not usually one to wave the flag, but speaking as a lifelong SCTV loyalist I must point out most of the talent behind Ghostbusters was Canadian (Aykroyd, Reitman, and Moranis), and Ramis and Murray had spent a lot of time in Toronto collaborating with their Second City pals.
Still ignoring the big white elephant in the room?
What is the white elephant, then?
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
Hmmm...in short of conducting a blind taste test among a thousand guinea pigs or prop up a similarly absurd straw man argument, what’s a more reasonable alternative to “anecdotal stories”? (for what’s been dished out, “evidence” suggests too much credence than it deserves.)
Though not perfect, Wikipedia is just one of several sources and the wonderful thing is it can be corroborated or refuted with other publicly available documentation. Batman 1989 and LTK as examples have very interesting histories about their development, marketing campaigns and the market conditions unique to their theatrical releases that contributed to their success and failure. What one can glean would be more reliable than say, the consensus of one’s grandaunt Thelma’s knitting group from 30 years ago.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
It's a shame we'll never know precisely why the film did so abysmally, why it was the lowest grossing official Bond film of all time -- just that it did and it is.
EDIT: It is interesting that in multiple polls, Dalton ranks near the bottom in popularity as Bond. In this poll, he secures that dubious honor in both the U.S. and the U.K., ahead of George Lazenby, whose On Her Majesty's Secret Service nonetheless earned nearly three quarters as much as Dalton's films combined in the U.S., adjusted for inflation.
Higgins seems to have made it his life's mission to hate on the film, and if he could erase Dalton's two from existence, he definitely would, regardless of whether anyone else enjoyed them. I can't stand Craig, but I don't go on about it for years.
Well, if you go back in this thread, I was very mild with my criticism.
Every couple of weeks, someone is coming up and explains LTK‘s lack of success with the release date and with the marketing campaign. This creating of an alternative reality is nothing else than ignoring the big white elephant in the room:
Dalton was not widely accepted by the audiences back then. Timboys must deal with it and it‘s no coincidence that his movies both tanked in the box office.
To say that MR was a bad movie and not well received back then - and thus only has been saved by a marketing campaign is another attempt to walking in La-La Land, where Dalton is King!
I will always defend Roger Moore and his movies, but have no problems admitting that he was visibly too old in AVTAK (and OP but that‘s another story - hint NSNA).
I personally have no problem with that but can accept that the broad audiences saw it differently and that certainly affected the financial success of the movie.
So a large part of the lack of success for AVTAK lies there and I don‘t even try explaining it with release date, poster design, competition, marketing budget, writers, supporting acts etc.
It‘s time that Timboys man up and do the same.
Miami Vice was in its fifth year and was very popular on television, while Sly and Arnie were doing all those shoot-'em-up in film . . . That, and the grittiness and vigilante plot meant it was very timely.
There's no getting away from the fact that summer 1989 was one of the biggest blockbuster seasons ever. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Dead Poets Society, Star Trek 5, Ghostbusters II, Batman, Honey I Shrunk the Kids, The Karate Kid III, Lethal Weapon 2 and When Harry Met Sally.
Actually, Miami Vice was on its way out. The ratings had been declining for some time, as the show juggled producers and changed its style up enough to alienate a lot of the original viewers. Beyond that, the whole "Latin American druglord" angle was played out. It seemed fresh at the start of the 80s, when movies like Scarface were popular, but by the end, people were tired of it.
In the 80s and well into the 90s, movies made huge box office from repeat viewings. I saw Batman at least twice in the theater, for instance. There was no shortage of box office dollars to be earned with the right film. But just as audiences might pay to see one film two or three times, they might ignore another they thought wasn't worth it.
In the 80s and well into the 90s, movies made huge box office from repeat viewings. I saw Batman at least twice in the theater, for instance. There was no shortage of box office dollars to be earned with the right film. But just as audiences might pay to see one film two or three times, they might ignore another they thought wasn't worth it.
{[] totally agree.
I have never understood the ‚competition argument‘.
Seeing movies in the cinemas was a main activity back then because nothing like it was shown on tv.
When your favorite musician released a new album, you bought it, no matter what the competition (new or established) brought - unless word of mouth was, that the new album was crap - which brings us back to the initial argument.
If there where 4 or 5 good movies, our choice was not, which one we don‘t want to see.
In my opinion, several good movies lift the market up and don‘t put single good movies down.
It‘s only the bad movies that suffer from competition!
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
In the 80s and well into the 90s, movies made huge box office from repeat viewings. I saw Batman at least twice in the theater, for instance. There was no shortage of box office dollars to be earned with the right film. But just as audiences might pay to see one film two or three times, they might ignore another they thought wasn't worth it.
{[] totally agree.
I have never understood the ‚competition argument‘.
Seeing movies in the cinemas was a main activity back then because nothing like it was shown on tv.
When your favorite musician released a new album, you bought it, no matter what the competition (new or established) brought - unless word of mouth was, that the new album was crap - which brings us back to the initial argument.
If there where 4 or 5 good movies, our choice was not, which one we don‘t want to see.
In my opinion, several good movies lift the market up and don‘t put single good movies down.
It‘s only the bad movies that suffer from competition!
I take it the "elephant in the room" is the idea that LTD wasn't a good film or that Dalton wasn't a good Bond?
The competition argument, I think, is a strong one. Not everyone are Bond "fans", as such; many are simply "viewers". Ticket prices aren't cheap and people may not be able to afford five or six trips to the cinema inside a single six week period, and they could well be busy with work etc. If they were married with kids, they might have had limited time for that sort of thing and have to pay for baby-sitters etc and only get to the cinema once every couple of months.
As for polls, it stands to reason that if people missed out on seeing Dalton's Bond then they won't have anything to go on and therefore won't vote for him. Equally, as Lazenby had only one film, people's affection for that film may shape their view of the actor in it.
American audiences didn't accept Dalton as Rhett Butler either when he starred in the miniseries Scarlett: a "sequel" to Gone With the Wind that was supposed to get massive ratings and didn't. Or maybe they didn't accept Joanne Whalley as Scarlett O'Hara. But it's notable that Dalton has never had an unqualified hit in the US.
My point is, as 007 himself said in the most recent movie, it's all a matter of perspective. I also suspect a certain amount of bandwagon jumping going on. There are those who have read that, say, OHMSS is a great movie and their opinions of it are starting from that viewpoint. There aren't many who've seen the series unfold in real time and whose opinions were formed along the way rather than retrospectively, and that does make a difference. (And even I'm not old enough to have seen them from the very beginning ).
Thank god, some sanity. Been awhile since we had a Bond-related thread in which so many opinions are presented as "facts".
My point is, as 007 himself said in the most recent movie, it's all a matter of perspective. I also suspect a certain amount of bandwagon jumping going on. There are those who have read that, say, OHMSS is a great movie and their opinions of it are starting from that viewpoint. There aren't many who've seen the series unfold in real time and whose opinions were formed along the way rather than retrospectively, and that does make a difference. (And even I'm not old enough to have seen them from the very beginning ).
Thank god, some sanity. Been awhile since we had a Bond-related thread in which so many opinions are presented as "facts".
Thank you, Sir Hilary.
Silhouette ManThe last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,865MI6 Agent
American audiences didn't accept Dalton as Rhett Butler either when he starred in the miniseries Scarlett: a "sequel" to Gone With the Wind that was supposed to get massive ratings and didn't. Or maybe they didn't accept Joanne Whalley as Scarlett O'Hara. But it's notable that Dalton has never had an unqualified hit in the US.
There's simply no accounting for taste, especially when it comes to the US it seems!
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
In the 80s and well into the 90s, movies made huge box office from repeat viewings. I saw Batman at least twice in the theater, for instance. There was no shortage of box office dollars to be earned with the right film. But just as audiences might pay to see one film two or three times, they might ignore another they thought wasn't worth it.
{[] totally agree.
I have never understood the ‚competition argument‘.
Seeing movies in the cinemas was a main activity back then because nothing like it was shown on tv.
When your favorite musician released a new album, you bought it, no matter what the competition (new or established) brought - unless word of mouth was, that the new album was crap - which brings us back to the initial argument.
If there where 4 or 5 good movies, our choice was not, which one we don‘t want to see.
In my opinion, several good movies lift the market up and don‘t put single good movies down.
It‘s only the bad movies that suffer from competition!
In 1989, the cost of a movie ticket at the premier theater with bigger screens and better sound was about $5. At the cheaper theaters -- such as AMC -- it was about $3.50. Matinees were even cheaper at either theater -- I recall seeing many films for $2 or $3 during the week or earlier in the day on weekends. Beyond that, after a few weeks, many movies moved on to budget theaters, where the ticket prices were $1 or so.
To put that in perspective, minimum wage in the U.S. was $3.35 an hour, but many of us teens and young adults were making more than that. You could easily do a date at the movies for less than $10.
Teens in the 80s and early 90s routinely went to movies, and they were a substantial part of the audience sought. It generally took many months for the same films to make it to cable or home video and then usually a year or more to broadcast TV. So, going to the movies was pretty much the only way to see the film for a long period.
It's what we did. It was cheap entertainment, and it's where our friends would be.
The argument that competition alone sucked money away from movies mostly affected smaller films and, as you say, bad movies. People just didn't waste their time. And Hollywood counted on repeat viewings for revenue. That's one reason they started pushing sequels and franchises so much. They knew chances are the fanbase would keep paying to see the same thing.
Movie dollars are fungible. The home video market was born because of it -- the idea that people would pay to rent or purchase a movie that they may have already seen. The idea that somehow people would limit their movie spending to some finite amount defies the reality of the time, at least for many people.
People avoided Licence to Kill and Timothy Dalton out of conscious effort, not because the marketing somehow didn't magically hypnotize them into the theater. He was not a popular Bond here, and his movies just didn't draw audiences like his predecessors.
Sir Roger was one hell of an act, to have to follow -{
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
So that's what happened!?! Grandaunt Thelma couldn't have called it better!!! )
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Main target group for Bond and most other Action Movies of the time was young men.
They had normally other worries than getting a babysitter at home
At best they took the babysitter out for a date and watched a 007 movie among other things
I certainly did
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
If American audiences didn't like TLD - a serious, espionage film - then they may well not have checked out LTK, even though that could have been more to their taste. So the relative failure of LTK may not be that film.
Regardless, there are fans who love both films. I certainly do. A friend of mine does too. It's in both our top tens. So it's hardly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
Still trying to find alternative realities while still ignoring the elephant ) )
Even if the Americans didn't take to Dalton, it doesn't mean they think he was "weepy" and "weak" like you do. There isn't a single scene in either of his films in which he cries, so your obsession witht that idea is crazy.
You find Dalton great, I find him weepy.
I can live with that.
What is laughable how you are ignoring that wide parts of audiences did not accept Dalton and pull one crazy explanation after another why his movies did so badly.
Have you checked and compared weather charts, lunar calendars and fuel prices yet?
Maybe there is a pattern ) ) )
Seems that everybody and everything is to blame but not Dalton.
Carry on, it‘s really entertaining ) )
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Comments
What is the white elephant, then?
Though not perfect, Wikipedia is just one of several sources and the wonderful thing is it can be corroborated or refuted with other publicly available documentation. Batman 1989 and LTK as examples have very interesting histories about their development, marketing campaigns and the market conditions unique to their theatrical releases that contributed to their success and failure. What one can glean would be more reliable than say, the consensus of one’s grandaunt Thelma’s knitting group from 30 years ago.
EDIT: It is interesting that in multiple polls, Dalton ranks near the bottom in popularity as Bond. In this poll, he secures that dubious honor in both the U.S. and the U.K., ahead of George Lazenby, whose On Her Majesty's Secret Service nonetheless earned nearly three quarters as much as Dalton's films combined in the U.S., adjusted for inflation.
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1048306/James-Bond-favourite-actor-poll-Sean-Connery-Daniel-Craig-Roger-Moore-Pierce-Brosnan
Actually, Miami Vice was on its way out. The ratings had been declining for some time, as the show juggled producers and changed its style up enough to alienate a lot of the original viewers. Beyond that, the whole "Latin American druglord" angle was played out. It seemed fresh at the start of the 80s, when movies like Scarface were popular, but by the end, people were tired of it.
In the 80s and well into the 90s, movies made huge box office from repeat viewings. I saw Batman at least twice in the theater, for instance. There was no shortage of box office dollars to be earned with the right film. But just as audiences might pay to see one film two or three times, they might ignore another they thought wasn't worth it.
Seriously?
Are you reading previous posts?
Obviously not!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
{[] totally agree.
I have never understood the ‚competition argument‘.
Seeing movies in the cinemas was a main activity back then because nothing like it was shown on tv.
When your favorite musician released a new album, you bought it, no matter what the competition (new or established) brought - unless word of mouth was, that the new album was crap - which brings us back to the initial argument.
If there where 4 or 5 good movies, our choice was not, which one we don‘t want to see.
In my opinion, several good movies lift the market up and don‘t put single good movies down.
It‘s only the bad movies that suffer from competition!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I take it the "elephant in the room" is the idea that LTD wasn't a good film or that Dalton wasn't a good Bond?
The competition argument, I think, is a strong one. Not everyone are Bond "fans", as such; many are simply "viewers". Ticket prices aren't cheap and people may not be able to afford five or six trips to the cinema inside a single six week period, and they could well be busy with work etc. If they were married with kids, they might have had limited time for that sort of thing and have to pay for baby-sitters etc and only get to the cinema once every couple of months.
As for polls, it stands to reason that if people missed out on seeing Dalton's Bond then they won't have anything to go on and therefore won't vote for him. Equally, as Lazenby had only one film, people's affection for that film may shape their view of the actor in it.
Errr ... No! 8-)
As for the rest of your post, you still ignore the elephant in the room
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Fine, I'll bite. What is the elephant, then?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Vodka Martinis all round!
Thank you, Sir Hilary.
There's simply no accounting for taste, especially when it comes to the US it seems!
To put that in perspective, minimum wage in the U.S. was $3.35 an hour, but many of us teens and young adults were making more than that. You could easily do a date at the movies for less than $10.
Teens in the 80s and early 90s routinely went to movies, and they were a substantial part of the audience sought. It generally took many months for the same films to make it to cable or home video and then usually a year or more to broadcast TV. So, going to the movies was pretty much the only way to see the film for a long period.
It's what we did. It was cheap entertainment, and it's where our friends would be.
The argument that competition alone sucked money away from movies mostly affected smaller films and, as you say, bad movies. People just didn't waste their time. And Hollywood counted on repeat viewings for revenue. That's one reason they started pushing sequels and franchises so much. They knew chances are the fanbase would keep paying to see the same thing.
Movie dollars are fungible. The home video market was born because of it -- the idea that people would pay to rent or purchase a movie that they may have already seen. The idea that somehow people would limit their movie spending to some finite amount defies the reality of the time, at least for many people.
People avoided Licence to Kill and Timothy Dalton out of conscious effort, not because the marketing somehow didn't magically hypnotize them into the theater. He was not a popular Bond here, and his movies just didn't draw audiences like his predecessors.
Main target group for Bond and most other Action Movies of the time was young men.
They had normally other worries than getting a babysitter at home
At best they took the babysitter out for a date and watched a 007 movie among other things
I certainly did
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Regardless, there are fans who love both films. I certainly do. A friend of mine does too. It's in both our top tens. So it's hardly Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Even if the Americans didn't take to Dalton, it doesn't mean they think he was "weepy" and "weak" like you do. There isn't a single scene in either of his films in which he cries, so your obsession witht that idea is crazy.
Both films are great
I can live with that.
What is laughable how you are ignoring that wide parts of audiences did not accept Dalton and pull one crazy explanation after another why his movies did so badly.
Have you checked and compared weather charts, lunar calendars and fuel prices yet?
Maybe there is a pattern
Seems that everybody and everything is to blame but not Dalton.
Carry on, it‘s really entertaining
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!