Why, oh Why did Living Daylights flunk at the movies??

Silhouette Man · December 2012

Yes, TLD has a muddled, overly convoluted plot - like a John Gardner novel translated to the big screen more so than your typical Bond movie. It's still easily one of the best Bond films out there, however!

Very underrated, deserves a better reputation. Dalton is btrilliant - he holds the disparate elements of the film together. Career criminals benefitting from the Cold War more than your typical Bond film.

Richard--W · December 2012

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was a hit film, very profitable, Dalton received a lot of praise in the press and the audiences loved him. LICENCE TO KILL entered profits very quickly but didn't earn as much as expected. LICENCE TO KILL was badly screwed up by Michael Wilson's rewrite and by slovenly, amateurish directing. Both films suffer from Wilson's and Glen's boorish approach. John Glen could direct stunts and action but he had no storytelling ability and no grasp of acting.

Richard

chrisisall · December 2012

Richard--W wrote:

John Glen could direct stunts and action but he had no storytelling ability

I dunno, I kinda like his simple straightforward style.

DelicatessenInSteel · June 2013

It didn't bomb it did very well for a Bond film in the states about the same as AVTAK if it hadn't Dalton would have been replaced with Brosnan for the next go round. Licence to kill & the Mclory nonsense kille the franchise till 1995.

PPK 7.65mm · June 2013

Another big reason why LTK failed was the fact that the marketing for the film was poorly executed when compared to the other films in the series. In contrast The Living Daylights had a big marketing push in every corner of the world. I am sure that the marketing helped The Living Daylights to make the splash that it did world wide.

Firemass · June 2013

Halcon wrote:

. Dalton using that woman to distract I forget his name in the hotel scene was incredibly cool and sexy!)

I actually dislike that particular scene. I didn't think it was very cool of Dalton or very sexy. Just kind of clumsy and rude. He left his back turned to her the entire time he was interrogating Pushkin. What if she had a gun? Bond should never assume that a woman is harmless.

and oh that poor woman! First the Dalton thing and then the faked assassination later that evening. "Sorry to put you through that my dear"

Richard--W · June 2013

Misinformation never dies.

THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was highly praised and well-liked. Timothy Dalton was accepted and respected. The film did well at the box-office. So did LICENCE TO KILL. Both films were profitable. Both films were successful.

Thunderpussy · June 2013

Yes, I always thought TLD was a big Hit. Although LTK didn't do the sort
of huge boxoffice as other Bonds. it wasn't a huge flop. I'd blame
poor marketing mostly.

raptors_887 · June 2013

The only thing that holds the movie back for me is the Bond girl. There are parts that I have to fast forward just so I don't have to listen to her.

davidelliott101 · June 2013

TLD was a massive and popular hit!!!

chrisisall · June 2013

davidelliott101 wrote:

TLD was a massive and popular hit!!!

I was in the theatre the week it opened! And back then I was only half the Bond fan I am today. In fact, no one I know didn't see it.

MooseWithFleas · June 2013

Inflation Adjusted Box Office Numbers for Bond Films: http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php

Bottom 3
21.) The Living Daylights
22.) A View to a Kill
23.) Licence to Kill

All three of these movies were in a row, interesting. Not to mention Octopussy is number 20. Still love Timothy Dalton in the role. He just was the right man at the wrong time. In an alternate universe he would have played Bond in OHMSS at a young age and created the best Bond film of all time, followed by a 10 movie long run as Bond

chrisisall · June 2013

MooseWithFleas wrote:

Inflation Adjusted Box Office Numbers for Bond Films:
Bottom 3
21.) The Living Daylights
22.) A View to a Kill
23.) Licence to Kill

All three were still financial successes, though not as big as one would like... :007)

MooseWithFleas · June 2013

Oh definitely, I'm not denying that. Box Office Sales/Budget ratio proves that they were financial successes. I'm just talking comparatively to other Bond films, they were much weaker successes.

Napoleon Plural · June 2013

There was the old thing about Bond being out of date what with AIDS arriving, and Dalton seemed to me like a 1970s hero, not one of the late 80s where it was all short hair and square jaws like Bruce, Arnie, Mel to some extent, even Stallone got a haircut. Dalton seemed unnecessarily severe.

HowardB · June 2013

Loved TLD when it came out. Without question it was a critical and box office success. While LTK was not even remotely a flop, EON severely mis-judged the marketing of the film and releasing it in that summer to compete against Batman, Indiana Jones, etc. was an even bigger mistake. LTK should have been released in the late fall/Thanksgiving time and it would have done much better. Could you imagine Dalton in his prime as Bond with Mendes or Campbell at the helm and the superior scripts they had to work with?

L Jones · July 2013

LTK cost $32 million dollars to film. It made $156.2 million at the box office. The movie made 4 to 5 times more that it cost. And it's a flop? ?:)

Higgins · July 2013

"Hey, let's make the next one 50% cheaper, if we only loose 30% of the audience we're still winners" *

Movie franchise do not work like that!

* if you are telling me that LTK did not cost 50% of TLD and did not loose 30% of the viewers you just show that you did not understand my example

chrisisall · July 2013

L Jones wrote:

LTK cost $32 million dollars to film. It made $156.2 million at the box office. The movie made 4 to 5 times more that it cost. And it's a flop? ?:)

Don't worry, Bondtoys has proven many times that arithmetic is not his strong area.

Asp9mm · July 2013

chrisisall wrote:

Don't worry, Bondtoys has proven many times that arithmetic is not his strong area.

.... along with tact and charm

)

Higgins · July 2013

chrisisall wrote:

L Jones wrote:

LTK cost $32 million dollars to film. It made $156.2 million at the box office. The movie made 4 to 5 times more that it cost. And it's a flop? ?:)

Don't worry, Bondtoys has proven many times that arithmetic is not his strong area.

I'll leave you under that illusion.

Brands and franchises are there to grow and gain marketshare and not for the opposite.

If a brand manager from brand x told his boss: We lost 30% of our sales (customers) but the product is only 50% to produce, you'll see how fast he gets fired.

So your arithmetics may be right in your small world, still has nothing to do with the reality.

chrisisall · July 2013

Bondtoys wrote:

Brands and franchises are there to grow and gain marketshare and not for the opposite.

Thinking like a vulture capitalist doesn't let you see the profit in profit, it only lets you see the profit in upward trends. This type of thinking is what causes financial collapse & depression, because limitless growth is not sustainable (or even possible).
You sound like you have a degree in Business, Bontoys.
That is no compliment, btw.

)

Higgins · July 2013

So, with the record box office of SF - according to your logic - the 007 franchise will soon collapse and get into depression?

That's really news - you probably can claim that you've seen it coming first

And just for the record:It's the producers who decide if a movie was a flop or a success and I am pretty sure that they share my "vulture capitalist" point of view - at least they did with the box office of LTK

- they certainly where not happy about the decline of viewers

chrisisall · July 2013

Bondtoys wrote:

So, with the record box office of SF - according to your logic - the 007 franchise will soon collapse and get into depression?

No need to go on proving that you don't understand this conversation, Mr. Toys, we get that you don't get it. :007)

The next Bond movie will likely make much less than SF. The one after that possibly even less. Both will, hovever, be extremely PROFITABLE. Perhaps the one after that may exceed Skyfall's box office, I don't know. The point is, that expecting each movie to make more than the previous one to be labled 'profitable' or 'successful' is the stuff of hyper-focused Capitalist delusion...

Higgins · July 2013

chrisisall wrote:

Bondtoys wrote:

So, with the record box office of SF - according to your logic - the 007 franchise will soon collapse and get into depression?

No need to go on proving that you don't understand this conversation, Mr. Toys, we get that you don't get it. :007)

Ah, you are now speaking about yourself in the 3 rd person already

Lesson 1 in capitalism: Brands have to grow
Lesson 2 in capitalism: if you are afraid of a decline - find new markets

I am pretty certain that the chinese market for example has a high potential for growth for the next movie - so you may be wrong with your prediction for Bond 24.

Welcome to the real world!

chrisisall wrote:

The point is, that expecting each movie to make more than the previous one to be labled 'profitable' or 'successful' is the stuff of hyper-focused Capitalist delusion...

Welcome to MGW's and BB's world and I am sure MGM will expect some grows from their only cash-cowing franchise as well

chrisisall · July 2013

Bondtoys wrote:

Lesson 1 in capitalism: Brands have to grow
Lesson 2 in capitalism: if you are afraid of a decline - find new markets

We were warned about Ferengi dealings back at Starfleet...

)

Here, I fixed it a little for ya:
Lesson 1 in [real world economics]: Brands should grow to a stable point
Lesson 2 in [real world economics]: if you are afraid of a decline - maintain quality of your product/do more R&D

Higgins · July 2013

this aside, I can see you shifting tracks like crazy.

1. LTK was not a flop
2. LTK was not a flop because the cost/box ratio was still good - the viewer numbers declined
3. Viewer's numbers that are rising are not good - growth will destroy our world- So even a flop in viewers numbers is a good thing.

Would be the same, if I was claiming that one of your favorites TLD with the grittier tone is bad for the attitude of the world population.

Deal with it: LTK was a flop. End of story

Higgins · July 2013

chrisisall wrote:

Lesson 2 in [real world economics]: if you are afraid of a decline - maintain quality of your product

sandbox economy...

Quality alone does not sell brand products.
If that was the case, there won't be a battle for the best shopping locations in all capitol's high streets

Asp9mm · July 2013

LTK was a flop.

Viewer numbers declined

A decline in people wanting to see a Bond movie isn't good.

chrisisall · July 2013

Bondtoys wrote:

3. Viewer's numbers that are rising are not good - growth will destroy our world- So even a flop in viewers numbers is a good thing.

[Jack Burton voice]
Are you crazy? Is that your problem?

Why, oh Why did Living Daylights flunk at the movies??

Comments