Has the James Bond film series turned out the best it could?

MilleniumForce

I have been thinking about this, but I want to know if anyone else agrees. I think it has, as it is still going on, and the films are so varied from dark to light hearted, from revenge to adventure, from reality to Sci fi. It has survived through everything that has been thrown at it, and would hate to see the series any other way. Except maybe Moore in OHMSS, but that's another topic. Anyway, what do you think?

AlphaOmegaSin

James Bond is one of the most consistent and influential Fictional Characters of all Time -{ He has lived on for more then 50 Years and continues to grow stronger with each Film. So yes, the Series has turned out extremely well {[]

Higgins

'Let's make the next Bond Outing only medicore'

This should give a proper reply to the initial question. 8-)

AlphaOmegaSin

Very thoughtful 8-)

broadshoulder

Higgins wrote:

'Let's make the next Bond Outing only medicore'

This should give a proper reply to the initial question. 8-)

I though they did that in the Brosnan era ) ) ) ) ) (only joking)

MilleniumForce

broadshoulder wrote:

Higgins wrote:

'Let's make the next Bond Outing only medicore'

This should give a proper reply to the initial question. 8-)

I though they did that in the Brosnan era ) ) ) ) ) (only joking)

Well, they may have for TWINE. ) )

Barbel

I've posted on this before, but no matter.

There is literally no-one else like James Bond. In cinematic history, there has never been a consistent series concerning one character that has lasted as long and remains a huge box-office draw.

Sherlock Holmes: (the closest comparison) Older than Bond, of course, but much less consistent. At present Holmes is enjoying a resurge, thanks to the BBC "Sherlock", the US "Elementary", and the Guy Ritchie films starring Robert Downey Jr & Jude Law... though he will always be popular (there's no police like Holmes, after all), there are twenty year gaps in his popularity.

Matt Helm: did just fine in the 60s (four movies), then faded in the 70s (one TV series)... rumours of his comeback...

Tarzan: box-office poison for the last 30 or 40 years.

Hercule Poirot: as with Holmes, not to be discounted but there's no way a film version would challenge Bond.

Jason Bourne and Ethan Hunt: Will die off soon... then no doubt revived...

Star Wars: arguably has out-grossed Bond, in a much shorter time-frame. Perhaps this is the yardstick to measure against: Bond essentially created his own genre, and Star Wars has done the same. Each has had competitors and imitators, and has outlived them.

So, my argument is that the James Bond series is in uncharted territory and there is no way to answer the initial question.

AlphaOmegaSin

Agreed Barbel -{

Absolutely_Cart

I do think there are points where the series made mistakes, but the mistakes were never devastating enough and they always came back from them. At the end of the day, we could sit and look back at how everything could've been perfect but it doesn't work like that. There's no such thing as a perfect track record, especially when you're an artist for a long period of time. Overall, I'd say it's as close to perfect as any film series could have been.

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I do think there are points where the series made mistakes, but the mistakes were never devastating enough and they always came back from them. At the end of the day, we could sit and look back at how everything could've been perfect but it doesn't work like that. There's no such thing as a perfect track record, especially when you're an artist for a long period of time. Overall, I'd say it's as close to perfect as any film series could have been.

+1 {[]

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I do think there are points where the series made mistakes, but the mistakes were never devastating enough and they always came back from them. At the end of the day, we could sit and look back at how everything could've been perfect but it doesn't work like that. There's no such thing as a perfect track record, especially when you're an artist for a long period of time. Overall, I'd say it's as close to perfect as any film series could have been.

+1 {[]

Aside from the Two Obvious & Heinous Major Errors* that EON made, yeah, it's been about as perfect as one could expect. -{




(* #1. Connery should have been made a partner in the franchise after Goldfinger.
#2. Moonraker should not have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Star Wars.)

Absolutely_Cart

In all honesty, they should have given Connery a stake in his films.

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

In all honesty, they should have given Connery a stake in his films.

In all honesty, you're right! {[]

Absolutely_Cart

I said stake - not steak. )

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I said stake - not steak. )

Why I oughtta................! :v )

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

I said stake - not steak. )

Why I oughtta................! :v )

Calorie humour. It is not logical...

AlphaOmegaSin

The Bond Franchise has survived everything that has been thrown at it -{

Felix the Leitercat

MilleniumForce wrote:

I have been thinking about this, but I want to know if anyone else agrees. I think it has, as it is still going on, and the films are so varied from dark to light hearted, from revenge to adventure, from reality to Sci fi. It has survived through everything that has been thrown at it, and would hate to see the series any other way. Except maybe Moore in OHMSS, but that's another topic. Anyway, what do you think?

Hello M Force, I give the producers tremendous props because the amazing thing is that this has been a family run business like owning a great sports team franchise. From the Saltzman/Broccoli team up to the eventual emergence of Barbara B. and Michael Wilson, Bond has been shaped and developed to last into a 6th decade by people who work together, transition together, care about legacy, history, but also will change with the times of delivering what a modern audience wants. Again, this consisent quality and vision is what makes Bond endure.

And think about the competition at the box office from the comics heroes, Indy Jones, Aliens and others. Somehow year in and out, the guy in the tuxedo with the Walther still holds his own and battles. Only other franchise to be around that long, dating back to 60s roots would be Star Trek, Planet of the Apes, maybe a few others, but those works have been radically reshaped by different inheritors. Superman and Batman pre-date Bond by a lot, and there have been vast alterations to those characters on tv and in movies too. No matter who Bond is and what essence he has, and who plays him, it's a character we know, understand, and we always want him true to the 007 spirit.

Felix The Leitercat, regards, thanks, -{ B-)

chrisisall

{[]

broadshoulder

Bond is in a league of his own. He's up there with Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes. Maybe its a British thing where our good series aren't demolished after one or two series. Look at Coronation Street and Doctor Who. Both wracking up the fifty year mark, and still going strong

I have said this before - the only danger I can see is if the Broccolis lose their stake in the series. They have Justin Bieber as 007 solving crimes at his high school with Kim Kardashian as a Bond girl.

The thing this year is competition from Star Wars. Who could outhype this one.B ut thats survived the machinations of its originator.

AlphaOmegaSin

I really do hope that the Franchise stays with Broccoli and Wilson, I dread to think what would happen if it fell into the Hands of lets say, Disney

Thunderpussy

With a cuddly small robot side kick, made by Q. which would get him out of all
Sorts of scrapes.

The Wicker Man

The films I remember most vividly watching, eyes glued to the tv screen when I was a child were the James Bond films. I loved everything about them. They were just amazing adventures. The music sounded great, amazing stunts, interesting locations, fantastic stories, I loved it all. Still do.
Every actor who has played Bond has brought his own personality to the role and this has made sure the series never feels like it is getting stale and after more than 50 years still feels relevant. The films have been made by people who genuinely care about what they do and it shows on screen.
Has the series turned out the best it could? Well after 50 years and 23 films there is bound to be the occasional misstep, but looking back over all the films as a whole, I can honestly say I cannot think of a body of work as large, varied, thrilling and such a joy to watch as these films

Paperbill

I would have answered this question with a resounding YES before Casino Royale. Now I think they will have better and better movies

Gassy Man

I don't think they've turned out the best they could, though there is no arguing that they have been financially successful. In terms of quality, for instance, the films have been uneven, with to me the 1960s films representing the best of the series.

AlphaOmegaSin

Really, the Question is Subjective -{

chrisisall

AlphaOmegaSin wrote:

Really, the Question is Subjective -{

It's in the realm of conjecture. -{

002

Gassy Man wrote:

I don't think they've turned out the best they could, though there is no arguing that they have been financially successful. In terms of quality, for instance, the films have been uneven, with to me the 1960s films representing the best of the series.

Yeah, that's pretty much my feeling: the 1960s is the most flawless decade for my money. However, despite the odd under-par offering, they're still a brilliant body of work and, of course, the gold glitters far more than the **** stinks...