Diamonds Are Forever v Octopussy v Goldeneye
Kent007
Posts: 338MI6 Agent
I was watching Everything Or Nothing and got wondering what people thought was more important in keeping the James Bond movies going Diamonds Are Forever, Octopussy, Goldeneye or Casino Royale as the franchise faced trouble before each yet managed to survive
"You are about to wake when you dream that you are dreaming"
Comments
By the point of DAF, the bond film series really was in doubts (or so it seemed), and at the time, many thought that Connery was the one and only bond (This was obviously disproved when LALD was released though!)
Second would be GE. As it came after a 6 year gap, which, as many of us know, is the largest gap in bond film history.
Last would be OP. I didn't even think the series was in trouble prior to OP? Sure they had the 'battle of the bonds', but FYEO was a commercial success, right?
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Good point. I would maybe add CR'06 to the list too. What with the whole reboot, and the criticism of DAD
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
Mind you I wasn't alive before 1989 so I have no idea how Octopussy or DAF revived the series.
I think CR is pretty overrated, but since it came after DAD, and before QoS, it is considered one of the best
DAF was THE right movie, at THE right time to keep it alive.
As dopey as one might find it today.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I would say DAF, not even close. If you factor in inflation, OHMSS is twelfth all time on how highly Bond movies grossed. That sounds pretty solid until you realize that all but DN from FRWL to LALD are in the top ten (TMWTGG did terribly, but TSWLM vaulted the franchise right back into the top ten). In short, OHMSS did poorly compared to its contemporaries, even if in the grand scheme of things it was just fine, and didn't really have anything that was particularly competing against it in the box office (1969 was a good year in movies, but so was 1967, when YOLT was released).
I can tell you right now my father told me people HATED OHMSS when it came out. The New York Times even had an article, he recalled, saying that people were going to view the film once to give it a chance and then not going back for repeat viewings. They contrasted this strongly to the classic western Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Despite competition with The Wild Bunch and True Grit, which were both terrific films that were drawing off one another as well as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, the film grossed almost $110 Million. The same article noted the lack of competition for OHMSS and its steep decline from 1967, blaming a lack of the "Bond that we're used to". History has been very kind to OHMSS, but at the time, it was viewed as very weak and what a lot of Dad's friends said was that it "wasn't Bond".
Place yourself in Cubby or Harry's shoes after that. Overseas audiences thought it was okay, but it was outright despised in the US. You're coming off a success when you're making OP, and you think you can keep Moore on for one more film. With GE, your first choice as an actor in TLD is now back and you have a very strong cast. With CR, there's almost no expectation from the public. Not "high expections" or "low expectations", NO expectations. As in, they don't know what to expect not just from the movie, but from literally every facet of the new, rebooted Bond Universe.
If DAF fails, so does the Bond franchise, probably. If OP fails, then you can regardless come back and recruit some other actor (likely Timothy Dalton, since he badly wanted the role, possibly Sam Neill; I think people recognized the '80's Bond franchise as starting to stagnate and just needed some sort of change, which is why they tried to get Brosnan and then tried and succeeded to get Dalton). GE won't fail because you already looked at the actor you selected to play Bond and you've had years to work on a script. CR won't fail because there are no expectations to begin with. If it's problematic, you scrap it and cast someone else to continue the first 20 films' continuity. That and you're pretty much lifting the thing from Ian Fleming's novel, so it's not as if you have weak source material.
With DAF, your one and only even partially credible actor that wants the role (Roger Moore) is unavailable. You just have to hope Connery accepts the role again and that the public can accept a humorous Bond, which is what they seem to want, but you're not completely sure. A lot of ifs, there are high expectations in the US for both Dirty Harry and The French Connection, you've got Stanley Kubrick making A Clockwork Orange, and oh yes, even though there aren't any expectations, you just happen to have Shaft also being released.
So which of those climates do you prefer releasing your Bond film in? Which one succeeded in spite of those odds? I would say DAF; no matter how trashed it is, it was probably the film that saved the franchise.
Bringing Connery back for one more turn in DAF may've seemed like a saving grace, but ... I remember seeing it on release (Royal Theater, Polk St., San Francisco), and being underwhelmed. At that young age, I thought GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL were were it was at. He seemed tired, bored and not really trying very hard, in DAF.
[1] I didn't really have doubts about the actor. I thought he was **** hot in MUNICH, had only see glimpses of LAYER CAKE to know he had the chops.
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case
Its a really good movie. Maybe you should learn how to play poker and then pop it back in the DVD player for another try.