to say the films are planned for one group but that another can also -- and did frequently -- attend the films. But large numbers of families certainly weren't in the mix. It was not a family film.
In terms of marketing, you're putting too much store in the power of advertising and promotion. As I tried to illustrate, even if hundreds of millions are spent on advertising, that doesn't necessarily drum up large business for an unimpressive movie. Licence to Kill was an underperformer. It got it's share of mediocre reviews (though some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked it a bit more), but more importantly, bad word of mouth. It wasn't talked about highly among young people at all, including teens and those in the 18-34-year-old market. Like the Star Trek film that came out that year, the successes of the previous films did not distract that it was just not a very good film. We'll never know if more marketing could have helped, but I doubt it. The film was not a tremendous hit in the home video market, either, which if the theory is it's a great film that was poorly marketed is true, certainly should be different. Wouldn't it have found its mass audience by now? Wouldn't audiences have flocked to it based on its merits? It just wasn't very good, and while it has its fans, they're mostly confined to hardcore Bond ones and not the general public.
I'm not sure you're reading my posts correctly or entirely. The fact that the sweet spot for making the films is 18-34-year-old white males does not preclude teens. In fact, what I basically said was the younger teens were the next largest audience for consideration, and in the 1980s, teens regularly went to see films that were marketed for even older white males. It's not a shifting of the demographic to say the films are planned for one group but that another can also -- and did frequently -- attend the films. But large numbers of families certainly weren't in the mix. It was not a family film.
Already replied to .... "18-34" is not being countered yet ..... The point is that my earlier post to which you responded with "18-34" was made to your post which talked about teens and where you did not discuss "18-34" and accepted that marketing constraints could have negatively impacted general audiences .... Once again below is your post for your own reference:
"It may have been in Europe but not in the U.S. Teens, of which I was one, regularly went to see "R" rated films in the U.S. rather than the "PG" ones, which were considered lame at the time. The "PG-13" rating was also lame, but certainly better in the eyes of many than a "PG."
In terms of marketing, this may have been true of general audiences. But Bond fans certainly were ready for the film, and it had publicity. What I recall is that audiences mostly thought it was too much a Miami Vice episode, which they were tired of from TV."
^ Above you were not specifically discussing "18-34 white males" at that point. My point was that "13-19" (teens that you particularly mentioned) is a relatively small segment which you vindicated by shifting the discussion to "18-34" .... and your point on general audiences implies that a more focused marketing effort could have helped .... and why also the change in stance below?:
In terms of marketing, you're putting too much store in the power of advertising and promotion. As I tried to illustrate, even if hundreds of millions are spent on advertising, that doesn't necessarily drum up large business for an unimpressive movie. Licence to Kill was an underperformer. It got it's share of mediocre reviews (though some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked it a bit more), but more importantly, bad word of mouth. It wasn't talked about highly among young people at all, including teens and those in the 18-34-year-old market. Like the Star Trek film that came out that year, the successes of the previous films did not distract that it was just not a very good film. We'll never know if more marketing could have helped, but I doubt it. The film was not a tremendous hit in the home video market, either, which if the theory is it's a great film that was poorly marketed is true, certainly should be different. Wouldn't it have found its mass audience by now? Wouldn't audiences have flocked to it based on its merits? It just wasn't very good, and while it has its fans, they're mostly confined to hardcore Bond ones and not the general public.
The key question is - LTK under-performed in terms of revenues by HOW MUCH? Unless you set a base for what the goal is, you CANNOT illustrate by giving random examples of Star Trek or of pouring millions in
The adjusted gross of the previous two films is $720M, giving an avg of $360M. LTK grossed $300M. So we are taking about around 20% .
Some of initiatives which could have been taken to bring LTK closer to $360M have already been discussed in the previous post
As I said, i don't think you're reading the posts correctly or entirely, and it doesn't seem like explaining it to you changes that. But either way, License to Kill was comparatively a dud. So far as I can tell, it has not gained any traction over the years with anyone except, perhaps, some hardcore Bond fans who view it out of context for the times. In 1989, it was just a tired Miami Vice retread that some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked but many either panned or gave mixed reviews for. There's no evidence that any more advertising would have contributed to a better reception -- just speculation.
In fact, Box Office Mojo puts it at or near the bottom of the list for performance:
The facts are clear. It underperformed. It was not widely received by either critics or audiences. Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation. I agree with the critics and viewers back then who thought it was a misfire -- I still remember coming out of the theater opening weekend and how quiet people were. Not excited or impressed. I saw it again with a small crowd when they showed it at university. And it went straight to the bargain bin not long after being released on VHS.
As I said, i don't think you're reading the posts correctly or entirely, and it doesn't seem like explaining it to you changes that. But either way, License to Kill was comparatively a dud. So far as I can tell, it has not gained any traction over the years with anyone except, perhaps, some hardcore Bond fans who view it out of context for the times. In 1989, it was just a tired Miami Vice retread that some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked but many either panned or gave mixed reviews for. There's no evidence that any more advertising would have contributed to a better reception -- just speculation.
In fact, Box Office Mojo puts it at or near the bottom of the list for performance:
The facts are clear. It underperformed. It was not widely received by either critics or audiences. Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation. I agree with the critics and viewers back then who thought it was a misfire -- I still remember coming out of the theater opening weekend and how quiet people were. Not excited or impressed. I saw it again with a small crowd when they showed it at university. And it went straight to the bargain bin not long after being released on VHS.
Thanks for bringing up some realism here. {[]
In my experience - and it's painful in parts - both Dalton's films are highly exagerrated in all elements here on the board and the Dalton diehards tend to be fanatic to an almost laughable degree
How do you recall people's reactions after seeing TLD in the US?
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
As I said, i don't think you're reading the posts correctly or entirely, and it doesn't seem like explaining it to you changes that. But either way, License to Kill was comparatively a dud. So far as I can tell, it has not gained any traction over the years with anyone except, perhaps, some hardcore Bond fans who view it out of context for the times. In 1989, it was just a tired Miami Vice retread that some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked but many either panned or gave mixed reviews for. There's no evidence that any more advertising would have contributed to a better reception -- just speculation.
In fact, Box Office Mojo puts it at or near the bottom of the list for performance:
The facts are clear. It underperformed. It was not widely received by either critics or audiences. Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation. I agree with the critics and viewers back then who thought it was a misfire -- I still remember coming out of the theater opening weekend and how quiet people were. Not excited or impressed. I saw it again with a small crowd when they showed it at university. And it went straight to the bargain bin not long after being released on VHS.
Thanks for bringing up some realism here. {[]
In my experience - and it's painful in parts - both Dalton's films are highly exagerrated in all elements here on the board and the Dalton diehards tend to be fanatic to an almost laughable degree
How do you recall people's reactions after seeing TLD in the US?
{[] I recall audiences being more receptive though not quite buying Dalton as Bond. In a lot of ways, he was a welcome antidote to Roger Moore, whose aging schtick teens and young people in particular had gotten tired of. But ironically Dalton's lack of humor was a constant complaint (and I thought he looked really uncomfortable in scenes where he was supposed to be having fun, like being on the roller coaster). The reviews were generally good, though nothing stellar that I recall. Siskel and Ebert gave middling reviews, though. But I enjoyed it more. It felt more like a Bond film and not so derivative of Miami Vice. In fact, I enjoy it for the most part. But it took me a while to get used to Dalton as Bond. I think a lot of other people never made the transition.
I was in my early 20s when TLD was shown.
I was also slightly embarassed about Sir Roger's age (became a fan with FYEO and have seen all earlier films in the following weeks in the cinema) and the silly jokes which I now know were a hobby from John Glen which he's still very proud of.
At first, I was relatively excited about Dalton's approach - had a massive crush on d'Abo (just like on every other Bond Girl :x ) and the Aston Martin. I could never get over the Bollinger choice and the dodgy Harrier scenes but was very excited because at the time, I'd moved to Vienna.
The Opera house was 1 minute away from my apartment
I truly loved LTK at the time and was also a massive Miami Vice Fan back then.
I thought, that LTK looked better and more expensive than the TV series but found the Underwater/Wave Crest/Mexico temple scenes pretty boring. Needless to say that I looved Carey Lowell (with short hair)
As I really liked Miami Vice and still love it - I've heard these criticisms but never understood them.
To me, LTK is still the better of the 2 Dalton films - though I totally changed my mind over his look, performance and approach over the years.
My beef with him is well known - I will not repeat it here
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
{[] I was and remain a fan of Miami Vice, especially the early episodes, before it got too full of itself. The show was groundbreaking, and the best episodes are still taut and interesting. People who get caught up only in the fashions are missing the point -- it was actually a good cop show. Styles, especially those in a high concept show, will change. But, to me, Licence to Kill seemed a step backward. Bond wasn't a Miami Vice vehicle, and given that we'd seen the same basic idea for years on TV, not much surprised me in Licence to Kill.
I don't hate the movie. Some scenes are quite good. But on the whole, it underwhelms. It was actually available through Amazon Prime, so I watched about 10 minutes the other day. But I ended up bored with it, which is usually what happens. That's the worst element. The parts never add up to a satisfying whole.
Maybe because I am from the dark and cold Europe and from the US where you can more easily approach the southern parts of Florida.
True Lies was well received here although it was playing with a lot of James Bond and Miami Vice elements as well - but in a totally different league imo.
It had put LTK to shame and I say that as a Bond Fan!
I totally agree that the first 3 seasons of MV were the best, they certainly got tired and repeating with Season 4.
And I agree - a very good cop show as well along with groundbreaking visual style and music and many ends were not happy - something totally new on TV in the 80s! {[]
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
{[] At the time, True Lies was more like a Bond movie than Bond movies. I think if Licence to Kill had come out sooner, it might have been received better. But the 70s and 80s were consumed by films in Latin American countries and dealing with the drug trade. By 1989, it felt finished.
{[] I was and remain a fan of Miami Vice, especially the early episodes, before it got too full of itself. The show was groundbreaking, and the best episodes are still taut and interesting. People who get caught up only in the fashions are missing the point -- it was actually a good cop show. Styles, especially those in a high concept show, will change. But, to me, Licence to Kill seemed a step backward. Bond wasn't a Miami Vice vehicle, and given that we'd seen the same basic idea for years on TV, not much surprised me in Licence to Kill.
I don't hate the movie. Some scenes are quite good. But on the whole, it underwhelms. It was actually available through Amazon Prime, so I watched about 10 minutes the other day. But I ended up bored with it, which is usually what happens. That's the worst element. The parts never add up to a satisfying whole.
Sorry but this Miami Vice bit is ****.
The premise to Licence to Kill was revenge. It took him out of his comfort zone and put him on a path of revenge. He went directly after the villain. A close friend was damaged (and his wife killed) and it gave him solid motivation to get to the villain.
It had never been done before. Though it was alluded to in the books and they tried something new. They should be applauded for that. I wonder if it was too abstract for you. It took you out of your comfort zone but in Britain it was received very well
Miami Vice? What a load of crap. I can see why they went for Key West and the only dangerous people in those days were the drug kingpins. Didn't Noriega run Panama? Didn't Pablo Escobar run Colombia? They had governments in their pockets...
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
The premise to Licence to Kill was revenge. It took him out of his comfort zone and put him on a path of revenge. He went directly after the villain. A close friend was damaged (and his wife killed) and it gave him solid motivation to get to the villain.
It had never been done before. Though it was alluded to in the books and they tried something new. They should be applauded for that. I wonder if it was too abstract for you. It took you out of your comfort zone but in Britain it was received very well
Miami Vice? What a load of crap. I can see why they went for Key West and the only dangerous people in those days were the drug kingpins. Didn't Noriega run Panama? Didn't Pablo Escobar run Colombia? They had governments in their pockets...
"poo", "crap" ... 8-) LTK premiered in July 1989, after 110 episodes of Miami Vice - all but one. If you didn't notice a similarity at the time maybe you were too young to stay up that long? After four years of MV, coming up with a drug dealer plot wasn't the brightest idea ...
And what was new about the revenge theme that "had never been done before"? Have you ever seen a Bronson or Eastwood film? All done multiple times before.
LTK seems to be rated higher now as it is watched without the context of its time - those thinking that LTK is so much better and highly original should have to watch all 32 DVDs of the Complete Miami Vice Collection before.
Fact is that LTK performed particularly poorly in the USA, with only 22% of its worldwide box office coming from the US. But even when theoretically doubling the US BO (that would bring US BO to about more typical 34% of worldwide) LTK would still be one of the least successful films in the series (it would rise from #36 to #18 for 1989 - with AVTAK as #13 for 1985 and TLD #19 for 1987). Nothing would change that both Dalton films are among the three least successful - that's no coincidence.
There are no excuses because of the PG-13 rating or the summer release date. Batman and IJ Last Crusade were also rated PG-13, Lethal Weapon 2 even rated R. Films don't have to be PG to be financially successful.
A summer release was the standard for Bond films, the last film with an autumn/winter release before was TMWTGG, and we all know that this was a financial disappointment. A Bond film should be able to do well regardless of the competition. TSWLM started the same week that Star Wars had its wide release, and it still was a great success. Batman was a new franchise and I wouldn't have thought of Michael Keaton as a superstar then. But Keaton filled theatres, Dalton just didn't - he didn't in TLD (which was just a bit up from AVTAK because of curiosity about the new guy but certainly no blockbuster) and without the curiosity factor LTK had to be the box office disappointment it was.
A third Dalton film wouldn't have changed the public's opinion about him, and reading the plot rumors (with female killer robots ) we can all be thankful that this third film didn't happen - so the franchise is still alive and we have a forum to talk about it. -{
As I said, i don't think you're reading the posts correctly or entirely, and it doesn't seem like explaining it to you changes that. But either way, License to Kill was comparatively a dud. So far as I can tell, it has not gained any traction over the years with anyone except, perhaps, some hardcore Bond fans who view it out of context for the times. In 1989, it was just a tired Miami Vice retread that some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked but many either panned or gave mixed reviews for. There's no evidence that any more advertising would have contributed to a better reception -- just speculation.
In fact, Box Office Mojo puts it at or near the bottom of the list for performance:
The facts are clear. It underperformed. It was not widely received by either critics or audiences. Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation. I agree with the critics and viewers back then who thought it was a misfire -- I still remember coming out of the theater opening weekend and how quiet people were. Not excited or impressed. I saw it again with a small crowd when they showed it at university. And it went straight to the bargain bin not long after being released on VHS.
Can you please take a moment to reflect on these questions:
a) Who is saying that LTK did not under-perform? In fact, I gave the number that it did under-perform by around 20% IMO (And 10% less than AVTAK level). That some or most of that 10% to 20% shortfall could have been made up through marketing initiatives
b) Is it not a speculation too to suggest that LTK would definitely not have made up an extra 10% to 20% in spite of marketing initiatives? Note I am using the term marketing initiatives which have been touched up on already in my earlier post
What you are trying to do is explain the below:
* The film under-performed --> When no one is saying that it did not .... It is like when people know it is a Tuesday today but you keep trying to explain that thinking people think it is not a Tuesday and when no one has claimed that it is not a Tuesday
* That the film would NOT have performed better despite more focused marketing initiatives --> When you have not even quantified what a better performance equates to and when I have quantified it and shown how some of the shortfall could have been made
* That the whole world was upset after watching the film --> When I have explained some of the reasons for it, along with how that could have been avoided, and how some of the marketing initiatives could have helped to turn things around. And when the film actually made $300M adjusted
b) Is it not a speculation too to suggest that LTK would definitely not have made up an extra 10% to 20% in spite of marketing initiatives?
Of course it is!
As for underperforming: Also AVTAK underperformed, so TLD and AVTAK are not good benchmarks.
Moore was at the end of his turn, Glen went out of ideas, Cubby was old and exhausted - many people got tired with the mediocre stunt work and the old main actor.
Just have a look at GE to see how a Bond movie with a new actor performed
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
No, only three
Goldfinger is at #49 on the villains' list
{[]
Star Wars has terrible writing, weak characters and dated special effects, but it's a "classic'.
By stating the above, I hope you are not doubting the quality of SC and GF's performances
I'm just saying if we were judging by quality (and not just influence) Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig would be every bit as qualified.
Works for me!
No doubt about it.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
In your original post talked about teens (see below). Now you have expanded the demographics to 18-34 .... Let me remind you that teens age range from 13 to 19 (not 18-34) .... Of those 13-19 age group, those who would be big Bond fans and ready to skip some of the other movies because of time and/or budget constraints would be a relatively small sample size
If we go by your 2nd para in the post above on Bond fans being ready for the film, it can be implied that the relatively less success of LTK in US could be because of either Dalton's unpopularity or the film being not good (or too similar to a TV episode!), which in turn goes against your stand of rating both TD and LTK highly
And if marketing to general audiences was inadequate, that goes with the general points on the thread that LTK was relatively less successful in US because of a variety of factors (not necessarily film's quality and/or actor's popularity) including inadequate marketing, certification, etc. (and thus general audience, in a way, automatically become the bigger demographics)
I don't rate Licence to Kill very highly, nor do I recall ever feeling that way. I was disappointed with the film when it came out. I feel much better about The Living Daylights, which is not a bad film at all and has many of the elements I want in a Bond film. But it, too, didn't quite accomplish the job.
The overall point, though, is that teens were not a small sample size by any stretch, then or now, and as I suggested when saying teens routinely went to see R-rated films, were certainly a large part of the mix regardless of who the films were aimed at.
One last point about marketing: First, it starts with conception. The base principle of marketing is to find an audience and fulfill a need that it has. So, the question becomes what do 18-to-34-year-old straight white males (and those younger) want to see? For years, the standard has been a white hero, a white love interest, a villain outside the social norm for white culture, a minority or two in supporting roles to avoid the issue of racism, sex and violence (in the U.S., violence tends to be more acceptable), lots of special effects, some stunts, some chases, some explosions, and a happy ending when the guy gets the girl and by implication they and their culture are superior. That's everything from Bond to Die Hard to Iron Man to Batman Begins to Star Trek. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are just that -- a variation on the formula. The lens still tends to be "What does an 18-34-year-old white male want to see?"
Advertising is a paid tool in marketing. In other words, spending money on commercials and advertisements. Promotion is the unpaid tool. In other words, having actors show up on talk shows or at comic conventions to promote the films. Both are important, but neither tends to polish a turd, as they used to say. For instance, Disney spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising both The Lone Ranger and John Carter of Mars, which were box office disasters. Licence to Kill may have had less-than-stellar advertising compared to previous films, but it was also viewed as a turd by many people, especially 18-to-34-year-old white males and teens of the era. They avoided it and instead spent their money on movies like Batman and Indiana Jones. I remember. I was there. Word of mouth on film was don't bother -- it's just a lame Miami Vice episode. I don't know how a mass media campaign would have turned that around.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I have not countered that "18-34" point yet
Also 18-34 white male demographics could be broken down in to Bond fans and general fans for whom marketing initiatives are important
Good to get this clarification .... However, I am surprised that you recommended LTK, a film that you don't rate highly, as one of Dalton's films to be realized after some film in your earlier hypothesis on the order of TD films
We are speaking "relatively". You yourself shifted to "18-34 years old white male" demographics vs 13-19 years implying that the former is a larger one for e.g.
It is "understood" how the film would have been conceived .... this is not a key point of discussion
Facts:
* LTK's opening weekend gross is among the lowest for Bond films. In fact, it is 20% lower than TLD's ----> This is where marketing initiatives relating to advertising and promotions play a key role. Also a large portion of the family audiences could have been drawn in to make LTK one of their summer picks, highlighting the importance of perception about certification and violence
* LTK's suffered on the A&P front. Examples include posters printed as Licence Revoked
* As you said, the movie competed with IJ and Batman, so there were other factors in play as well
* If I am not wrong, no 007 film since LTK has been released in summer in the US (an example of lesson learned)
So how would a better marketing initiative, along with other factors, helped LTK? By following:
* Improved its opening weekend gross by generating additional hype about the film
* Market research (marketing) would have helped to determine the most appropriate release date
* TD's performance could have been leveraged upon which would have helped the film to differentiate itself from the likes of Miami Vice or whatever
* Promotions could have helped generate a better word of mouth
* Quality of Bond films is proven. However, since LTK is a relatively different type of Bond film that aspect needed to be communicated too, helping to ease audiences in to a different type of Bond film and also generate a better WoM
* etc, etc, etc
Since you took a course on marketing, I am surprised that we have to get in to such basics
Anyways {[]
In terms of marketing, you're putting too much store in the power of advertising and promotion. As I tried to illustrate, even if hundreds of millions are spent on advertising, that doesn't necessarily drum up large business for an unimpressive movie. Licence to Kill was an underperformer. It got it's share of mediocre reviews (though some critics, like Roger Ebert, liked it a bit more), but more importantly, bad word of mouth. It wasn't talked about highly among young people at all, including teens and those in the 18-34-year-old market. Like the Star Trek film that came out that year, the successes of the previous films did not distract that it was just not a very good film. We'll never know if more marketing could have helped, but I doubt it. The film was not a tremendous hit in the home video market, either, which if the theory is it's a great film that was poorly marketed is true, certainly should be different. Wouldn't it have found its mass audience by now? Wouldn't audiences have flocked to it based on its merits? It just wasn't very good, and while it has its fans, they're mostly confined to hardcore Bond ones and not the general public.
Already replied to .... "18-34" is not being countered yet ..... The point is that my earlier post to which you responded with "18-34" was made to your post which talked about teens and where you did not discuss "18-34" and accepted that marketing constraints could have negatively impacted general audiences .... Once again below is your post for your own reference:
"It may have been in Europe but not in the U.S. Teens, of which I was one, regularly went to see "R" rated films in the U.S. rather than the "PG" ones, which were considered lame at the time. The "PG-13" rating was also lame, but certainly better in the eyes of many than a "PG."
In terms of marketing, this may have been true of general audiences. But Bond fans certainly were ready for the film, and it had publicity. What I recall is that audiences mostly thought it was too much a Miami Vice episode, which they were tired of from TV."
^ Above you were not specifically discussing "18-34 white males" at that point. My point was that "13-19" (teens that you particularly mentioned) is a relatively small segment which you vindicated by shifting the discussion to "18-34" .... and your point on general audiences implies that a more focused marketing effort could have helped .... and why also the change in stance below?:
The key question is - LTK under-performed in terms of revenues by HOW MUCH? Unless you set a base for what the goal is, you CANNOT illustrate by giving random examples of Star Trek or of pouring millions in
The adjusted gross of the previous two films is $720M, giving an avg of $360M. LTK grossed $300M. So we are taking about around 20% .
Some of initiatives which could have been taken to bring LTK closer to $360M have already been discussed in the previous post
{[]
In fact, Box Office Mojo puts it at or near the bottom of the list for performance:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
So does The Numbers:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/James-Bond#tab=summary
The facts are clear. It underperformed. It was not widely received by either critics or audiences. Speculation that it would have done better with this or that is just speculation. I agree with the critics and viewers back then who thought it was a misfire -- I still remember coming out of the theater opening weekend and how quiet people were. Not excited or impressed. I saw it again with a small crowd when they showed it at university. And it went straight to the bargain bin not long after being released on VHS.
Thanks for bringing up some realism here. {[]
In my experience - and it's painful in parts - both Dalton's films are highly exagerrated in all elements here on the board and the Dalton diehards tend to be fanatic to an almost laughable degree
How do you recall people's reactions after seeing TLD in the US?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I was in my early 20s when TLD was shown.
I was also slightly embarassed about Sir Roger's age (became a fan with FYEO and have seen all earlier films in the following weeks in the cinema) and the silly jokes which I now know were a hobby from John Glen which he's still very proud of.
At first, I was relatively excited about Dalton's approach - had a massive crush on d'Abo (just like on every other Bond Girl :x ) and the Aston Martin. I could never get over the Bollinger choice and the dodgy Harrier scenes but was very excited because at the time, I'd moved to Vienna.
The Opera house was 1 minute away from my apartment
I truly loved LTK at the time and was also a massive Miami Vice Fan back then.
I thought, that LTK looked better and more expensive than the TV series but found the Underwater/Wave Crest/Mexico temple scenes pretty boring. Needless to say that I looved Carey Lowell (with short hair)
As I really liked Miami Vice and still love it - I've heard these criticisms but never understood them.
To me, LTK is still the better of the 2 Dalton films - though I totally changed my mind over his look, performance and approach over the years.
My beef with him is well known - I will not repeat it here
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I don't hate the movie. Some scenes are quite good. But on the whole, it underwhelms. It was actually available through Amazon Prime, so I watched about 10 minutes the other day. But I ended up bored with it, which is usually what happens. That's the worst element. The parts never add up to a satisfying whole.
Maybe because I am from the dark and cold Europe and from the US where you can more easily approach the southern parts of Florida.
True Lies was well received here although it was playing with a lot of James Bond and Miami Vice elements as well - but in a totally different league imo.
It had put LTK to shame and I say that as a Bond Fan!
I totally agree that the first 3 seasons of MV were the best, they certainly got tired and repeating with Season 4.
And I agree - a very good cop show as well along with groundbreaking visual style and music and many ends were not happy - something totally new on TV in the 80s! {[]
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Sorry but this Miami Vice bit is ****.
The premise to Licence to Kill was revenge. It took him out of his comfort zone and put him on a path of revenge. He went directly after the villain. A close friend was damaged (and his wife killed) and it gave him solid motivation to get to the villain.
It had never been done before. Though it was alluded to in the books and they tried something new. They should be applauded for that. I wonder if it was too abstract for you. It took you out of your comfort zone but in Britain it was received very well
Miami Vice? What a load of crap. I can see why they went for Key West and the only dangerous people in those days were the drug kingpins. Didn't Noriega run Panama? Didn't Pablo Escobar run Colombia? They had governments in their pockets...
And what was new about the revenge theme that "had never been done before"? Have you ever seen a Bronson or Eastwood film? All done multiple times before.
LTK seems to be rated higher now as it is watched without the context of its time - those thinking that LTK is so much better and highly original should have to watch all 32 DVDs of the Complete Miami Vice Collection before.
Fact is that LTK performed particularly poorly in the USA, with only 22% of its worldwide box office coming from the US. But even when theoretically doubling the US BO (that would bring US BO to about more typical 34% of worldwide) LTK would still be one of the least successful films in the series (it would rise from #36 to #18 for 1989 - with AVTAK as #13 for 1985 and TLD #19 for 1987). Nothing would change that both Dalton films are among the three least successful - that's no coincidence.
There are no excuses because of the PG-13 rating or the summer release date. Batman and IJ Last Crusade were also rated PG-13, Lethal Weapon 2 even rated R. Films don't have to be PG to be financially successful.
A summer release was the standard for Bond films, the last film with an autumn/winter release before was TMWTGG, and we all know that this was a financial disappointment. A Bond film should be able to do well regardless of the competition. TSWLM started the same week that Star Wars had its wide release, and it still was a great success. Batman was a new franchise and I wouldn't have thought of Michael Keaton as a superstar then. But Keaton filled theatres, Dalton just didn't - he didn't in TLD (which was just a bit up from AVTAK because of curiosity about the new guy but certainly no blockbuster) and without the curiosity factor LTK had to be the box office disappointment it was.
A third Dalton film wouldn't have changed the public's opinion about him, and reading the plot rumors (with female killer robots
And thanks RW for putting things into perspective - well researched - as always! {[]
* And that includes an annual free lapdance from Danjaq_off
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Can you please take a moment to reflect on these questions:
a) Who is saying that LTK did not under-perform? In fact, I gave the number that it did under-perform by around 20% IMO (And 10% less than AVTAK level). That some or most of that 10% to 20% shortfall could have been made up through marketing initiatives
b) Is it not a speculation too to suggest that LTK would definitely not have made up an extra 10% to 20% in spite of marketing initiatives? Note I am using the term marketing initiatives which have been touched up on already in my earlier post
What you are trying to do is explain the below:
* The film under-performed --> When no one is saying that it did not .... It is like when people know it is a Tuesday today but you keep trying to explain that thinking people think it is not a Tuesday and when no one has claimed that it is not a Tuesday
* That the film would NOT have performed better despite more focused marketing initiatives --> When you have not even quantified what a better performance equates to and when I have quantified it and shown how some of the shortfall could have been made
* That the whole world was upset after watching the film --> When I have explained some of the reasons for it, along with how that could have been avoided, and how some of the marketing initiatives could have helped to turn things around. And when the film actually made $300M adjusted
Of course it is!
As for underperforming: Also AVTAK underperformed, so TLD and AVTAK are not good benchmarks.
Moore was at the end of his turn, Glen went out of ideas, Cubby was old and exhausted - many people got tired with the mediocre stunt work and the old main actor.
Just have a look at GE to see how a Bond movie with a new actor performed
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!