Licence To Kill brought the franchise to its knees...utter bollocks.
It practically reinvigorated the franchise, even though Dalton did not continue in the role.
Utter, utter revisionist pish.
LTK is the LOWEST grossing James Bond film of all time no matter which way you want to look at it. And it was only Dalton's second film! There is no denying that.
They didn't make another one for years after it. Legal wrangles yes, but there was also huge concerns as to whether they should continue with Dalton given his Box Office failure, especially as time passed.
If it was a "template" for "harder edged" Bond films it was certainly one which was ignored for decades since Craig's "Bond" didn't come along for another 20 years near enough. It was utterly ignored when they moved forward with Brosnan so it quite obviously "reinvigorated" nothing.
Cannot stand the Daniel Craig revisionst b-llsh-t you get re this era nowadays. Absolute rubbish!
reply
share
Roguemail (1614)
4 years ago
It was clear that after LTK the series needed to change, and hence Brosnan was brought in.
I still loves Daltons take on Bond though.
But the franchise was re invigorated with Brosnan, even if he was never my fave Bond. I thought he had a mixture of Connery and Moore in his portrayal. He had the suave nature, and yet the killer instinct when needed.
reply
share
FootOfDavros (8142)
4 years ago
That's fair enough if you loved Dalton. Each to their own and all that and I certainly wouldn't want to dissuade anyone who was / is a fan. I'm just not a fan of the retrospective boost his take seems to get post Craig.
Have you seen the deleted magic carpet scene from TLD? I think that makes interesting viewing as it shows the writers were still somewhat in Moore mode as it really just doesn't fit for Dalton...
I agree re Brosnan - wasn't my favourite either but he did characterise Bond pretty well even if his films aren't right up there with the best.
reply
share