Only problem I had with Dalton's era was that he only did two. Loved the new direction after years of Moore.

Verily I say unto theeyour statements are certainly simple there is no doubt and kudos to LICENCE TO KILL for the violence contained within it.I watch films and US TV shows ten times more violent practically every day of the week and revel in them.Have you ever seen THE WALKING DEAD for example? LTK is like a Disney film in comparison.

no, i wouldn't. Like i said, it was too violent and didn't have enough humour for my taste. You seem to have great difficulty understanding simple statements. perhaps English is not your first language?

Verily I say unto thee..perhaps you would have enjoyed LICENCE TO KILL more if you were capable of correctly naming the title.

I liked the living daylights. there was quite a bit of joking in that. didn't like Licensed to Kill - too violent and not enough humour.

All Bond movies and eras have been profitable, so when Dalton (or AVTAK or TMWTGG or OHMSS etc) is under scrutiny we are discussing the difference between fantastic profit vs. disappointing profit, but always profit nonetheless. And yes, LTK's biggest eyebrow raiser was its weak US box office.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Well with Dalton you have a more serious Bond, which to some was a boring one. I mean look at Moore's Bond, he's the kind of guy you could drink a half pint with down at the pub and tell jokes all day long. I could not imagine doing that with Dalton's Bond. Moore was more self-deprecating, a wee bit for my liking. People like a lad who is willing to have a joke at his expense.
But it was somewhat of a problemat the box office. Love it or hate it, Dalton's era was unimpressive and disappointing at the box office compared to all the other Bond eras,
Dalton's Bond wasn't a complete letdown outside of the U.S. His two movies did reasonably well in Europe. I remembered the summer of 1989 being a strong season for movies. A reason why they release the films now towards the latter part of the year (e.g. November).
Voting Tory will cause your wife to have bigger breasts and increase your chances of owning a BMW M3

You're not getting much support here, but I in a broad sense agree with you.
Dalton's portrayal was not really supposed to be a crowd pleaser, at least not via comedy or satire. But a Fleming-reader pleaser through a more faithful, if grim, take on things.
Perhaps its your semantic construct that this is a "big fundamental problem" when it isn't, to many, a problem, in terms of entertainment.
But it
was
somewhat of a problemat the box office. Love it or hate it, Dalton's era was unimpressive and disappointing at the box office compared to
all
the other Bond eras, overall, maybe even more of a concern than even Laz/OHMSS from a franchise profit/relevancy/survival/business point of view. Which has nothing to do with what anyone enjoys, really.
Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm rea
d
er.

Indeed. Had Timmy had that third film, it no doubt would have been his definitive "big" Bond flick and the general audiences would be broadly approving of him

He wouldn't have likely topped LTK anyway, but it's possible.

Yeah, where failure myths failed over time for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE and more recently QUANTUM OF SOLACE, LICENCE TO KILL is an easy target.
One true problem with the Dalton era: he never got the big third mission like GOLDFINGER or THE SPY WHO LOVED ME.
What no man
C
an give ya. And none
C
an take away.

LTK was much better at showing a more serious Bond than TLD was. TLD had too much camp and Roger Moore tone that clashed with Dalton's portrayal, which is why LTK is the much better Dalton movie for me.

No.
The Living Daylights was a very popular movie and also a successful one. No, it wasn't Goldfinger popular, but neither were the prior few Moore flicks.
Licence to Kill was a relative disappointment financially because of bad marketing decisions and very stiff competition. However, it was still a reasonable critical success.
Dalton was all set for a third film and probably one or two additional films, but it was derailed by the studio's financial struggles.
Modern perspective of the Dalton films not being accepted is the result of rewriting history due the commonly spread idea that Dalton was booted after LTK "bombing", which is obviously untrue but since it's such a firm and longstanding belief with general audiences, it's difficult to tell people otherwise.
It's the same as trying to tell people that Batman Forever was actually a well liked and hugely successful film back in 95 and not the disaster people see it as today because of years of people associating it with Batman and Robin.

I'm not generally putting down Roger Moore's movies, I'm just saying that his movies were decidedly more silly and comedic than the more serious Dalton ones.

Dear oh dear.
Snark and camp foolishness? Theres a couple of great Bond films your doing a disservice to there.
Not to mention a great Bond.

I don't see a fundamental problem with Dalton's Bond. The problems for audiences at the time may have been.
A. With the era of celebratory blockbusters in the 80's and not having seen a portrayal in the vein of Dalton's since FRWL 20 something years earlier while coming off the most light hearted Bond of all time in Roger Moore, people simply weren't in the mood or ready for that kind of Bond performance
B. License to Kill is a good movie, but not very Bond-like, which may have out audiences off specifically that movie when it came out.