MovieChat Forums > Licence to Kill (1989) Discussion > Was Bond going to tank in 1989, no matte...

Was Bond going to tank in 1989, no matter what?

posted 12 years ago by TMC-4
21 replies | jump to latest

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/62707-bond-was-going-to-tank-in -1989-no-matter-what/

For all those who say that Licence To Kill is too dark, or too violent, or that Dalton is too grumpy in that movie, or it's too Miami Vice or some such thing and that's why the movie tanked, you're missing the bigger picture.

A new Bond movie had been released every two years for the previous 22 years. The market had become oversaturated. People were going through Bond Fatigue. Bond was beginnig to be seen as old hat. Been there, done that. No matter how good the movies were or werent by 1989 the excitement among the general moviegoing public had waned.

Then you've got the Summer of 1989. Batman. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Lethal Weapon 2. Star Trek V. Ghostbusters 2. The Abyss. James Bond was going to get lost among those movies regardless of what kind of Bond movie it was, or who was playing Bond.

Timothy Dalton might have had a better run if they had waited another year to do Licence To Kill. Bond needed a break, or, more accurately, the general moviegoing public needed a break from Bond. Pierce Brosnan benefitted from that break as the public was once again ready (viewing a new Bond movie as long overdue by then) and excited for a new Bond movie by 1995.

But in 1989? Bond was DOA, regardless of who, what, when, where, or why. Even Elliott Carver would have had a hard time selling Bond in 1989...

[–] tralycr_c-1 12 years ago

I agree. Bond in the '80s wasn't the draw it was before and is now. Releasing it in a summer filled with so many guaranteed blockbusters was silly. But oh well, lesson learned.

There is a man...he travels fast...he has purpose...he brings violence and destruction.

[–] Movie_map 12 years ago

I don't agree with that analysis. The movie earned about 5 times its production cost and was profitable by any measure. It certainly didn't "tank". The reason there were no more Dalton Bond movies had to do with legal issues and not with the viability of the franchise. Being the 'lowest grossing Bond' doesn't mean a whole lot if that lowest grossing movie still makes a tidy profit. Besides, one of the films has to be the lowest.

[–] Mr_Blonde3 12 years ago

Agreed. There were a lot of reasons behind why "LTK" was the lowest grosser. But as you said, it made a considerable amount of money, and I'm sure there are countless producers who would love to release a low-grossing film that made back almost five times it's budget back.

I love to love my Lisa.

[–] MartyScorsey 12 years ago

I disagree. The Living Daylights was acclaimed as a breath of fresh air just two years before; critics and audiences both liked the new, younger actor. Licence to Kill should not have been seen as 'old hat'.

The reason it DID bomb in the States (though not internationally) is that Batman, Lethal Weapon 2 and Last Crusade did what Bond did best - flamboyant action sequences - with even more flamboyance.

Is Licence to Kill a good action adventure? Yes. Are the three I just mentioned even better? Sadly for Bond, yes, they were.

==================

'Days of London' - An Olympic Games-themed tribute to Tony Scott: http://tinyurl.com/bbbkfxf

[–] Galagatron 12 years ago

Bond was being considered "Old Hat" by the end of the '60s as well, most notably by George Lazenby who thought hippie culture and films like "Easy Rider" were signaling the end of the franchise.

[–] Miken_Ayers 12 years ago

It made 156 million worldwide on a 32 million dollar budget. That's by no means tanking.

[–] Mr_Blonde3 12 years ago

And that's just it. Is it the lowest grossing adjusted for inflation? Yes. But by no means was it a failure at the box office. Saying a movie that make back close to four times it's budget tanked is more than a little unfair, IMO.

I love to love my Lisa.

[–] Mr_Blonde3 12 years ago

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kennellygerard 11 years ago

tigerland tanked

another gritty realistic drama

[–] TMC-4 11 years ago

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHKhM12tWncJ:debr ief.commanderbond.net/topic/63475-the-consensus-on-the-negative-respon se-to-licence-to-kill/page-2+&cd=17&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=u s

http://debrief.commanderbond.net/topic/63475-the-consensus-on-the-nega tive-response-to-licence-to-kill/page-2#entry1266165

1. Timothy Dalton instead of Pierce Brosnan (and this is the big reason)
2. General malaise about series, not attracting new fans
3. Films being released every two years
4. Miami Vice plot not what people were looking for in an escapist Bond film
5. Reduced number of theatres it opened in (of course I can hear somebody say that this issue directly relates to the "competition")
6. Production values, exhausted production team, film's lack of confidence, etc
7. Weak word of mouth (hence the massive weekly falling off which the series had not seen since TMWTGG)
8. Glut of competing action franchises
9. Summer action competition
10. Release date
11. Running time (resulting in reduced screenings: first performances opens during dinner hour and final performances finishes way too late at night, though I admit that other Bond films are just as long - but imagine if this film had been twenty to thirty minutes shorter... surely that would have resulted in better box office, no?)
12. Weak direct-to-video title
13. Uninspired ad campaign. (I rate this so low is because it's a Bond film. By this point only the die-hard fans and the casual fans were seeing the films. It's part of an established franchise so you don't really need to sell the film that hard.)

[–] TheLordofTheHarvest 11 years ago

Yes, it was a mistake.

The people at MGM expected it to be a solid hit because the series had traditionally been good, but they were ignorant to other hit series that had sequels that summer and the surprise hits (Honey I Shrunk the Kids, Turner and Hooch for example) They took it for granted they would make a ton of money and when they didn't they couldn't believe it. Sure it made it's money back but it wasn't a crushing hit like they expected either, even if it was dark for the mainstream audience it was expecting, so was Batman and it did solid.

I say Bond fatigue set in, plus every kid wanted to see Batman or Ghostbusters 2. You could say the same thing happened in 1997 with Batman and Robin, the movie was rushed because of greed and the audience just wasn't ready for it yet, even if LTK was light years ahead of that movie in quality.

1990 had nowhere as solid hits that 1989 had. Sure there was Total Recall, Ghost and Die Hard 2, but they didn't make nowhere as much numbers as 1989 did. There were a lot of rotating hits and some forgettable films. Summer 1990, either around 4th of July or early August would have been the perfect window for it. Plus it could have gave the crew time to fix the errors, get a good budget, and promote it. It lacked in each of these things.

[–] LeonardPine 11 years ago

Makes me laugh when they say Batman made more money. Most of it went in Jack Nicholson's bank account!

"Perhaps he's wondering why someone would SHOOT a man before throwing him out of a plane..."

[–] spacemanspiff00 11 years ago

Take out Nicholson's salary which was 60 million Batman still made $351,348,924 which is $195,148,924 more then Licence to Kill. And that doesn't even factor in DVD and VHS sales.

[–] kennellygerard 11 years ago

daniel craig got dragon tattoo made

brad pitt got 12 years a slave made

nicholson got batman made

[–] TMC-4 11 years ago

Maybe in hindsight, it was a mistaken on EON's part to try to go w/ a harsher tone (or "tough" and "mean" as Leonard Maltin discribed LTK in his review guide). It isn't that I don't mind that sort of thing otherwise, it's just that when compared to glossier, louder action films of that era like Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, the Rambo series, Aliens, Commando, Predator, etc., LTK looked tame and toothless in comparison. It's like they wanted to be dark and edgy, but not go all the way with it (i.e. which would quite obviously, warrant an R-rating).

[–] kennellygerard 11 years ago

Highest-grossing films

1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade $474,200,000
2. Batman $411,300,000
3. Back to the Future Part II $331,950,000
4. Look Who's Talking $297,000,000
5. The Little Mermaid $238,531,095
6. Dead Poets Society $235,900,000
7. Lethal Weapon 2 $227,900,000
8. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids $222,700,000
9. Ghostbusters II $215,400,000
10. Born on the Fourth of July $161,000,000
11. The War of the Roses $160,188,546
12. Licence to Kill $156,167,015
13. Driving Miss Daisy $145,793,296
14. Black Rain $134,212,055
15. Parenthood $126,297,830
16. Sea of Love $110,879,513
17. Steel Magnolias $95,904,091
18. The Abyss $90,000,098
19. Field of Dreams $84,431,625
20. Uncle Buck $79,258,538

[–] farfolomew 11 years ago

1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade $474,200,000
2. Batman $411,300,000
3. Back to the Future Part II $331,950,000
4. Look Who's Talking $297,000,000
5. The Little Mermaid $238,531,095
...
7. Lethal Weapon 2 $227,900,000
8. Honey, I Shrunk the Kids $222,700,000
9. Ghostbusters II $215,400,000
10. Born on the Fourth of July $161,000,000
...
12. Licence to Kill $156,167,015
...
18. The Abyss $90,000,098
19. Field of Dreams $84,431,625
20. Uncle Buck $79,258,538

Holy crap, I never realized all these bitchin' movies were released in 1989. Talk about a heck of a cinematic year! That rival's 1994 in movie awesomeness.

[–] kennellygerard 11 years ago

trust me

watch the doc ' EVERYTHING OR NOTHING: THE UNTOLD STORY OF 007 '

it will make you lol

[–] sascha-17 8 years ago

More importantly:

Budget: $32 million
Box Office: $156 million

While relatively weak for a Bond film, that's still nearly $5 in box office for every $1 spent on production. So even if you factor in the additional stuff like marketing, the film probably did turn a healthy profit.

By comparison:

"View to a Kill" had a budget of $30 million and a box office return of $152 million.

"Goldeneye" cost $58 million and made $352 million. Sounds more impressive but it "only" translates to $6 for every $1 spent on production.

And that was for Brosnan's first film (a new Bond should always be a big draw) *and* after the longest hiatus in the entire series (six years without a Bond-film).

The production-cost/box-office ratio for Brosnan's other Bonds is actually *worse* than for either of Dalton's. All of the other Brosnan-films made around $3 in box office for every $1 spent on production.

S.

[–] mistermycroft 8 years ago

While the above chart is true, that LTK was # 12 for the year in terms of money it made, that was the WORLDWIDE gross

In the U.S., it was # 36 for the year, the worst ever, and that is what killed it