10 replies to this topic

[SeanDalton77]

with other big franchies like superman,batman,star wars,xmen lotr ether fadeaway for a while or dont make any more movies were as Bond has been going for over 40 years 6 actors playing Bond still going strong

[dinovelvet]

with other big franchies like superman,batman,star wars,xmen lotr ether fadeaway for a while or dont make any more movies were as Bond has been going for over 40 years 6 actors playing Bond still going strong

Well that's the question a lot of the rival movie studios keep asking every time a new Bond film comes out. There's no definite answer why one franchise can keep going for over 40 years while others burn out after three or four movies, but I think one of the reasons Bond has kept going after Connery left is because the series changed with the times, by adopting current cinema trends to stay relevant, e.g. Bond does blaxploitation cinema in LALD, kung fu in TMWTGG, Star Wars in Moonraker and so on.

[sharpshooter]

All I can say is, it that it is BOND. There is none other like it. We want to be him, and we enjoy that dangerous fun lifestyle in which we escape to for two hours or more.

We are expecting generally a car chase, high living, humour, fight sequences, women, the gambling and alchohol.

Adapting with the times and the known formula, and having fun with it ala CR, help immensely.

Edited by sharpshooter, 17 April 2007 - 08:13 AM.

[erniecureo]

From a pure marketing standpoint, Bond is around for the same reason most big brands are; they've solidified their position as the leader in their fields, they deliver what is expected, and they're not afraid to re-engineer themselves occasionally to stay competitive.

In Bond's case, the brand means a mix of action, humor and sex that appeals to an incredibly broad demographic. In terms of magazines only, think of all the different market segments that can be found in a Bond movie:

The Robb Report
Car and Driver
Playboy
Travel
Soldier of Fortune
Cosmopolitan

...and literally hundreds more. Add to this the final touch, as noted many times before; Bond is a secret agent--someone we can fantasize about being, or being with: an extraordinary person in an ordinary wrapper.

Voila! The recipe for a perpetual franchise.

[PlayItBogart]

Well from what I understand, Lord of the Rings was loosely based on a series of books of which there were only three.

The thing with most of the franchises you mentioned is a lot of them have continuity and just because a film is over, doesn't mean the story is over. Thus it could be hard to crank to crank out effective sequels over and over.

Then again, some series' are just designed to come to an end. The X-Men trilogy is a good example. At this point, the current story is over. The next X-Men film isn't for a few years, and it's actually called Magneto.

Some legends are just meant to die. Or go into limbo for a few years due to a bad film, then re-emerge with a new entry with a new frontman.

Bond hasn't been immune from stalling either. The six years between Dalton and Brosnan? Three years between Golden Gun and The Spy? Four Years between Brosnan and Craig?

Edited by PlayItBogart, 18 April 2007 - 01:21 AM.

[Turn]

Bond works because he's a classic hero who translates to all generations. Remember a few years ago when xXx was supposed to end Bond films? Didn't happen because Bond is rooted in a classic way. He's a character that senior citizens down to school kids, men and women can enjoy.

Throw in exotic locations, fantastic action and stunts, beautiful girls, occasional cool gadgets and other elements and you have a proven winning formula. And they change with the times.

Plus, opposed to the super big film franchises, Bond films don't require a huge budget or need extra time to prepare special effects (Star Wars, Spider-Man, LOTR, Harry Potter) or have a lot of ego-driven talent that takes years to coordinate (Indy 4).

[JLaidlaw]

Firstly I should just say that James Bond is not the only franchise which has kept going for so many years, Superman and Batman have been running on for around the same time as Bond has been running, just only making their break into the cinema in the eighties. Doctor Who has been running on television since 1963. The reason these four franchises have been running so long is because the public has accepted that the lead actor in the role will change. James Bond and Doctor Who perhaps more than the rest, but that is a significant part of their longevity. If studios lose an actor now, they tend to set up a whole new series based around a similar character, rather than bother trying to convince people this new actor is the same character, or pass on the series to a new character. Since it has been an established part of James Bond since 1973, they have not had to face the problem in more recent years where actors are kings of the movie business.

The other reason is probably something to do with the flexibility of the format. Who would say that From Russia With Love, Moonraker and Goldeneye are all part of the same series unless they knew it? Spiderman does not have that flexibility, Batman and Superman have it more, but not to the extent that James Bond does.

I have a theory that the only reason James Bond has been so successful since about 1990 is because it was so successful in the 60s. There's more history behind it, more culture, and because of that parents will take their children to see the Bond film rather than the 'hideously violent' new american cop movie that's come out. It's generally thought that Bond films have a bit more intelligence, which justifies respectable grown men going to see the films, even though that's probably a myth.
I have another theory on trilogies. One good film is enough to get most of the audience to come and see two more films from the same franchise, so the fact that Pirates of the Carribean 2 (for example) was pretty bad, isn't going to stop people seeing Pirates 3. The fact that Temple of Doom wasn't that good doesn't stop people watching The Last Crusade. The fact that the first five Connery films and OHMSS were good meant that people would come back for Diamonds Are Forever, and even though it was bad, people still came back for Live and Let Die, which was much better, and so when TMWTGG wasn't well recieved, people still turned up for The Spy Who Loved Me. This would explain why people kept on turning up towards the end of the Moore era when he was dealing with Octopussy and Zorin. It's not a great theory, but it has a bit of sense in it.

Now, if only someone would tell me how Rocky got to six films.

[Zorin Industries]

Eon Productions. They have a sensibility, loyalty and attitude that is unique in the film industry. From experience, they run their tight ship like a corner shop in the face of Hollywood's out-of-town shopping mall. And we all know how David fared against Goliath.

Edited by Zorin Industries, 18 April 2007 - 12:40 PM.

[plankattack]

Don't forget too that when the film franchise began, it was bringing to the big screen a large inventory of novels that had a huge following. So the films began with much larger demographic than say, some modern franchises that are perhaps only have an inherent, smaller, "niche fanbase."

Then the Bond films created their own following, which meant that the total number of Bond fans, whether they came via the written word or the moving image, was broad and deep. Like any structure, a franchise lasts because of the strength of its foundation, and that's how now it's able to grow even bigger through other avenues - games, fan fiction, the internet, what have you. With films perhaps being the dominant global medium, all these other areas invariably filter energy back, creating a franchise of almost indestructable nature.

But as a fan I always worry that it might all end - making me even more determined to spread the word!

[Zorin Industries]

Don't forget too that when the film franchise began, it was bringing to the big screen a large inventory of novels that had a huge following. So the films began with much larger demographic than say, some modern franchises that are perhaps only have an inherent, smaller, "niche fanbase."

Then the Bond films created their own following, which meant that the total number of Bond fans, whether they came via the written word or the moving image, was broad and deep. Like any structure, a franchise lasts because of the strength of its foundation, and that's how now it's able to grow even bigger through other avenues - games, fan fiction, the internet, what have you. With films perhaps being the dominant global medium, all these other areas invariably filter energy back, creating a franchise of almost indestructable nature.

But as a fan I always worry that it might all end - making me even more determined to spread the word!

AND the films provided what the audience didn't have at the time - a flash car, tailored suits, the chance to go abroad, exotic women and gadgets that allowed you to communicate without finding a land line...

I don't think the books are the reason we are all here now. It is the films and the films alone. The books have grown in stature because of the films. The books were not global hits until a few high profile readers (such as John F Kennedy) raised their profile. Annoyingly though, they are so better written than anything Dan Brown or JK Rowling have ever done. But ironically, the film versions of these two authors works are ropey to say the least and will not have fans on website discussing them in fifty years time. The POTTER films have yet to be films instead of un-edited transcriptions of books that an editor should have been allowed to intervene on. But that's another discussion...

[plankattack]

I don't think the books are the reason we are all here now. It is the films and the films alone. The books have grown in stature because of the films. The books were not global hits until a few high profile readers (such as John F Kennedy) raised their profile. Annoyingly though, they are so better written than anything Dan Brown or JK Rowling have ever done. But ironically, the film versions of these two authors works are ropey to say the least and will not have fans on website discussing them in fifty years time. The POTTER films have yet to be films instead of un-edited transcriptions of books that an editor should have been allowed to intervene on. But that's another discussion...

I wasn't meaning to suggest that we're all here because of the novels. I agree, I think a large percentage of people (by this point in time, the majority) if they've read any of the books, it's because of the movies. I know I saw a film before I read one of the novels. The only point I was making that when the franchise was born, it was based around an existing character (not unlike the current crop of comic-book hero franchises) rather than a film franchise debuting the character up on screen. Of course, for the life of me, I can't think of an example of the latter as this time - perhpas television's Dr Who would be the nearest example. Dirty Harry - I think that was an original screenplay, but I'm not certain.

And I think a pre-existing character has a better shot at longevity - could we imagine, or want, anyone else playing Dirty Harry, or The Terminator. I think franchises survive, Bond being spectacular proof, because the character is so much bigger than the actor/star playing him.

Edited by plankattack, 18 April 2007 - 03:51 PM.