James Bond's Darkest Hour: An Essay on Licence to Kill (Page 4 of 6)

SpectreOfDefeat, recently we have been group watching the James Bond films and commenting live upon them as we watch. You may find our thoughts interesting:

TLD:
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/52531/aj … ry-on-tld/

LTK:
https://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/52625/aj … ry-on-ltk/

Not surprisingly. He wasn't a bad actor, his films did not flop (yes, other films made more money- as can be said of other Bond films- but his did not lose money), and he did not spend most of his time crying onscreen.

Penalty shot with no goalkeeper for me 

I presume checking out those watchalong threads is considered shocking, Barbel.

Positively shocking...

To drag the discussion back towards LTK's relative merits:

"Meanwhile- any other hot takes/sizzling critiques/centrist middle ground views/thoughts on Dalton and LTK? Possibly relating to my question on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the film's romantic elements?"

Ah I see the problem now- genuinely misunderstood what was being pointed out there. My mistake, Barbel- an error of quick typing, embarrassingly.  No confusion intended between yourself and any other members. Please accept my sincere apologies- still new round here.

I'll be sure to check out the watchalong thread- thanks for the suggestion.
On with the LTK discussion...

"Let‘s just say for argument sake that the Bond franchise is strong enough that even a miscast and unpopular main actor could not pull the movie in the negative figures "

I'd contend that on the contrary, the strength of the 'Bond brand' had been slowly declining throughout the decade in the face of serious competition. In the specific case of LTK, if I had been hypothetically standing outside a multiplex in the summer of '89 facing the choice of either the latest Bond, Indiana Jones or Lethal Weapon 2, ticket sales show that many audience members- particularly in the US- plumped for the rival franchises. The 'Bond name' was already tarnished through its inconsistent quality and tone in the 80s.

One other aspect I don't think has been discussed was the poor marketing campaign. The dull photographic posters of cross scowly Timothy compare especially badly with the colourful and exciting painting artwork done to promote AVTAK and TLD. How about the uninspired promotion turning viewers away- linking to the original title of Licence Revoked being changed after testing badly?

Addendum:

"In the specific case of LTK, if I had been hypothetically standing outside a multiplex in the summer of '89 facing the choice of either the latest Bond, Indiana Jones or Lethal Weapon 2, ticket sales show that many audience members- particularly in the US- plumped for the rival franchises."

This might initially appear to contradict my previous assertion that franchise fatigue wasn't the main reason for LTK's failure. I still think that. I'm just trying to assert that multiple reasons acted together to impact on LTK's underperformance. The main consistent through line of my case, which I've kept since the original essay's ideas, is that Dalton's presence wasn't the deciding factor.

Also, describing Dalton as "miscast and unpopular" belies the heart of the matter. Rather than being unpopular, I think Dalton was almost unknown outside of the UK at the time of his casting- unlike, say, Roger Moore in 1973 or Pierce Brosnan in 1995. Unlike either of those two, Dalton never managed to shake the perception of being a lesser regarded actor. As said before, the fact that Eon actually wanted Pierce in 1986 for TLD, and some other crew members also preferred Sam Neill, didn't help Dalton's credibility much at the time either...

"Having said this, when the Bond Franchise was on a decline ( your argument - not mine) how do you explain the success of GE?
And please don‘t make it easy by using the ‚Bond fans where drought out by the long wait and thus ran the theatres‘ argument.
People wanted Brosnan, people where happy to see Brosnan as Bond and voted with their wallets."

Challenge duly accepted. I'll try to avoid the 'long wait' argument and instead look at two others...

1) In the mid-1990s, there was a wave of cultural nostalgia for the 1960s. British music (Oasis, Blur) and art drew on the 1960s for inspiration. This cultural affection for British exports eventually became Cool Britannia and this generated nostalgia for the 60s Connery Bond films. Thus Bond was again viewed with warmth by the general public and not derision, and GoldenEye was released at exactly the right framing moment to capitalise on this phenomenon.

2) GoldenEye is qualitatively much better than LTK, with a more exotic Bond 'feel', inventive action and dynamic direction. As such it was positively reviewed by contemporary critics and thus drew significantly higher box office returns.

There you have it, two decent reasons separate from the "long wait" and "specific demand for Brosnan" arguments. Howzat?

Also there's the fact that the parallel between Skyfall and GoldenEye being that both grossed more money than the franchise had ever before, GoldenEye grossed more than Moonraker and Skyfall grossed more than any other at about a billion dollars breaking internal records and being the UK's most profitable movie yet iirc

Makes me wonder which others have that same parallel. But I agree, there's always more to it than just the movie because Bond is like it or not a cultural icon.

And I agree that Dalton, as much as I enjoy his stuff, just didn't have the muscle...figuratively and literally for the 80s.

If we apply the cultural argument to LTK, Bond was seen as superfluous to requirements- the Cold War was ending, the Russians would soon be inducted into the Western orbit, and such multipolar confrontations would simply cease. (see Fukuyama's The End of History.)

Perhaps this contributed to a sense that the Bond films would be pointless in the peaceful free-thinking Nineties? GE effectively dealt with this problem by actually tackling the Soviet Union's collapse head-on as part of the plot.