andy b wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:20 am

Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:43 am
If white filmmakers making movies about "white" subject matter have to include POC in their movies, it should apply the other way. Get some random white dude in Boyz N The Hood or whatever.

MJ, you rule, that is a great post & I can add to your frustration, I promoted that film in Europe & had people of all colour asking me "why is the poster misspelled? do they not teach people correctly in America"!!

The irony is, spelling it "colour" in the U.S. is technically "wrong" (it gets a "misspelling" notification while typing it out right now). The same way "Tyres", "Pyjamas" and "Licence" are "wrong" by our standards of spelling. I remember the Bond people having to fight for the British spelling of "Licence" to be used for the U.S. release of Licence To Kill. Then again, us Yanks are apparently so dumb that they couldn't use the original title, Licence Revoked, because they were worried not enough people would understand what "Revoked" meant!

Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:38 am The irony is, spelling it "colour" in the U.S. is technically "wrong" (it gets a "misspelling" notification while typing it out right now). The same way "Tyres", "Pyjamas" and "Licence" are "wrong" by our standards of spelling. I remember the Bond people having to fight for the British spelling of "Licence" to be used for the U.S. release of Licence To Kill. Then again, us Yanks are apparently so dumb that they couldn't use the original title, Licence Revoked, because they were worried not enough people would understand what "Revoked" meant!

Yes & I still have somewhere in a box an original press release plate for Licence Revoked, with a "re-hash" of Bob Peak art from Diamonds Are Forever no less!

But Bond is not alone even Harry Potter had the first film title changed, although not on a global scale as Bond did.

regards
andy b

I don't believe that's why the Bond movie was retitled -- Americans know what "revoked" meant, I thought they just didn't like the title.

Even though it's more generic and less specific to the story, I always thought it made sense that LICENSE TO KILL (or LICENCE TO KILL) was used instead because it was an obvious Bond "phrase" that audiences would be familiar with. Certainly more commercial. The fact it was used worldwide probably speaks to something larger than just the American audience reaction to "Licence Revoked."

Plus if you say LICENCE REVOKED, it sounds like someone who flunked a driving test in this country. And LICENSE TO DRIVE had come out the year before. Maybe that was a factor also, who knows.

I seem to recall that wasn't there also some concern over the similarity in title sound to "License Renewed" (I know the opposite meaning) which was the title of the first of some new Bond novels in the 80s written first by John Gardner and then Raymond Benson that were Fleming estate authorized.

James Woods has the actual specifics on the requirements. Even more absurd than it first appeared.

Wow!

Maybe this will help the general viewing population make the choice to watch something else when the Oscars are on.

Like it needed to be made any worse. What a pathetic joke.