92 replies to this topic

[O.H.M.S.S.]

What movies, according to you, saved the Bond franchise?
I'd say:
- Live and Let Die
- The Spy Who Loved Me
- For Your Eyes Only
- The Living Daylights
- GoldenEye
- Casino Royale

[zencat]

If we're really talking about "saved", then:

Only GoldenEye. This was the only time the franchise was seriously in question and would not have survived had the movie bombed.

But you could also maybe argue that Diamonds Are Forever, and Connery's return, got them through a tricky time. It showed Bond was viable in the 70s and bought them time to get back on track with a new Bond. Had DAF not made money, there might have been trouble.

But if we've talking about "revived", then:
The Spy Who Loved Me
GoldenEye
Casino Royale

[The Ghost Who Walks]

Artistically, you've got OHMSS, TSWLM, FYEO, TLD, and CR. When it comes to box office, DAF, TSWLM and GE.

[Safari Suit]

In terms of actually securing continued production of the series I would only really say Goldeneye and TSWLM. These seem to me to represent to me the only times that a notable commercial disappointment might have actually ended the series. Diamonds I suppose is also a possible candidate, but of course OHMSS was a much bigger hit than many assume. I suppose it could also be said that LALD showed that Connery could be replaced with actors who could reap comprable commercial rewards. I suspect many will say CR saved the series, but whatever you may think of DAD it was not a notable flop, and I am not convinced that another film with Brosnan or another actor in a similar style would have been the commercial disaster some claim.

On an artistic basis, I can't really answer as I have found nearly all of the films to be at least moderately enjoyable, and also because I do not necessarily agree with the general conscencus on the "weakest entries" which allegedly forced the next entry to redeem the series, for example I prefer Moonraker to FYEO, slightly prefer AVTAK to TLD and don't consider DAD to be the weakest of Brosnan's films.

[007FANATIC]

I'd say:
Diamonds Are Forever, since the great OHMSS was sadly rejected.
and
GoldenEye, also since another great movie, LTK, was rejected.

Both DAF and GoldenEye were great.

[john.steed]

The two that I would go with are, as others are already mentioned, TSWLM and Goldeneye. One reason why I think that TSWLM was so important is that it came out during the same summer as Star Wars. WHile most of the talk that summer was about Star Wars, TSWLM was spectacular enough that it did get some attention, and a good bit of money. I kind of liken it to the year in which DAD came out. Taht year, besides a Bond film, a Harry Potter film, a Lord of the RIngs films, and a Star Trek films all came out a once. The weakest of those was the Star Trek film. Because of that, it has taken several years for there to be another Star Trek film. A lesser effort that TSWLM may have put the Bond franchise in a similar position.

[Bill]

I'm with Zencat on this one. If GE was not the success it was--or even a more moderate success, the series would have been in trouble. With all due respect, however, I do not think it would have been over completely. We would have had another Bond film, it just would have taken a long time to do it. The series was overall far too successful to ever completely stop, and I think that that will continue as long as Eon Productions exists.

Just my opinion!

Bill

P.S. Interesting analysis about what Connery's return meant in DAF as well!

And Steed, you are forgetting two other films from 2002--Star Wars Attack of the Clones and Spider-Man, which were enormously successful, and Bond managed to still hold his own!

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

Diamonds Are Forever (terrible as far as Bond movies go, but Connery's return probably brought quite a few viewers back)

The Spy Who Loved Me

Goldeneye

Casino Royale

[dogmanstar]

I gotta think LALD. If it flopped, the series would have been seen as impossible without Connery.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

if we've talking about "revived", then:
The Spy Who Loved Me
GoldenEye
Casino Royale

I agree. Although I don't personally like GE, in terms of popularity, its inclusion in this list it's correct.

[[dark]]

I'd say three: GoldenEye, The Spy Who Loved Me, Casino Royale. In that order of savedness (to coin a new word).

[00Twelve]

If we're really talking about "saved", then:

Only GoldenEye. This was the only time the franchise was seriously in question and would not have survived had the movie bombed.

But you could also maybe argue that Diamonds Are Forever, and Connery's return, got them through a tricky time. It showed Bond was viable in the 70s and bought them time to get back on track with a new Bond. Had DAF not made money, there might have been trouble.

But if we've talking about "revived", then:
The Spy Who Loved Me
GoldenEye
Casino Royale

Yep. My thoughts exactly.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

But didn't For Your Eyes Only save the studios? After the big budget films (The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), For Your Eyes Only generated a lot of money so as to continue the next Bonds?

[00Twelve]

But didn't For Your Eyes Only save the studios? After the big budget films (The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), For Your Eyes Only generated a lot of money so as to continue the next Bonds?

It generated enough to keep going, yes, but not any moreso than any of the others. MR was huge at the box office. FYEO didn't pull in as much as MR, and the returns kept declining throughout the 80s worldwide (except for a surge with TLD). In a sense, every Bond film has to generate a lot of money to continue the franchise. I don't think EON was in financial danger immediately after MR, though, unless I'm just way, way off.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

But didn't For Your Eyes Only save the studios? After the big budget films (The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), For Your Eyes Only generated a lot of money so as to continue the next Bonds?

It generated enough to keep going, yes, but not any moreso than any of the others. MR was huge at the box office. FYEO didn't pull in as much as MR, and the returns kept declining throughout the 80s worldwide (except for a surge with TLD). In a sense, every Bond film has to generate a lot of money to continue the franchise. I don't think EON was in financial danger immediately after MR, though, unless I'm just way, way off.

I remember hearing somewhere that, because The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker cost so much to make, For Your Eyes Only garnered the studios enough money to replenish their dwindling reserves.

[00Twelve]

But didn't For Your Eyes Only save the studios? After the big budget films (The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), For Your Eyes Only generated a lot of money so as to continue the next Bonds?

It generated enough to keep going, yes, but not any moreso than any of the others. MR was huge at the box office. FYEO didn't pull in as much as MR, and the returns kept declining throughout the 80s worldwide (except for a surge with TLD). In a sense, every Bond film has to generate a lot of money to continue the franchise. I don't think EON was in financial danger immediately after MR, though, unless I'm just way, way off.

I remember hearing somewhere that, because The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker cost so much to make, For Your Eyes Only garnered the studios enough money to replenish their dwindling reserves.

I could totally be wrong, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I just remember that MR was an enormous box office smash, and that nothing touched it again until the Broz era.

[Bryce (003)]

Agreed on a number of points and films here.

There is another factor of timing to be considered as well.

Bond films were traditionally summer movies. I think that since they have now escaped the usual summer onslaught of films, the fall release dates also make a big difference.

Had GE come out in summer of '95, the numbers *might* not have been so strong, but, as stated above, it also had the advantage of being the re-birth of the franchise in a "new world" but also proving that an established "old school" spy with a legacy could still work in the mid-nineties.

The added plus was for all of us that really wanted to see Pierce get his shot at the role didn't hurt either.

As to DAF, it was needed. Having Sean back helped that but we also knew that Bond would be on Blofeld's heels. As suggested in many other threads, it would have been interesting to see Lazenby have another go - The man himself has told me "Yeah, I really should have done another."

Anyway, I'm happy with we're at.

Carry on Mr. Craig, Carry on.

[Cruiserweight]

TSWLM
TLD
GE
CR

[Safari Suit]

But didn't For Your Eyes Only save the studios? After the big budget films (The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker), For Your Eyes Only generated a lot of money so as to continue the next Bonds?

It generated enough to keep going, yes, but not any moreso than any of the others. MR was huge at the box office. FYEO didn't pull in as much as MR, and the returns kept declining throughout the 80s worldwide (except for a surge with TLD). In a sense, every Bond film has to generate a lot of money to continue the franchise. I don't think EON was in financial danger immediately after MR, though, unless I'm just way, way off.

I remember hearing somewhere that, because The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker cost so much to make, For Your Eyes Only garnered the studios enough money to replenish their dwindling reserves.

I'm pretty sure it was United Artists FYEO "saved", they were recovering from Heaven's Gate.

[sharpshooter]

TSWLM
TLD
GE
CR

Got to agree.

[Mr_Wint]

Dr No.

[plankattack]

GE most definitely, but I agree with everyone who says that TSWLM "revived" the series. But I think a case can be made that LALD, while not necessarily saving a series, proved a valuable point: the character was bigger than the leading man, something which I'm sure was of concern in the previous couple of years.

I don't think FYEO saved anything but money. MR cost a ton and made ton. FYEO made a lot less but cost a lot less.

As for CR, while I think it's one of the franchise's best, and could find itself sneaking into a all-time, all-film, top fifty, I don't think it had anything to save. The notion of the "reboot" really is a ridiculous one, IMHO, but that's another arguement.......

[Jim]

I suppose the flipside of this is that the fewer that are seen as critical surgery, the more seem like being made for the hell of it, just because they could rumble along with the series.

All of them would appear to have presented some form of risk - Octopussy having direct competition from James Bond, Quantum of Solace and Tomorrow Never Dies being barometers of whether people would go back a second time once the immediate novelty has worn off, The World is not Enough a test of whether people are prepared to pay for that. Still, if we determine that there are about four or five critical, series-savers (financially/critically/both), and there seems to be a developing consensus on what they are, quite what that says about A View to a Kill is unclear. Are we saying that these others were unnecessary, beyond having the series have another episode?

[plankattack]

Are we saying that these others were unnecessary, beyond having the series have another episode?

It's an interesting discussion. Should franchises just have "episodes" or should every entry contain at least some nod to continuing an overall storyline? Bond for years has been about "another episode" - it's only now, beginning with entry #21(!) that there is any talk about an "arc."

I don't for moment believe that some are unnecessary, but I don't disagree that the series' most glaring creative issues have come in films where the motivation was that two years had passed and it was time for the next. Now that Fleming titles have been used up, the regularity of the franchise has been altered. But I don't think that's a bad thing. MW's comments about the lack of movment on #23 don't bother me. If we have to wait three to four years for the next film then so be it. The gap would couldn't hurt the chances of a quality script leading to a quality product. Of course, would that film then be deemed to having "saved" the series?

[Judo chop]

Are we saying that these others were unnecessary, beyond having the series have another episode?

Something tells me you are.

The entire series is unnecessary in terms of providing food, clothing and shelter, and/or enabling the existence of life, if one even agrees that that is necessary.

Within the little Bond cosmos however, I think necessity comes down to inventiveness. ie. To provide some ‘new’ 'thing' to be experienced. AVTAK, having to do with nothing new and all things old, may then have to be the single most unnecessary film of the series. TWINE was certainly new in many respects, but is only necessary insofar as making certain that such a thing never happens again.

The five key health milestones of the series where Bond’s vital signs make the biggest leaps are DN, GF, TSWLM, GE, CR.

[double o ego]

OHMSS - ensured that the series could exist without Connery.
DAF - ensured that the series would once again be a financial success.
LALD - ensured once and for all that Bond was/is bigger than Connery
TSWLM - was the perfect cocktail of seriouness and silliness of the 70s/80s era
GE - Proved that Bond was still as apparant as he was before the end of the cold war
CR - Brought things back to the Terrence Young/Connery days

[YOLT]

OHMSS - ensured that the series could exist without Connery.

I highly doubt it. OHMSS was a failure. If not so, why did they broght Connery back and not another actor ?

[double o ego]

OHMSS - ensured that the series could exist without Connery.

I highly doubt it. OHMSS was a failure. If not so, why did they broght Connery back and not another actor ?

It wasn't a failure. The film still made money. Laz didn't return because he was given bad advice and to my knowledge they did hire someone but Connery agreed to return and lets face it, with a returning Connery, audiences were bound to flock in droves. Connery's return can be considered a gimmick because it was a one off and secondly, he's the guy people were so used to seeing anyway and with the Box Office dissapointment that was OHMSS, it's not a mystery why the producers were so quick to hire Connery back and give him what was the highest amount any actor had been paid at the time.

[YOLT]

OHMSS - ensured that the series could exist without Connery.

I highly doubt it. OHMSS was a failure. If not so, why did they broght Connery back and not another actor ?

It wasn't a failure. The film still made money. Laz didn't return because he was given bad advice and to my knowledge they did hire someone but Connery agreed to return and lets face it, with a returning Connery, audiences were bound to flock in droves. Connery's return can be considered a gimmick because it was a one off and secondly, he's the guy people were so used to seeing anyway and with the Box Office dissapointment that was OHMSS, it's not a mystery why the producers were so quick to hire Connery back and give him what was the highest amount any actor had been paid at the time.

"Box Office dissapointment that was OHMSS" I am refering to this Failure is a comparative word. I am not just talking about boxoffice.Lazenby couldnt accomplish what he is being expected for. So they brought Connery back.

For me bringing in Lazenby was a total failure, anyway thats another topic.

[double o ego]

What? Lazenby left on his own accord due to bad advice. He wasn't fired and like I said, there was another actor who had actually been signed on to replace lazenby but Conery decided to do it, purely for financial reasons and the guy who was contracted to take over laz stil got paid but just never made the movie. Lazenby was never ever the problem. OHMSS still was financially a suceess but not the huge financial sucess the films were used to. Also, bare in mind if there was a problem it was because of the type of film OHMSS was. It was and probably still is the most romantic Bond film ever made, which was a far cry in departure from the films that came before it. That is why DAF is the comical mess it is as opposed to picking up and maintaining the same or similar tone of OHMSS.