Why Did People Not Accept the 'Angry Bond' in '89 ?

I agree with everything you said.

Perhaps also people were turned off by the Sanchez drug plot, because there was no fantasy element to it. It was too "ordinary." True, Roger Moore fought drug dealers in Live and Let Die, but that movie had all of the bizarre characters (Solitaire, Tee Hee, etc) which made it more interesting

Even the Daniel Craig Bond films have "over the top" plots, both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The villains' schemes are much more interesting than smuggling cocaine in tanker trucks of gasoline.

I'm not a huge fan of the Bourne films, sure they're great films, but I'm not a die hard fan of them. I actually really enjoy a darker Bond though and "Licence To Kill" and Casino Royale" both hit the spot. I didn't like "Quantum of Solace" much though and I think that's because it feels too much like a Bourne film and feels the least like a Bond film out of all of them.

I think you summed it up perfectly!

[deleted]

Exactly! I guess people didn't care that the Moore Bonds were burning out, and hoped that it would still be a comical series.

Moore Bond movies were by far the best Bond movies, cause Brocolli back then realized that Bond is noting else then excitement. That was also the era when Bond was most succesful ever (Craig doesnt even come close to the Moore era).

So at that time movie viewers were brave enough to ask for funny and value entertainment.

Today we have an complete idiot as "Bond". Daniel Craig isnt Bond at any point in this movies. and no, Flemings books arent improtant at all. Flemiong was a hiorrible writer and Bond wasnt a success before he was kicked out of the franchise. So going back to Flemings Bond always means going back to a loser, that no sane person is interested in. A dumb and drunken serial killer.

And the term you are searching for is ..... excitement. And yes, that is of most value. Not showing a boring a incompetent actor for 2 lame hours.

Those who prefer slapstick, effete Bond are like those who prefer McFood: they don’t know what the real thing is. This is a reply to igniggandsoon’s post, not to the one immediately above. To Quint, I say that it’s rare to see the author of a character like Bond, or Sherlock Holmes, or Frodo Baggins, or Harry Potter dismissed, but you seem to know more about the source novel sales than I and perhaps Broccoli et al. saw commercial potential in the stories that the publishers did not; rare, but not necessarily without merit. We are here talking about Dalton in Livense To Kill, not about the Craig Bond movies; and Dalton’s vengeance for his friend Felix Leighter being mutilated (which was much more graphic in the source novel of a different title) is entirely in keeping with the source Bond’s sense of honor and justice, which I concede may have become cloudy in the Craig films’ narratives. Bond is exciting, but, more to the point, Bond is a mortal Ubermensch, “the best we’ve got,” as Dench’s M once said. More important than exciting, Superman James Bond is inspiring. Slapstick is not inspiring.

I remember the summer of 1989 very well ! I was 16 years old. You're right--everything that season was BATMAN. There was so much hype

No one cared about Star Trek V or Karate Kid III. Even Ghostbusters II wasn't as big as Batman that summer. I forget exactly how Lethal Weapon 2 did

There have always been theories that if MGM held off on License to Kill, releasing it in November of that year (as all of the Bonds since have been released, except for Tomorrow Never Dies, which came out in December due to filming delays) that it would have done MUCH better financially, and maybe Dalton would have remained on as Bond

that's really intriguing. if someone asked me to rank the value of these charaters in 89 i would have said 1. indy 2. bond 3. batman the first of burton's batman movies sucked, too, imo.



"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school"

I agree with all that is being said. That summer of 89 was a huge summer in movies: Batman, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2, Honey I Shrunk the Kids,Dead Poets Society, Ghostbusters 2, etc. I was 13 and remember it well. So of course a Bond which received mixed reviews would not garner as much success in the US as it did in the rest of the world. It still made 400% overall profit in worldwide sales.

I like the serious Bond in Dalton. He wasn't as serious in Living Daylights as in here, but he was a welcomed breath of fresh air from some of Moore's comedies. I mean Moore did a Tarzan yell in Octopussy. How more childish and lighthearted can you get with that?

I also loved Davi's Sanchez. I believe it was the first time a Latin drugpin was a villian. It reflected the problems of the day...drugs. Plus Sanchez had one quality missing in most Bond Baddies, he rewarded and cherished loyalty. He was good to his men as long as they were loyal. Most Bond baddies would doublecross their subordinates when given a chance.

Ok Lowell wasn't the best Bond girl, but she was hot and she was better than some of the others: like Denise Richards, Halle Berry, Tanya Roberts, etc.

One big mistake was Wayne Newton's character. I know he was for comedic relief and he was a commentary on the crooked Televangelism of the 1980s. But he wasn't funny and took some of the seriousness out of the film that I enjoyed so much.

Overall a great film.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Bravo! Bravo! I totally agree w/your assessment regarding the James Bond character reflecting more of a Han Solo character because IT WORKS in terms of financial success $$$$$ and MOST IMPERATIVE, its what EVERYBODY REMEMBERS w/nostalgia because it's ENTERTAINMENT after all! Our daily reality is full of seriousness and we escape this daily reality when we watch movies because its ENTERTAINMENT...... an escape from too serious of reality and all my friends, coworkers and family relatives ONLY recall ROGER MOORE, J.D. PEPPER, THE WHISTLE, MONEYPENNY FLIRTING ROGER MOORE, THE BIMBOS, ETC...... there's so much BLAH BLAH BLAH of hate for Roger Moore, just like there was for Han Solo! The Star Wars prequels SUCKED because it was MISSING A HAN SOLO CHARACTER! Yes, "the force awakens" brought back Han Solo and was a MASSIVE SUCCESS due to the Han Solo character, however, DISNEY made a HUGE MISTAKE to kill off the Han Solo character and in a strange twist of fate, Carrie Fisher dies and many fans had wished the princess leia character had been killed off due to her BORING, LACK-LASTER acting performance!

Fully agree on the 15 certificate, i remember that too. it defo cuts the audience i think by about 40%

They did try to make Roger Moore's James Bond darker too.
They tried it in The Man with the Golden Gun, with the scene where Bond pins down Andrea (Maud Adams) to the bed and tortures her for information.
But the audience of the time did not like to see this rough James Bond, so they turned back to how the audidence had become accustomed to Moore as Bond.

[deleted]