Are Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson the saviours of the series?
Sir James Moloney
LondonPosts: 139MI6 Agent
Hi all,
I'm sure you've all seen this:
It's a graph depicting the box office performance of the Bond films, inflation-adjusted. Most of the information contained is very common knowledge (Thunderball and Skyfall are the most successful films in the series, AVTAK and LTK are the least successful etc) but the graphical representation really helps to draw attention to one fact: Cubby Broccoli seemed to be steering the series into terminal decline.
After Saltzman left the series in 1975, Cubby Broccoli scored a big hit with TSWLM. After this first hugely successful solo effort, every film in the series came back with lower B.O. returns (except for TLD which demonstrated a very minor upswing on AVTAK).
Only when Cubby Broccoli retired from the series and Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson took over did the series' fortunes pick up. The Brosnan films returned Bond to a level of success not seen since the 1970s whilst the Craig era (the first era wholly independently of Cubby) has returned Bond to 1960s levels of popularity.
So, is Cubby Broccoli legendary leadership of the Bond series over-rated? It seems that with the exception of TSWLM, he was slowly killing the series. I have long argued that Harry Saltzman's considerable contribution to the series has been shamefully under-emphasised over the years. Can we now argue that It took Babs and MGW to save the series from Cubby's deteriorating direction?
I'm sure you've all seen this:
It's a graph depicting the box office performance of the Bond films, inflation-adjusted. Most of the information contained is very common knowledge (Thunderball and Skyfall are the most successful films in the series, AVTAK and LTK are the least successful etc) but the graphical representation really helps to draw attention to one fact: Cubby Broccoli seemed to be steering the series into terminal decline.
After Saltzman left the series in 1975, Cubby Broccoli scored a big hit with TSWLM. After this first hugely successful solo effort, every film in the series came back with lower B.O. returns (except for TLD which demonstrated a very minor upswing on AVTAK).
Only when Cubby Broccoli retired from the series and Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson took over did the series' fortunes pick up. The Brosnan films returned Bond to a level of success not seen since the 1970s whilst the Craig era (the first era wholly independently of Cubby) has returned Bond to 1960s levels of popularity.
So, is Cubby Broccoli legendary leadership of the Bond series over-rated? It seems that with the exception of TSWLM, he was slowly killing the series. I have long argued that Harry Saltzman's considerable contribution to the series has been shamefully under-emphasised over the years. Can we now argue that It took Babs and MGW to save the series from Cubby's deteriorating direction?
1- CR. 2- OHMSS. 3- FRWL. 4- GF. 5- DN. 6- TLD. 7- SF. 8- TSWLM. 9- GE. 10- LTK.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Comments
It's also worth noting that Michael Wilson was scripting from FYEO onwards, so was a fairly key part of the less successful Bonds
That's a good point Max, and MGW was producer from AVTAK onwards but I think it's fair to say he was definitely the junior partner in the relationship. We know, for example, that MGW wanted Bond XV to be a prequel Bond movie and also wanted Sam Neill to replace Roger Moore in TLD but Cubby rejected both.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
I also am not convinced that the amount grossed for each film, adjusted or not, is a fair indicator of its success. I think you would have to see where it ranked in ticket sales for the year, maybe in a very competitive movie season week by week.
So true, box office revenue amounts indeed are more sensational than actual ticket sales and other factors must be considered if we want to compare apples with apples, such as overall performance of other films in a given year or season. Then there's also the per capita movie viewership; interestingly, stats show that this number has dipped a bit during the past 4 or 5 years due in large part to the global-wide "Great Recession," even though in pure numbers world viewership has grown along with population growth and the economic development of world markets.
With the Bond movies, yes, the business objective is now to compete with the ongoing output of action block-busters that can be likened to the nuclear arms race, though I would say that the 60's provided a unique situation in which the Bond series stood in a class of its own in terms of what it offered to the viewing audiences that was unique compared to other cinema offerings. To do then what they're doing now, is to see a Bond during the 60's channeling spaghetti westerns or zany, psychedelic hippie comedies which the Moore era began to do and what the series is now doing in earnest with the reboot. In fact, after Mike and Babs took over, they attempted to continue doing Bond on its own terms but used the Greatest Hits approach with the Brosnan era, which unfortunately did not give it a decisive edge against the competition...until they radically went edgier with the reboot to the extent of dismantling the very basic essence and identity of the franchise. However, it is extremely noteworthy to say that if people cannot see the fact that Bond is now Bourne, with bits and pieces of other current action fads, they're in serious denial. In conclusion, I am not that impressed with the success of the series today despite Mike's and Bab's ability to play the organ in such a way that makes the cash register ring.
I am in agreement with superado. Today's Bond is Bourne. I like the Bourne films a lot. Bond, though, should be in his own class above all the other films of the genre. I just finished watching Dr No on Blu Ray and although dated and not quite what the Bond films became (especially the other ones of the '60's) there is such a style that is sophisticated. The Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan Bond films have this sophistication. The Craig films don't.
While I wholeheartedly support and am a fan of the series, the Craig "reboot" Bond films have something missing. Maybe it's the lack of the gunbarrel at the BEGINNING of his films.
Seriously, though, I have long felt that the Craig films are just generic action films with some Bond elements thrown in. Not his fault. Maybe it's what today's EON wants to do. I don't think they are the saviors of the series.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I couldn't agree more! I like the DC films but it is very obvious to me that they are Bourne influenced. And they do lack that certain something that set a Bond film apart from just an action film. The only thing I disagree with is that I actually feel this started with the Brosnan films which I felt owed a lot to movies like "True Lies".
I'd like to share a graph strictly for ticket sales from one of our own members, "The Cat," though it is only for US Admissions most likely because of available statistics for ticket sales vs. box office receipts.
Here is his caveat for the graph:
I assume that the amounts are in millions of tickets sold:
Here is The Cat's website, which includes more interesting graphs: http://thecat.uw.hu/
According the the graph, TB sold around $75 Million tickets in the US, wheras SF sold only $37 Million tickets according to this site: http://www.the-numbers.com/market/2012/genre/Action
There are many different ways of rating the success, as it were, of the Bond films but as all are based on the same underlying B.O. figures then the results will tend to look rather similar. It's unfortunately not possible to rank the series based on worldwide ticket sales, as ticket sales are only recorded in a few European countries. But here is a chart comparing the adjusted worldwide box office of each film to where each film ranked worldwide for each year:
You'll see that the worldwide ranking largely shadows box office performance (as we would expect). The only significant difference seems to be OHMSS which would lead us to believe that 1969/70 was a very quiet time at the box office. Although this sort of system will throw up interesting quirks as Thunderball, arguably the most successful Bond film of all time, finishes in position no. 2 for 1965 whilst DAF, thought not nearly as successful, finishes in position no. 1 for the year.
As explained, they're the international box office figures adjusted for inflation. Superado's post above provide's a link to The Cat's website which explains this reasoning in detail (mostly accurate). The highest grossing film of the 70s worldwide, adjusted for inflation, is either LALD, TSWLM or MR depending upon which sources you believe. Trouble is that worldwide box office figures weren't nearly as trustworthy in the 1970s and 1980s. Not sure what you mean about Goldeneye? The most marked improvement between any two films is LTK to GE. You might not see it because there was a longer gap between films: maybe this version will make it easier to understand:
The Bond films have always reflected the film environment they were made in (or, at least, have tried to). True Lies is a great reference point for the Brosnan films, Lethal Weapon and Miami Vice were clearly inspiration for LTK, Indiana Jones influenced OP and AVTAK, Star Wars was a huge influence on MR (in fact, the reason why they made MR at the time rather than FYEO), The explosion of martial arts films in the early 70s influenced TMWTGG, blaxploitation led to LALD. We can go right back to FRWL, one of the most universally-acclaimed Bond films, and see how the finale frankly ripped off North by Northwest (far more blatantly than anything that followed). It's interesting that lots of people agree that the Craig films have been very heavily influenced, but can't necessarily agree what by. Some say Bourne and others say The Dark Knight.
That's correct, they're in millions of tickets sold and, as you say, for the Domestic market only (which skews things somewhat). But the thing that The Cat doesn't mention, rather naughtily, is that ticket sales / admissions figures aren't recorded in either the US or the UK; only box office receipts are. So what The Cat has done, presumably, is taken the US box office figure for each film and then divided it by the price of a cinema ticket at that time. It's the only real way we have to estimate ticket sales in the US (and the UK too, come to that) but it's still an approximate estimate based on the same underlying figures.
To demonstrate, I've created another graph comparing Worldwide Box Office (adjusted) with The Cat's US Admissions estimates (updated for 2006-12). You'll see that even though they're dealing with different territories, they mirror each other remarkably:
So I think this still backs up my original point: the series was in dire straits in the 80s and looked set to terminally decline. MGW and Barbara Broccoli have done a remarkable job of turning it around.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Financially, the new producers are saviours, sure.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
What then do you wish to make out of this? Yes, I think the 2 generations of EON producers each exhibited business acumen to maximize viewership, but the question should also include standards of creativity and excellence and both generations can also be credited with that, to some extent. From the beginning, EON wanted to ensure longevity and viewership with one of the measures being movie board ratings so that the films became suitable for family patronage; that in itself was good, but it can also be argued that was a compromise in artistic integrity. Another compromise (among others I'm sure) was keeping RM as long as they did. However, I believe that Cubby found his artistic happy spot with Dalton, despite the relatively poor outing at the box office. As I've said, Mike and Babs continued with the viewership maximization drive with the best of Bond, PB era. There's also the popular mindset like yours it seems that the reboot was a strike of genius; what I've said though is that in light of the success, much of it can be credited again for business acumen more than creativity, with how the rebooted Bond borrowed extensively with the then current action film flavor of Bourne, The Fast and the Furious and other high adrenalin/high octane fare. With all of that said, compared side-to-side, I don't think that the accomplishments of the Mike and Babs tandem is anything to be awed about and even with their reboot, they don't hold a candle to the financial and creative success that Cubby and Harry achieved.
I think Cubby exited at a creative high point with the TD movies and even with the reintegration of Bond through GE in light of the 6-year absence and the inherent challenges with regard to relevance. Hmm, technically Cubby's last film, GE was Bond number 17 into the series and we are only on the cusp of Bond 24. Let's give the man some credit for holding it together as long as he did and for the herculean feat he pulled off together with Harry, Terence Young and Connery in establishing the most successful film franchise in history.
On Mike and Babs, let me ask you, if unprecedented box office success can be further realized with more radical, equally unprecedented changes to the Bond universe, like turning him into a psychotic, for personal leisure, serial killer or going full bore into the direction of Grand Theft Auto/Lara Croft, would that be something to actually be proud of? Yes, it hasn't gone there yet, but that has already been done in some measure with the reboot; the whole wide world loves Bond now, but is that really Bond? Is Bond still special?
In short, to start a debate about the relative merits of the producers of the Bond films. There have been 5 producers in total, Harry Saltzman, Albert Broccoli, Kevin McClory, Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli and it seems to me that Cubby is generally lauded as the genius behind the series with Harry relegated to the status of colourful sidekick. I guess the point of this thread is to highlight the fact that arguably the least successful period for the series was the period when Cubby was solely in charge.
I think that's been an ongoing issue throughout the duration of the series. You could argue that the biggest mistake was in trying to top the success of Thunderball by abandoning Fleming and creating a space age version of YOLT.
It's interesting that you should assume that my mindset is "that the reboot was a strike of genius." I have certainly never said that. For that matter, I'm not sure it's a popular mindset at all.
The Business acumen of the producers is what I'm principally interested in debating as, once we get onto the question of creativity, it just comes down to whether you like what they've done or not. I'm guessing you're not a fan of the Craig films? I happen to think that CR is the best film of the series and SF comes pretty close. We could spend some time debating the pros and cons, i.e. whether they're creatively successful or not, but it will ultimately just come down to the fact that you don't like them and I do (I enjoy those sorts of debates too but that's just not what I'm going for with this thread)
Whilst he was credited as "consulting producer" on GE, it's fair to say that his input was minimal. He was too unwell to even leave the States.
Absolutely. I phrased my opening post in a deliberately provocative manner but I do think that Albert Broccoli was a great producer and certainly does deserve credit for both his part in starting the series and the fact that he continued to produce the series. That said, I'm interested in dispelling the unquestioned assumption that he was the finest of the Bond producers and provoking a debate. My proposal is that if he had lived, in good health, to be 100, I don't think we would have got to the cusp of number 24.
Well, that specific example strikes me as a fallacy because it's reasonable to suppose that turning Bond into a psychotic would not lead to unprecedented box office success.
That said, it can't be ignored that the Bond series has made fairly radical departures throughout its 50 year history moving through thriller, action, science fiction, comedy and occasionally even fantasy. LALD presented occult magic as really existing. MR sent Bond into space. We accept many of these things because they happened long ago but I think you have to accept that these changes to the Bond character and Bond formula can at least be considered much more substantial than those made in the last decade.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
By the way, hyperboles are meant to illustrate a point, but camping on them does not make a counter-argument any stronger. My comment about making Bond psychotic does represent the current flavor of taking Bond to the extremes, which is fact and has been done with the reboot with a degree far greater than the Bond phases you've mentioned.
I'm very interested in considering the contexts for the different periods. What did you have in mind?
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
What I've already mentioned is sufficient to support my point and judging from the content of your posts, you too are sufficiently knowledgeable about the series' production history to be aware of the contexts I'm referring to.
I'm sorry, it's very likely that I'm misreading or misunderstanding your posts but I really don't understand. I'm contesting that Cubby Broccoli, despite his many strengths, had weaknesses as a producer that aren't commonly acknowledged and that Michael G Wilson and Barbara Broccoli should be credited with saving the series from potential disaster.
I appreciate that you are not a fan of the films that they've produced but thank you for engaging in the debate. I'm not particularly interested in "winning an argument" just in discussing the various elements of Bond's production history taking my opening argument as a premise. But I'm afraid I genuinely don't understand what contexts you are referring to.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
But why? I'm interested to know why you choose to promote a disproportionate look at these two generations of producers. The bottom line of my responses, is a plea for an objective look but more and more I am becoming curious of what you wish to get across. As a primer, Cubby was a fan of the book series and as an accomplished producer, he had a vision of establishing a successful film series based on those books, but faced several key challenges, one of them, not owning the rights and second, not having immediate buy-in from the studios and potential financial backers and perhaps the most significant one, the unknown, e.g., public reception and just the overall uncertainty of success. Given the huge success that Barbara (more than Mike) inherited, I just don't think there was so much genius involved, it's just too dramatic to think so.
You have made some very strong, cogent, persuasive arguments for your point of view, something you are very good at. That's why I really enjoy your contributions to this forum. But I think your comment quoted above really overstates what has been done with the reboot. And it's not the first time the series has experienced a pretty drastic change of direction. Just look at the difference between the Roger Moore films and Timothy Dalton's two Bond films.
I don't think the Moonraker era style would fly today, but, really... Skyfall (while I enjoyed it) really was no different than "The Bourne Legacy" in that it wasn't this blockbuster feel. The series today doesn't feel "High up and above all others".
Cubby and HIS EON seemed to be like "The public wants a new Bond film in two years... let's get to work and give them one". I have read quotes from the current EON (Babs and MGW) along the lines of "We're tired... we need a break... this last film was exhausting... we'll see you in four years... maybe..."
I think that's a great point. Although I understand that Spottiswoode and Apted were also invited back but declined. I have a soft spot for John Glen but it was something of a problem in the 80s that it wasn't just that the series was 20+ years old, but that the team making the films was 20+ years old. It felt a little tired.
I'm trying to be objective hence why I'm interested in focussing on the overall business decisions made by the producers rather than rating their creativity (which ultimately comes down to "I like / don't like a particular style of Bond film"). With regards to what my aim is, it's just to have a discussion.
Well, as I also pointed out in a post above, I'm not describing their work as genius. But I am suggesting that they didn't inherit a "huge success" but rather a film series facing an ageing audience in terminal decline. They'd come off the back of 5 years of legal headaches and when Cubby had tried to sell his rights in Bond in the early 90s he couldn't find a buyer.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Okay then. If it's a question of business acumen, were I an investor and given the choice of taking on either an untried movie (series) project that will be creatively starting from scratch, or a project to rejuvinate a declining, though successful film series owned by principals with sizable industry cache and not so modest financial resources, I know who I'll be putting my money on. Considering those things, what Mike and Babs did is really nothing to marvel at.
Your point that it's harder to create a successful film series than resurrect a film series is a good one. But to simply dismiss the success of the series under Wilson and Barbara Broccoli as "nothing to marvel at" is exactly why I'm bringing this up. It is something to marvel at. And the fact that they've been so successful seems to lead people to take what they have done for granted and assume that it's easy. It's not.
(Also, I think it's fair to point out that Saltzman and Broccoli's proposal was based on a series of bestselling and hugely popular novels. CR had already been adapted for television, MR had been adapted for radio and the first 5 had already been serialised as a comic strip in the Daily Express. John F Kennedy had just named From Russia, With Love as one of his 10 favourite novels. It was a fairly sound investment)
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Then it’s fair to toss it back to you, your point is that it's harder to resurrect a film series than it is to create a successful one and conversely you have implied intentionally or not that what Cubby has done is lesser than what MW and BB has done. You can simply point out that what they’ve accomplished is impressive without needing to depreciate the early producers’ efforts just to make a tenuous contrast.
On your second paragraph, if the series was such an obviously sound investment, why couldn’t Saltzman get the backing he needed, thereby necessitating his partnership with Broccoli? BTW, Cubby’s contribution apart from his vision about property that he shared with Saltzman, was better access to financial backers based on connections and his reputation and standing in the industry, which his heirs still enjoy and arguably is still the key and even overriding ingredient to their success. I’d enjoy watching them attempt to pull that off without any of those things, using just pure business acumen.
Er, no.
Just to be clear, this is what I said in the post above: i.e. I agree with you.
Well, that's what I'm trying to do. It is impressive. But comparing the downward trajectory of the Bond series' box office in the 1970s and 1980s with it's upward trajectory in the 90s and 00s is hardly a tenuous contrast. I'd say it's highly pertinent.
(a) Saltzman had just come off the back off a flop
(b) He had never had a box office hit anyway
(c) He had no ties to the US studios
(d) He only had a six month option
When Broccoli and Saltzman approached UA for backing and distribution, it was agreed almost immediately. UA had made inquiries about the rights themselves.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
Without at all diminishing what Broccoli and Salzman accomplished, I absolutely agree with your point that what Michael Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have done with the Bond series is also quite remarkable and should not be taken lightly.
I think your input strikes not only a nice balance to the debate, but apt and a reasonable acknowlegment to the producers' respective tenures and efforts. But I still maintain that reviving the series wasn't akin to resuscitating a still-born fetus, nor was it a feat as tremendous as the invention of the Internet. I would give the most credit to Michael Wilson for his experience and tenure and maybe most importantly him being more moderate than his sister, being the restraining force in critical decisions.
Thank you. And let me say that it's always a pleasure to engage in debate and discussion with such a gentleman. -{