Giving the public what they want: Bond the man, or a brand name?

chrisisall

Here are the grosses as of December in adjusted dollars (source: http://www.007james.com/articles/box_office.php)

1. Thunderball $1,014,941,117
2. Goldfinger $912,257,512
3. Skyfall $876,720,000
4. Live and Let Die $825,110,761
5. You Only Live Twice $756,544,419
6. The Spy Who Loved Me $692,713,752
7. Casino Royale $669,789,482
8. Moonraker $655,872,400
9. Diamonds Are Forever $648,514,469
10. Quantum of Solace $622,246,378
11. From Russia with Love $576,277,964
12. Die Another Day $543,639,638
13. Goldeneye $529,548,711
14. On Her Majesty's Secret Service $505,899,782
15. The World is Not Enough $491,617,153
16. For Your Eyes Only $486,468,881
17. Tomorrow Never Dies $478,946,402
18. The Man with the Golden Gun $448,249,281
19. Dr. No $440,759,072
20. Octopussy $426,244,352
21. The Living Daylights $381,088,866
22. A View to a Kill $321,172,633
23. License to Kill $285,157,191

As you can see, MR, DAF, QOS, and DAD are very high up, while DN, TLD and LTK occupy some of the lower rungs.
One might say that MR followed a big success, Connery's return was strongly embraced in DAF, QOS followed a hit, and DAD followed a strong entry, and that DN, TLD & LTK were mediocre efforts.

But what this list tells me is that the general film-going public cares less for any semblance of who any of us here know as James Bond, and more about Bond as a brand name of entertainment. Why are the two stupidest movies at # 8 & 12, and not 22 & 23? The answer is entertainment value. A good time at the cinema. Bond was not yet a proven brand name for DN (even FRWL underperformed, given its extreme high quality) , and Dalton's movies did not (back then) a fun time make.

Some here like to say that Brosnan sucked, and that the film-going audience has voted Craig a better Bond with their box office dollars, yet Brosnan's movies have made nearly what Craig's have to date. So does that mean he's very nearly as good a Bond as Craig?

Make a 'perfect' Bond movie with a great actor doing a fantastic interpretation of Fleming's character and you make money?
Not really.
Tic all the 'Bond boxes' and the public will get what they want?
In part.
Make them laugh, wow them or get them dizzy (preferably all three) and they leave the cinema telling their friends they should all see the the movie to have a great time?
By George, I think I've got it.

In conclusion, I count us (the hard core fans) lucky when glimpses of James' real character are slipped into a 007 film. And I hope someday for another Bond movie as simple & elegant as TLD or DN... but I won't be holding my breath.

Thoughts?

welshboy78

Well im glad Thunderball is number 1!

For some reason thought Goldeneye would be higher up (reboot, long wait etc)

superado

I cannot agree more with your assessment, Chrisisall. From the inception of the EON series, it was always the producers' intention to transform the already entertaining literary source material into something else altogether, with the most impactful mass appeal that was necessary to perpetuate a successful film series. Though a blip, I think it was very telling how EON (including Cubby) reacted to the 6-year haitus by producing James Bond, Jr.! For profit? For entertainment? Both! As a Bond fan, I learned how to enjoy whatever was served on my plate and currently, it seems that we're getting a lot of yummy DC fudge that everyone loves! With that said, I did enjoy the occassional asparagus and cold sole we got in the past and was smacking my lips with every morsel, even if some people thought it tasted like armpits!

chrisisall

welshboy78 wrote:

Well im glad Thunderball is number 1!

I don't mind that- even though it's not what I'd call simple or elegant, it IS my favourite Connery film.

For some reason thought Goldeneye would be higher up (reboot, long wait etc)

Well, the above is a list of Box office take; it's affected by the social feel of the day, wars, economic influences...

chrisisall

superado wrote:

As a Bond fan, I learned how to enjoy whatever was served on my plate and currently, it seems that we're getting a lot of yummy DC fudge that everyone loves! With that said, I did enjoy the occassional asparagus and cold sole we got in the past and was smacking my lips with every morsel, even if some people thought it tasted like armpits!

LOL, nicely put. I said somewhere else that GF & TSWLM were my Happy-meals, whilst TB & TLD were my feast!

Dalkowski110

You also have to factor in certain things for certain films. Dr. No is near the bottom of the list because it had no precedent. People didn't really know what to expect. Octopussy, for all of its flaws, was literally competing against another Bond film. Timothy Dalton's two films both had terribly-timed releases, competing with some other, non-Bond films that were really good.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service does well, but interestingly, not well compared to the Connery Bonds or even Live and Let Die. Lazenby was trashed by film critics of the time (even though the plot and performances by supporting actors were well-liked) and let's face it: people do listen to critics, no matter how much they deny it (otherwise, said critics wouldn't have jobs or sell any books). A View to a Kill was completely ripped apart by critics as the worst Bond film ever. So it ranks last in terms of adjusted profits. But then you have public opinion. When The World is Not Enough was released, I distinctly remember critics liked most of it and thought Denise Richards was the only weak point. Then I remember as the days went on, it was almost as if she were dragging the film down. You even had the people who were just reporting how much it was taking in saying (at least in one case) "Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? How about Arnold Schwarzenegger playing a computer nerd straight?" My Dad also remembers when On Her Majesty's Secret Service opened. He was told (and I'm quoting him): "Don't see it. It doesn't feel like a Bond film, the guy who plays Bond is an idiot, and it's no fun." Ouch! He saw it anyway, but knows others that stayed home.

For all the hatred Moonraker gets, audiences at the time generally thought of it as fun escapism, if also patently ridiculous. Dad told me that Moore's Bond films were generally well-liked as fun escapism. Another important thing, to quote Dad: "Nobody I knew thought anything of continuity between the movies during the 1960's and 1970's. You had some of it start to show up in the 1980's, but not the '60's and especially not the early '70's." Both he and I believe that this was why DAF aged so poorly. One of the few things the critics did seem to get right in terms of opinions that are still common, incidentally, was the general view that The Man with the Golden Gun was for watching Moore and Lee face off, with little else to offer. The movies change to suit the audiences' tastes, I think, like it or not.

chrisisall

Dalkowski110 wrote:

For all the hatred Moonraker gets, audiences at the time generally thought of it as fun escapism, if also patently ridiculous.

Clearly, from the box office success, however my teenage friends and I wanted someone burned at the stake for it back in '79.

Dalkowski110

chrisisall wrote:

Clearly, from the box office success, however my teenage friends and I wanted someone burned at the stake for it back in '79.

Indeed, it was probably the first movie that "split" Bond fans AT THE TIME. It's not until the 1980's that On Her Majesty's Secret Service starts getting the acclaim it deserved and a few fans of even Ian Fleming's writing (such as my father's college roommate, whom Dad introduced to the literary Bond) thought that the screen Bond and the novel Bond should be different and distinct entities at that time, as well. Live and Let Die fit in because it was different and because it was clear Moore was still getting his footing in the role, The Man with the Golden Gun was tolerated because of its Bond and its villain, and The Spy Who Loved Me was great fun with terrific special effects for the time as well as some of the film franchise's cleanest editing contributing to a solidly-constructed film.

Then you get Moonraker that finally splits the fanbase. If you were a moviegoer and only a casual Bond fan, it was escapist fun. If you were a hardcore Bond fan who'd grown up with frankly either Connery OR Moore, you knew this wasn't Bond. But even then, some fans still liked it as a popcorn-cruncher because it was packaged and sold as Bond. The backlash it started probably created For Your Eyes Only (at the time, very highly praised), though, and for that, it does have my gratitude.

chrisisall

In retrospect, I agree, but back in '79 we figured we'd seen the absolute end of 'our' James Bond.

Halcon

Dalkowski110 wrote:

You also have to factor in certain things for certain films. Dr. No is near the bottom of the list because it had no precedent. People didn't really know what to expect. Octopussy, for all of its flaws, was literally competing against another Bond film. Timothy Dalton's two films both had terribly-timed releases, competing with some other, non-Bond films that were really good.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service does well, but interestingly, not well compared to the Connery Bonds or even Live and Let Die. Lazenby was trashed by film critics of the time (even though the plot and performances by supporting actors were well-liked) and let's face it: people do listen to critics, no matter how much they deny it (otherwise, said critics wouldn't have jobs or sell any books). A View to a Kill was completely ripped apart by critics as the worst Bond film ever. So it ranks last in terms of adjusted profits. But then you have public opinion. When The World is Not Enough was released, I distinctly remember critics liked most of it and thought Denise Richards was the only weak point. Then I remember as the days went on, it was almost as if she were dragging the film down. You even had the people who were just reporting how much it was taking in saying (at least in one case) "Denise Richards as a nuclear physicist? How about Arnold Schwarzenegger playing a computer nerd straight?" My Dad also remembers when On Her Majesty's Secret Service opened. He was told (and I'm quoting him): "Don't see it. It doesn't feel like a Bond film, the guy who plays Bond is an idiot, and it's no fun." Ouch! He saw it anyway, but knows others that stayed home.

For all the hatred Moonraker gets, audiences at the time generally thought of it as fun escapism, if also patently ridiculous. Dad told me that Moore's Bond films were generally well-liked as fun escapism. Another important thing, to quote Dad: "Nobody I knew thought anything of continuity between the movies during the 1960's and 1970's. You had some of it start to show up in the 1980's, but not the '60's and especially not the early '70's." Both he and I believe that this was why DAF aged so poorly. One of the few things the critics did seem to get right in terms of opinions that are still common, incidentally, was the general view that The Man with the Golden Gun was for watching Moore and Lee face off, with little else to offer. The movies change to suit the audiences' tastes, I think, like it or not.

This is great insight, thanks Dakowlski!

I might be one of the very few fans that accepts Bond in ANY given situation, be that trotting about in London or on Venus. I guess its the fact that the 'intrinsic' nature of Bond is present in ALL of these films. ( He IS suppose to handle any situation after all...)

Thunderball is a close second to FRWL on my list so no arguments there.
Sucks that LTK is dead last...just saw it again and THIS IS ONE BRILLIANT MOVIE...I've never seen a movie where a a character acomplishes absolute revenge like Bond did here.

The list also tells me that Bond is bound to eventually re-visit more (ahem) 'foreign' scenarios in future missions.

Dalkowski110

Halcon wrote:

This is great insight, thanks Dalkowski!

Thanks very much Halcon! -{ :007)

Consider how radically the franchise has changed even in the past ten years and you really have to wonder where we're going to be in even 5 years and what (if anything) will have significantly changed by then. I'm sure there will be at least one film that all of a sudden starts gaining a following and another that starts losing it. Five years ago, For Your Eyes Only was soaring following a rediscovery of how good it was and You Only Live Twice was on a big time downswing. Now? YOLT seems to be gaining popularity as a "guilty pleasure" film as it's dissected yet again, and people are starting to notice things about FYEO that have knocked the film off its pedestal for the time being, at least until it's deemed underrated once more and YOLT is deemed overrated once more. Another two films that fluctuate like that, or at least seem to, are The World is Not Enough and Octopussy.

chrisisall

Dalkowski110 wrote:

Five years ago, For Your Eyes Only was soaring following a rediscovery of how good it was and You Only Live Twice was on a big time downswing. Now? YOLT seems to be gaining popularity as a "guilty pleasure" film as it's dissected yet again, and people are starting to notice things about FYEO that have knocked the film off its pedestal for the time being, at least until it's deemed underrated once more and YOLT is deemed overrated once more. Another two films that fluctuate like that, or at least seem to, are The World is Not Enough and Octopussy.

I used to dismiss, but recently re-discovered OP and now think it's a very entertaining flick.
I LOVED YOLT as a teen, but now I find it 'Powers-worthy', yet still fun.
As a young adult, I liked FYEO as an antidote to MR, and to this day I see it as no more than that.
When TWINE came out, I was lukewarm about it, but now I like it a lot.
I think it has a lot to do with your take on reality based on your age more than most else.

Dalkowski110

chrisisall wrote:

I think it has a lot to do with your take on reality based on your age more than most else.

For the most part, probably, although I guarantee almost everyone's first Bond film shapes their views to at least a degree. If you don't read Fleming, then it shapes your views almost completely.

Halcon

chrisisall wrote:

Dalkowski110 wrote:

Five years ago, For Your Eyes Only was soaring following a rediscovery of how good it was and You Only Live Twice was on a big time downswing. Now? YOLT seems to be gaining popularity as a "guilty pleasure" film as it's dissected yet again, and people are starting to notice things about FYEO that have knocked the film off its pedestal for the time being, at least until it's deemed underrated once more and YOLT is deemed overrated once more. Another two films that fluctuate like that, or at least seem to, are The World is Not Enough and Octopussy.

I used to dismiss, but recently re-discovered OP and now think it's a very entertaining flick.
I LOVED YOLT as a teen, but now I find it 'Powers-worthy', yet still fun.
As a young adult, I liked FYEO as an antidote to MR, and to this day I see it as no more than that.
When TWINE came out, I was lukewarm about it, but now I like it a lot.
I think it has a lot to do with your take on reality based on your age more than most else.

Octopussy for me was rated very high from the very first time I saw it a few years ago. Loved the whole foreign vibe, almost an Indiana Jones adventure type but with James Bond. Lets not forget it also includes two of the best Bond girls ever, Maud Adams and Kristina Wayborn.
The movie currently ranks #2 on my list.

And yes, your reality is a big influence. I'm at a point in life where I don't get angry anymore at pity things. I find myself rather laughing at people's immature behaviour, or laughing at tragedy (what can i do?)...don't know if this is right or wrong but as a result, when it comes to Bond movies, Roger Moore's take seems to hit a nerve...

Absolutely_Cart

Surprised Goldeneye is low, but it was a huge step up from License to Kill.