92 replies to this topic

[YOLT]

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.

I didnt said Lazenby was fired. I said he couldnt meet the expectations. And thats a failure.

[danslittlefinger]

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.

Yes mine too. Let's hope the franchise doesn't get to that point again but, as things tend to go around in cycles, it probably will.

[Tarl_Cabot]

saved:
Casino Royale, coming off the worst film/era in the series, saved the series absolutely...with Bourne taking center stage another mediocre Brosnan affair(starring an aging and unispired star) would have torpedoed the 007 series.

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

For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights followed some pretty shark jumping(if fun) exploits.

...Thena again, maybe the Bourne Identity saved 007 from himself.

[singleentendre]

saved:
Casino Royale, coming off the worst film/era in the series, saved the series absolutely...with Bourne taking center stage another mediocre Brosnan affair(starring an aging and unispired star) would have torpedoed the 007 series.

I have to disagree here. Perhaps that's the fanboy perspective, that another Brosnan movie would have ruined the franchise, but in terms of the general public I highly doubt it. Die Another Day made over 400 million dollars worldwide and the only place I've seen the movie torn to shreds is here, at a Bond fan forum. And let's face it, the majority of Bond movie-goers is not hardcore Bond fans. Another Brosnan movie would most likely have been as warmly received as the last four.

[Mr. Somerset]

saved:
Casino Royale, coming off the worst film/era in the series, saved the series absolutely...with Bourne taking center stage another mediocre Brosnan affair(starring an aging and unispired star) would have torpedoed the 007 series.

I have to disagree here. Perhaps that's the fanboy perspective, that another Brosnan movie would have ruined the franchise, but in terms of the general public I highly doubt it. Die Another Day made over 400 million dollars worldwide and the only place I've seen the movie torn to shreds is here, at a Bond fan forum. And let's face it, the majority of Bond movie-goers is not hardcore Bond fans. Another Brosnan movie would most likely have been as warmly received as the last four.

Must agree here. PB was hugely popular during his era. A 2004 Brosnan film to close his reign officially would have been probably as successful as the others he did.
As for the films that "saved" the franchise, I'll say GoldenEye is really the main one where the future of the series was on the wire. TSWLM comes close.....

I'm afraid to put Bond 23 on the list as well.........................

[Harmsway]

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and GOLDENEYE are really the only two films that effectively "saved the franchise."

[Frimmel]

I'd draw the analogy that DAF was indigestion that seemed to be moving down the arm , TSWLM was a nitro tablet, TLD was a shock with the paddles and GE was open heart massage.

CR was listening to the doctor's advice to mind the weight and cholesterol.

Hopefully Bond 23 isn't going to be listening to all of our friends say we look great! You got the weight down. Live a little, don't you miss your old lifestyle? You can't say you don't miss baked potatoes with sour cream and butter and aren't you tired of spending all your time exercising?

Edited by Frimmel, 28 April 2009 - 01:45 PM.

[Judo chop]

I'd draw the analogy that DAF was indigestion that seemed to be moving down the arm , TSWLM was a nitro tablet, TLD was a shock with the paddles and GE was open heart massage.

CR was listening to the doctor's advice to mind the weight and cholesterol.

Hopefully Bond 23 isn't going to be listening to all of our friends say we look great! You got the weight down. Live a little, don't you miss your old lifestyle? You can't say you don't miss baked potatoes with sour cream and butter and aren't you tired of spending all your time exercising?

I love me a good analogy. I had one a while back equating GE to the economic stimulus checks the US Gov were dispensing a while back, and CR to an actual lifestyle change in which Americans lived within their means. (I was proud of it. That's why I keep bringing it up.)

Anyway... in your analogy, what would QOS be? To me, it's that guy who's so taken with his newfound health, that he goes looking at protein shakes, creatine, and all sorts of over-the-counter supplements. He also is starting to annoy his family with, what they consider to be, an obsession. Plus, the intesity at which he's hitting the weight training is probably going to start damaging the joints. We don't want to revert to couch potatoing, and damn my eyes if your pecs aren't looking great, but it's probably best to calm things down just a bit and get back to a reasonable regimen where health is the main concern.

[Frimmel]

Well, there's the rub, telling the difference between objective advice that you're taking it too far and folks jealous of your new health telling you to cut back so they can feel better about staying with their same old ways.

[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.

I didnt said Lazenby was fired. I said he couldnt meet the expectations. And thats a failure.

What do you mean he couldn't meet the expectations? Lazenby may not have been a seasoned actor but he was sufficient enough in the role. Emphasis on sufficient and would have grown into it had he done more movies. Also, in terms of believability as a spy who could do what James Bond does, Lazenby was the most believable and the most effective...and then there's the film's ending. One of the most memorable Bond performances of all time...in a good way.

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

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.

I didnt said Lazenby was fired. I said he couldnt meet the expectations. And thats a failure.

What do you mean he couldn't meet the expectations? Lazenby may not have been a seasoned actor but he was sufficient enough in the role. Emphasis on sufficient and would have grown into it had he done more movies. Also, in terms of believability as a spy who could do what James Bond does, Lazenby was the most believable and the most effective...and then there's the film's ending. One of the most memorable Bond performances of all time...in a good way.

Ideed, I agree with double o ego.

[zencat]

saved:
Casino Royale, coming off the worst film/era in the series, saved the series absolutely...with Bourne taking center stage another mediocre Brosnan affair(starring an aging and unispired star) would have torpedoed the 007 series.

I have to disagree here. Perhaps that's the fanboy perspective, that another Brosnan movie would have ruined the franchise, but in terms of the general public I highly doubt it. Die Another Day made over 400 million dollars worldwide and the only place I've seen the movie torn to shreds is here, at a Bond fan forum. And let's face it, the majority of Bond movie-goers is not hardcore Bond fans. Another Brosnan movie would most likely have been as warmly received as the last four.

I agree. There was no reversal in box office on the Brozzo films, each one outperformed the last. There was no post DAD crisis. They could have easily cruised through one more Brosnan film at least. Interestingly, they generated their own high stakes situation by selecting Craig and doing a conceptual reboot that could have been very confusing to general audiences. How soon we all forget how savaged the choice was by the tabloids and nitwit fans (and a bitter Brosnan) who predicted doom. Had Craig lived up to those negative expectations, the series would have been severally wounded unnecessarily. It was quite a gamble.

[Professor Pi]

To bring in the casual fans:

TSWLM and GE (a related question would be "What was your first Bond film?")

To bring back the hardcore fans:

FYEO, TLD (and maybe OHMSS)

An argument could be made that CR fits in both categories. And GF made the series hugely popular beyond most expectations, not that it was in danger of needing to be "saved" in 1964.

[Safari Suit]

saved:
Casino Royale, coming off the worst film/era in the series, saved the series absolutely...with Bourne taking center stage another mediocre Brosnan affair(starring an aging and unispired star) would have torpedoed the 007 series.

I have to disagree here. Perhaps that's the fanboy perspective, that another Brosnan movie would have ruined the franchise, but in terms of the general public I highly doubt it. Die Another Day made over 400 million dollars worldwide and the only place I've seen the movie torn to shreds is here, at a Bond fan forum. And let's face it, the majority of Bond movie-goers is not hardcore Bond fans. Another Brosnan movie would most likely have been as warmly received as the last four.

I agree. There was no reversal in box office on the Brozzo films, each one outperformed the last. There was no post DAD crisis.

Indeed there wasn't, but I believe if you look at worldwide attendance Goldeneye was actually the most successful Brosnan Bond, though DAD did sell more tickets than the previous two films. I think they were all pretty close together though.

[zencat]

saved:
Casino Royale, coming off the worst film/era in the series, saved the series absolutely...with Bourne taking center stage another mediocre Brosnan affair(starring an aging and unispired star) would have torpedoed the 007 series.

I have to disagree here. Perhaps that's the fanboy perspective, that another Brosnan movie would have ruined the franchise, but in terms of the general public I highly doubt it. Die Another Day made over 400 million dollars worldwide and the only place I've seen the movie torn to shreds is here, at a Bond fan forum. And let's face it, the majority of Bond movie-goers is not hardcore Bond fans. Another Brosnan movie would most likely have been as warmly received as the last four.

I agree. There was no reversal in box office on the Brozzo films, each one outperformed the last. There was no post DAD crisis.

Indeed there wasn't, but I believe if you look at worldwide attendance Goldeneye was actually the most successful Brosnan Bond, though DAD did sell more tickets than the previous two films. I think they were all pretty close together though.

Good point. I've said many times, attendance really should be the measure of a movie's performance, especially when doing comparisons.

There's also the issue of profitability. The Brozzo movies stayed close in box office, true, but the budgets really soared. Wasn't GE around 50 mill and DAD something like 150? I suspect when you get under the hood and calculate profit, the Brozzos where suffering diminishing returns.

But the escalating budget issue remains in the Craig era. Heck, it's an industry wide problem.

[jaguar007]

I have to disagree here. Perhaps that's the fanboy perspective, that another Brosnan movie would have ruined the franchise, but in terms of the general public I highly doubt it. Die Another Day made over 400 million dollars worldwide and the only place I've seen the movie torn to shreds is here, at a Bond fan forum. And let's face it, the majority of Bond movie-goers is not hardcore Bond fans. Another Brosnan movie would most likely have been as warmly received as the last four.

I agree that a fifth Brosnan film would have probably done just as well as TND or TWINE and not killed the series. However DAD is unliked in more places than a Bond forum. Go look at the forums on IMDB or Blu-ray.com for example, DAD is pretty much trashed by not just Bond fans, but movie fans in general. I personally know people who never saw CR (until I convinced them to do so) because they thought the last one was so bad.

What do you mean he couldn't meet the expectations? Lazenby may not have been a seasoned actor but he was sufficient enough in the role. Emphasis on sufficient and would have grown into it had he done more movies. Also, in terms of believability as a spy who could do what James Bond does, Lazenby was the most believable and the most effective...and then there's the film's ending. One of the most memorable Bond performances of all time...in a good way.

It is easy to say that and appreciate Laz and OHMSS now, and I am a big fan of the movie. However the simple fact is that in 1969 (while still somewhat successful film) the public did not embrace Lazenby or OHMSS. The main reason is that he was simply not Sean Connery, who at that point was James Bond. OHMSS was considered to be the wost Bond film to date and it took years for people to really appreciate the movie it was. I believe that Laz not being popular with the public helped Roger Moore become more accepted as a replacement to Connery.

[Zorin Industries]

To an extent each and every film has saved the franchise as they make money and garner interest so that a future Bond film will be funded and distributed.

[DaveBond21]

Goldeneye always springs to mind when I think about this subject. There hadn't been a Bond movie in 6 years, and it need to be great, and it was excellent, plus a huge hit.

I'd also agree that TSWLM and Casino Royale did their bit, too.

[Safari Suit]

James Bond Jr.
The Duel

[Double-Oh Agent]

Goldeneye always springs to mind when I think about this subject. There hadn't been a Bond movie in 6 years, and it need to be great, and it was excellent, plus a huge hit.

Completely agree. GoldenEye, more than any other Bond film, "saved" the series because of what DaveBond said above as well its overwhelming success following the lackluster box office of Licence To Kill six years prior.

The only other film that can truly stake a claim to having "saved" the series--although to a much lesser extent than GoldenEye--is the mega-hit The Spy Who Loved Me, which not only proved once and for all that someone other than Sean Connery could effectively play James Bond 007, it also proved that Cubby Broccoli could handle producing the series all by himself following the departure of longtime partner, Harry Saltzman.

[Mr. Osato]

Since the post is "what movies SAVED the franchise?" the answer is pretty simple:

Diamonds Are Forever -- which brought the baby boomers (& probably some older folks back back to Bond).

The Spy Who Loved Me -- which introduced a younger generation of fans to Bond -- this continued through the 90's....

Casino Royale -- Blah Blah Blah -- Bond is new and gritty, we've all heard this a million times...

Bond 23 -- which WILL be a crowd pleaser or there won't be another film made for a decade. (Hopefully).

[Chester Copperpot]

Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, Goldeneye, and Casino Royale.

[jrcjohnny99]

There's plenty of revisionist history in this thread;
"Saved" the franchise is a pretty strong word, and in that context, only TSWLM and GE.
DAF would be next on the list I suppose, tho at that point, there was still enough goodwill towards Bond to not have too much of an issue even if that one had failed.
TSWLM was a big budget gamble, and had it not succeeded, with the issues UA were having, another Bond film may not have happened.
GE was hugely important after the long lay off. It may be distinctly average as a Bond flick, but it re-energized the series like no film had done other than Spy...

For those suggesting things like FYEO; I can only assume you are thinking in terms of your own living room and not globally...

CR; not really; the franchise has been in great shape since Brozza came in, general interest in Bond is as strong as ever and another Brozza movie would have done fine...
Bond is hugely popular again, probably as popular as the late 70s and second only to the mid/late 60s

[Zorin Industries]

Maybe "supported" is a more apt phrase here than "saved" - but a good thread nevertheless.

Films that perhaps had more riding on them could be THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS, GOLDENEYE, OCTOPUSSY, OHMSS, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER and maybe CASINO ROYALE (?).

Though I stand by my original notion that EVERY film safeguards the series. Nothing is a given in the business we call "show".

[FredJB007]

"Saved"- Only three films did. The Spy Who Loved Me, GoldenEye and Casino Royale.

[Gabriel]

Lazenby suffered because, prior to the film's release, the press were as hostile to him as many of them were initially to Daniel Craig, in part because he was the Big Fry Man.

The fact (yes FACT!) is that he was a perfectly decent Bond and, given another film (he sent back the money for DAF) he probably would have been accepted in the role and could have carried on comfortably until Moonraker (after which Timothy Dalton would possibly have taken on the role!)

Also OHMSS made the mistake of calling attention to the recasting at every turn, which they sensibly avoided with subsequent films.

Lazenby was the first time the franchise attempted to recast the lead actor and the producers bungled it badly - an atypical film and a new actor and the constant reminders that this was a new actor - and were lucky to get another chance.

Audience 'acceptance' of a new lead actor in a long-lived franchise can't really be measured in one film, anyway.

Saviour films? I'd say OHMSS (creatively), DAF as a tie-over in dark times, LaLD for its assured debut of a new lead, TSWLM for recovering after the duff step of TMWtGG, FYEO for 'grounding' the series in our world again, TLD for refocusing the series on 007 as an assassin/spy, GE (financially although it's the dumbed-down brain-death of the series), CR for 'grounding' the series in our world again. I suspect the next film will be important too. After the wobble that was QoS, they'll need to pull back a bit from the Bourne antics but need not to chicken out on the new direction by bringing back Q, Moneypenny and so on!

[Zorin Industries]

Lazenby suffered because, prior to the film's release, the press were as hostile to him as many of them were initially to Daniel Craig, in part because he was the Big Fry Man.

The fact (yes FACT!) is that he was a perfectly decent Bond and, given another film (he sent back the money for DAF) he probably would have been accepted in the role and could have carried on comfortably until Moonraker (after which Timothy Dalton would possibly have taken on the role!)

Also OHMSS made the mistake of calling attention to the recasting at every turn, which they sensibly avoided with subsequent films.

Lazenby was the first time the franchise attempted to recast the lead actor and the producers bungled it badly - an atypical film and a new actor and the constant reminders that this was a new actor - and were lucky to get another chance.

Audience 'acceptance' of a new lead actor in a long-lived franchise can't really be measured in one film, anyway.

Saviour films? I'd say OHMSS (creatively), DAF as a tie-over in dark times, LaLD for its assured debut of a new lead, TSWLM for recovering after the duff step of TMWtGG, FYEO for 'grounding' the series in our world again, TLD for refocusing the series on 007 as an assassin/spy, GE (financially although it's the dumbed-down brain-death of the series), CR for 'grounding' the series in our world again. I suspect the next film will be important too. After the wobble that was QoS, they'll need to pull back a bit from the Bourne antics but need not to chicken out on the new direction by bringing back Q, Moneypenny and so on!

No, the producers did not bungle OHMSS and the new Bond badly. You need to remember the social and cinematic times were not entirely allied to James Bond films. ANY Bond film would have had a harder time in 1969 when the world wanted to see MIDNIGHT COWBOY and EASY RIDER. OHMSS actually proved that Bond could be recast and that the Bond management could pull it off. And remember there were four changes of Bond actor between 1967 and 1973 and Lazenby proved it doesn't kill the franchise if you change lead actors (and get it right).

[Gabriel]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. When you introduce a new lead actor to a franchise, you should keep things familiar for his introduction: you don't have characters constantly making remarks that call attention to the recasting. And you certainly don't go for such an atypical style. Had Lazenby been given a Dr No-type film (a more faithful adaptation of Moonraker for example), then OHMSS in 1971, things might have gone better all round.

OHMSS proved you could recast Bond, but by LaLD they knew better than to make an issue in the film that Roger Moore was a 'new' Bond. Indeed, when I first saw (the now very dated) LaLD as child, I loved it and I had no idea that it was Roger's first film and didn't for many years.

[Zorin Industries]

I'm afraid I have to disagree. When you introduce a new lead actor to a franchise, you should keep things familiar for his introduction: you don't have characters constantly making remarks that call attention to the recasting. And you certainly don't go for such an atypical style. Had Lazenby been given a Dr No-type film (a more faithful adaptation of Moonraker for example), then OHMSS in 1971, things might have gone better all round.

OHMSS proved you could recast Bond, but by LaLD they knew better than to make an issue in the film that Roger Moore was a 'new' Bond. Indeed, when I first saw (the now very dated) LaLD as child, I loved it and I had no idea that it was Roger's first film and didn't for many years.

There is no point introducing a new actor to do more of the same. Even the Connery-honed Lazenby (the tailoring, the publicity and haircut) brought something different. Are you saying that Daniel Craig's era is continuing Pierce Brosnan's tonal and stylistic agenda...?

And a MOONRAKER circa 1971 with Lazenby would have killed the franchise. It is not just about what actor is bringing what to the role of Bond...it is also about where the global audiences are at that time / where is the world right now? And MOONRAKER with Lazenby was not where Eon, Bond or the audiences were in the early 1970's.

That is why the Craig films have been markedly different all round to the Brosnan entries. The frameworks change so Bond does to. When he doesn't then that is the beginning of the end. Making adapations of this or that book is not the point. The films must tailor themselves to be slightly ahead of the curve of what is doing the rounds.

[General G.]

- The Spy Who Loved Me
- GoldenEye
- Casino Royale