Goldfinger is a classic not just because its recognized by large numbers of audiences as a great Bond film, but also by critics, scholars, DVD and video sales and rentals, and imitators, both in the Bond films series and elsewhere.
Gassy Man is right, Goldfinger is the only Bond film that is a classic. None of the others even come close. I don't think any will ever again either.
It's an objective viewpoint, all others are subjective and personal preference (as you can see with where GF sits in my rankings below).
Am I missing something here? You have Goldfinger ranked 17th.
As Diabolik has answered for me correctly I see the merits of Goldfinger as a classic, but personally I am not a big fan.
I think the Eon Bond films from the 1980's don't look as dated as Never Say Never Again does, even in the 1980's Eon Bond films were stylish.
There is one thing I don't think anyone's pointed out yet. In the 1960's Bond film's were the new kids on the block. They helped create the zeitgeist much like a film like The Matrix did for films of the early 2000's. They were fresh and exciting. By the 1980's film's like Mad Max 2 and Raiders Of The Lost Ark etc were the new kid's on the block ( and Raiders stuntwork holds up better than any 80's Bond film IMO because it didn't rely on awful rear projection for the actors...unlike Bond ). Goldfinger etc are considered classics now because they did it first. The classic film's from the 1980's are also the film's that were fresh, new and exciting for the time period...Bond film's hadn't been that since the 60's. From the 1970's to the present day Bond has been a follower of trends not a creator of trend's.
LALD = Blaxploitation
TMWTGG = Kung Fu films
MR = Star Wars
OP= Raiders
LTK = Lethal Weapon
DAD = The Matrix
Craig's film's = Bourne
It's interesting to note some film's considered good like FYEO or even one considered a classic such as TSWLM or GE drew from the well of Bond, not from cinema overall...and no...I don't think CR06 will go down in history as a classic, it's badly written and too much of it's time IMO. I could be wrong mind...the future isn't here yet.
One only has to look at action films such as Cobra or Commando to see the 80's Bond's have aged relatively well. Even LTK looks much more stylish than Lethal Weapon IMO.
On another note...does anyone else find themselves checking out a Bond girl in those old films only to realise the depressing thought that those women are now in their 60's or 70's? It's just another thing like bad rear projection that takes me out of the film.
From the 1970's to the present day Bond has been a follower of trends not a creator of trend's.
LALD = Blaxploitation
TMWTGG = Kung Fu films
MR = Star Wars
OP= Raiders
LTK = Lethal Weapon
DAD = The Matrix
Craig's film's = Bourne
It's interesting to note some film's considered good like FYEO or even one considered a classic such as TSWLM or GE drew from the well of Bond, not from cinema overall...and no...I don't think CR06 will go down in history as a classic, it's badly written and too much of it's time IMO. I could be wrong mind...the future isn't here yet.
One only has to look at action films such as Cobra or Commando to see the 80's Bond's have aged relatively well. Even LTK looks much more stylish than Lethal Weapon IMO.
Good points. I also think that TLD has a Raiders vibe (near the end) and AVTAK is GF for the 80s...
Yeah Mr Drax, TLD does have a Raiders vibe near the end and Dalton's performance being more down to earth than Moores Bond seems to be as much of a reaction to how heroes were being portrayed in the 1980's as it is a result of Dalton reading the source material. Ironic really when one considers that Bond was apparently originally an influence on the way the anti hero was portrayed in a Fistful Of Dollars...a man we could root for but one who wasn't necessarily a good man. Dollars went down and dirtier with it though and that birthed the modern action hero. Cinema informs itself. Funny that Bond likes to imitate the imitaters.
Yeah, AVTAK is basically the same plot as GF but the formula was getting creaky by then. When one compares AVTAK to First Blood Part Two or Commando ( released the same year ) one can see just how outdated Moores Bond had become ( I still loved it when AVTAK came out though ). It was time for a change. I wish 1980s Spielberg had directed a bond, the stunts and action in Raiders were fairly lowkey compared to things like the PTS in MR IMO but because of how they were directed, shot, edited and presented I find then much more exciting to watch than Bonds of the same era ( although I love the stuntwork in FYEO ). Interestingly it comes full circle. The stunts in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull were contrived and cartoonish much like many Moore stunts instead of being fresh, exciting and organically humourous like they were in Raiders.
You hear about directors who want to direct a Bond but never get a chance yet the Broccolis hire directors ( such as Mendes, who aspirations for what a Bond film is is art and not pop art as I believe Bond should be ) who cleave to the current standards. Its a shame really. With new writers and new action directors Bond could be in the vanguard of action cinema again like it was 50 years ago. Its never happened though. I guess Bonds a product but like Madonna constantly reinventing it self it feels like watching your dad dancing at a wedding Imo.
I guess creative cowardice is rampant in Hollywood. Theres too much money to be made from the status quo.
Also the McGuffin in FYEO is similiar to the McGuffin in FRWL.
^ As much as I adore the 80s films you can feel they become 'creakier' film by film by the time they get to LTK. It's a shame because I think that the 80s Bond films are the tightest in terms of the combination of elements (direction, writing, production, costumes, score etc.).
Bond started losing itself in the US market once Connery left - probably because of his brilliance but probably more due to the fact that Bond in the 60s represented pure, escapist entertainment. Something that other films began doing in a much better way at the end of the 70s and into the 80s.
Yeah, Moore had to compete with, what some call, the birth of the blockbuster. TSWLM was up against some stiff competition. Looking at your graph making MR was a smart move, in spite of what a lot of people say about it.
LTD was up against some really good action films with extroverted leading men such as Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Lethal Weapon and iconic action films like Robocop and Predator, so its no surpise it didn't do well in America. Yet at the worldwide box office only Eddie Murphy did better.
LTK was up against it. A summer release date for one. Then Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters 2, Lethal Weapon 2, Batman and reams of genre films. It doesn't seem American audiences were into seeing Dalton as Bond though ( or maybe they wanted to spend their money on the more recent franchises in cinema that summer ). LTK may have been the lowest grossing Bond film but look at the films it was trailing behind at the worldwide box office. It still made money.
But the real meet and potatoes is how profitable were the films.
In that case it's the 60s and 70s films that gave the most for their investment. Since then Bond has been competing in a crowded marketplace. There's billions riding on the Bond franchise, it's no wonder they cleave to the current trends. The problem is when they do that they are applying current trends to a franchise that's so specific it could almost be called it's own genre. It's like putting ice cream on a Big Mac just because ice cream is popular. That's why classic Bond films are few and far between. Thats why many Bond films are so uneven in tone. It's interesting that when Eon gets a sizable hit like MR or DAD they try to return to basics. It's like Bond got everyones attention so they can play a bit of jazz. Then they settle into trends until they have more breathing room. It's like a marketplace war where the Bond franchise attacks then retreats.
It's all very cynical really but that's the nature of the beast. Although we get uneven Bond films we do get variety in tone and because they have blockbuster budgets coupled with a bond style the 1980s films do look better than many of their contemporaries. Its a Faustian pact really, between the audience and Hollywood business.
Its actually amazing Bonds been profitable for 55 years. In the 60s they were marketing a new character and formula. Ever since they've been marketing a competing brand. The classics of the 1980s aren't Bond films.
^ As much as I adore the 80s films you can feel they become 'creakier' film by film by the time they get to LTK. It's a shame because I think that the 80s Bond films are the tightest in terms of the combination of elements (direction, writing, production, costumes, score etc.).
Bond started losing itself in the US market once Connery left - probably because of his brilliance but probably more due to the fact that Bond in the 60s represented pure, escapist entertainment. Something that other films began doing in a much better way at the end of the 70s and into the 80s.
The US really didn't buy into Dalton. Moore's films did well in spots (LALD, FYEO, OP) - but Moore had much stiffer competition through this tenure...
Having lived through the 70s and 80s, I can say the buzz among people I knew wasn't that the 60s Bonds were pure escapist entertainment, and that's why they were so popular so much as they hit all of the right chords with many people. They were among the first true blockbuster films, with A level filmmaking -- high quality productions with great actors and good stories and dialogue.
Connery absolutely was at the heart of that thinking. By the 70s, that had largely waned, and the films were a parody of their former selves. This didn't change all that much in the 80s, though the productions tried to split the difference with the Dalton films. By then, though, Bond films were not looked at as A level filmmaking -- they were more like B+ films. That is, audiences recognized they had big budgets, but the assumption was the producers were no longer really trying. People went more for the stunts and comedy than for the overall experience that the 60s films had provided. A Bond film was less an event than a habit every other year or so.
You don't have to take my word for it. Read some of the reviews by critics at the time, who generally argue in one way or another that the films are passe and the producers are again milking the series for all its worth. When the 80s came around, a lot of the campy excesses were toned down but not to the point that Bond didn't in many ways retain the farcical elements of those films, even while critics still debated the relevance of the movies. A lot of the blame is on Moore for making the films campy, but they likely would have gone that direction regardless during the age of disco and bell bottoms, which then turned into the age of yuppies and Reagan.
At any time, the producers could have returned Bond to its roots, but that would have required a gamble they weren't willing to take with a cash cow -- it wasn't until George Lucas showed that there was money in prequels and Christopher Nolan showed that Batman could be taken as more than costume drivel that the Bond producers began to consider the notion of making a Bond film that not only was A level in quality but also took itself seriously enough to try to be fresh.
The Dalton films were another muddled attempt because while they fashioned the scripts around Dalton's sardonic personality, they couldn't quite figure out how to escape the legacy of the Moore films. It would have been better if Brosnan had taken over right away and the films had retained their lighter tones before introducing Dalton, whose gargoyle-like presence wasn't really suited to bridge from audiences who'd accepted Moore as Bond to something serious.
A lot of the blame is on Moore for making the films campy, but they likely would have gone that direction regardless during the age of disco and bell bottoms, which then turned into the age of yuppies and Reagan.
At any time, the producers could have returned Bond to its roots, but that would have required a gamble they weren't willing to take with a cash cow
Glad you've made this point. For me DAF is evidence enough that the films went in this direction previous to Moore anyway. Moore's interpretation of Bond certainly didn't help but as you've said why would you risk the cash cow from the producer's/studio's perspective?
I also believe OHMSS' reception didn't help the cause for a serious, heavy style of Bond. Look at the complete 180 that followed it.
It's also important to note that many of the successful blockbusters of the late-70s and 80s were self-parodies, even before they were a sequel. They were lighthearted and deeply entrenched in comedy/adventure. Indiana Jones is just like OP - nothing serious - but a great time.
{[] Thanks! I think you're absolutely right about OHMSS, though I would have loved to have seen a more serious DAF with Lazenby in the role. He would have made it his with another film.
One thing about Indiana Jones -- it is a Bond movie. It literally uses the Bond template, such as beginning with Jones on a seemingly unrelated mission that will have connection to the rest of the film, his return to headquarters to get his debriefing, his putting out into the field while being watched by the enemy, his making contact with both an ally and old flame, his initial fight and win with the enemy turning into capture, his learning that what he thought was a fairly small operation has far greater implications, his breaking out while behind enemy lines to wreak havoc, and then his ultimate triumph while they are destroyed.
Of course, it has an American twist. Jones is cocky but also self-deprecating, he's more interested in his blue collar "field" pursuits than his white collar job as a professor, and he is prone to getting the short end of the stick for the comic relief.
Interestingly, post 1960s, entertainment took a real post-modern turn. This started in film and TV in the 1960s, but it took firm root by the 1970s. There were all sorts of signs. For instance, Bond became clearly self-referential -- not with the usual elements, such as the character's history or the occasional recurring character, but with the jokes and the set ups. Take the Bond apartment scenes in LALD, for instance.
It works not because it's necessarily funny on its own but because it plays with our conceits about the Bond character. He's not just a womanizer, he's able to seduce an Italian agent who doesn't even speak English and is willing to be AWOL to be with him. He's not just a gourmand, but he has a coffee machine that defies even something that Q would have created. He's not only fastidious about his tailoring, but he has a bootmaker, who he shares with Baines. These exaggerations work not because Moore has been cast as Bond but because we're so familiar with the Bond character by that point, the jokes need no context or explanation in order to be funny.
This isn't to say there wasn't some of that going on in the earlier films. When Bond says he has a slight inferiority complex in GF, it's obvious a nod to Connery's confidence as Bond, but it still stays within the context of the scene enough -- tall, dark, and handsome hero wearing a tuxedo and well armed -- that we can acknowledge some rooting in the scene. But with the Moore era, the jokes, when not being obvious puns or slapstick, required us to draw upon the history of the Bond character and films for greatest impact.
Is self-reference something that plagues any series? The Simpsons started by Season 4. Seinfeld had a whole season's story arc revolve around the pitching of the show within a show...
Is self-reference something that plagues any series?
that sort of things been around forever. Theres a Hope & Crosby film from the 50s, where theres an obvious setup for Bing to do a song, and Bob turns to the camera and says "he's about to sing folks, time to go get some popcorn". Or Bugs Bunny, who was constantly breaking the 4th wall, knew exactly what type of story he was in and was always messing around with it, not just with Elmer Fudd's expectations but with the audiences.
But as Gassy Man says, there's postmodernism, which has become more of a thing since the 80s, audiences expect a story to be hip and selfreferential and to deconstruct its own tropes even as it fulfills them. We live in a more cynical age, and audiences who fancy themselves hip do not accept a story that is straight and earnest. That raises their suspicions and they then start overanalysing all the inherent cultural biases to prove they are smarter than the storyteller. So the storyteller has to flatter them by inserting elements that knowingly undermine all those elements (eg M's speech at the beginning of Goldeneye), thus the audience's belief in its own hipness is reinforced and they can enjoy the thrill ride of the story.
I know in advertising, good ads have to acknowledge and undermine the expectations of a salespitch for the cynical audience to be swayed. No modern consumer would ever fall for the straight forward ads that were still common in the early 70s when I was a kid. Same with TV, movies, and comics.
( Return On Investment Percentages / Money adjusted for inflation )
They increased the budget between TSWLM and MR. MR is such a cash in. I guess they were trying to keep up.
TSWLM is at 1224% while Moonraker is at 578% and FYEO is at 598%. No wonder that they went Raiders in OP. They were aiming for a bigger hit in 79 and Raiders in 83, while inbetween with FYEO they stopped aping Bond tropes through the prism of Star Wars and went for more rooted, character based stuff much like ESB did ( something similiar happened with The Matrix, DAD, The Bourne Supremacy, CR and QOS).
OP is at 582%. It looks to have leveled off. They must not have known what to do. Maybe thats why a lot of people think AVTAK is a tired retread of GF. They returned a little to slavishly to formula.
The percentage just kept dropping til LTK at 272. They must have been pleased with Goldeneye at 494%. No wonder TND is generic. They increased the budget for TND though. They must have been confident in the franchise.
TND is 209% though. Funny how they chase bigger and bigger hits. All they did was make the main Bond girl the villian for the next one.
TWINE is at 168%, DAD is at 204% while CR is at 483%. Its no wonder they went all matrixy in DAD. They were probably trying different avenues to change the Bond formula aiming for a bigger hit. Then they scaled back when they ripped off Bourne, reboots and, like someone else said, prequels in CR. No wonder QOS was such a mess.
QOS is at 157% while SF is at 455%. No surprise Mendes ended SF basically at the start of DN. They seem to go down to Earth and back to Bond after something doesn't seem to have the blockbuster profit margins they seem to be aiming for. It can't be a coincidence Silva is always a step ahead like the Joker in TDK was either.
Its also not surprising that SP threaded the same ground as SF or that it interconnected every film. It's in vogue and making money elsewhere. Maybe they figured they'd found their blockbuster formula.
SP is only at 291 %. I can smell the greed from here.
I read somewhere once that a blockbuster can be summed up in one line. Fairy tale in space = Star Wars. Hunting a killer shark = Jaws. Bond in space. Moore was relatively solid during the 80s, dropping below 400% when Dalton arrives. It also seems that when Eon ran out of blockbuster hooks copied from outside films they came up with AVTAK, TLD and GE. Of those three only AVTAK and GE had over 400%. No wonder they mixed things up for LTK and kept close to the Bond formula for GE, TND and TWINE. LTK worked out at 272%, the lowest percentage up until that point in time. They churn out films within relatively similar profit projections based on the proceeding films last substanial budget increase and current trends that they adapt to Bond. It's still a gamble and they lose more often than not but with the kind of profits Bond films make its worth it, because they never lose money and when they do hit on a formula that clicks with the audience their profits get substantially larger, such as with CR, SF and SP. However, their budgets got larger in QOS and SP which explains why there near the bottom. How long can they keep going at this rate? It swings like a pendulum.
The problem is that as blockbuster competition becomes ever more heated, the frequency of the margin getting larger slowly becomes less, because of escalating budgets and a saturated market. The last 9 films in a row all fall below 500%. That's why, nowadays, Bond films are less profitable in the percentage versus budget sense. In the 60s and 70s Bond had a corner on the market, the franchise could do what it wanted and it did until it first dipped its toe in what other films were doing with LALD. They must have known it worked because they rushed out the Kung Fu influenced MWTGG. When that didn't do as well they went back to the Bond formula with TSWLM. Moonraker was the first Bond that cost over $100 million and it was the first one after Star Wars. Since the dawn of the modern blockbuster the Bond franchise releases have all been one of many genre films jockeying for position. That's why Bond films cynically cleave to modern trends, because its half the reason why the franchise has lasted so long, but, ironically, it's also the reason why Bond isn't the cultural phenomenon it was in its first 15 years. Between shrinking profit margins and bigger budgets they become just one of many products to be put out, whereas in the early years Bond was its own thing. That's what happens when a franchise is the forerunner of modern action cinema and its stays around for 55 years. We get to see how it tries to keep up, because cultural relevance = money and securing the franchises stability in the years ahead.
One can't deny the quality of the machinations behind the planning and releasing of Bond films. The product is a moneymaking machine but like monkeys at a typewriter it does produce some quality sometimes. But I think there's reasons the Bond films were more relevant to earlier decades. it's just a double edged sword. Eon plays what it thinks is the safest bet and, for the most part, Bond get's to fool people into believing their watching a contemporary character.
I dunno if those numbers are accurate though or how the artistry of each film or the Bond actor effects it all but Connery was no slouch back in the day and Moore had a couple up there too. Also it does seem they went in the wrong direction for a late 80s audience with LTK. But whatever's going on its interesting to me all the same.
I guess Bond films do try to give the audience what Eon thinks we want. Bond's an icon so he's malleable enough to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or traverse a sea of troubles. Bond's such a huge franchise and has had so much milage that it really is interesting witnessing the changing trends within the franchise.
Yeah, Raiders is basically a Bond film. Like I said, Bond imitates the imitators. Maybe Hollywoods like a snake eating it's own tail...eventually it will consume itself.
Is self-reference something that plagues any series?
that sort of things been around forever. Theres a Hope & Crosby film from the 50s, where theres an obvious setup for Bing to do a song, and Bob turns to the camera and says "he's about to sing folks, time to go get some popcorn". Or Bugs Bunny, who was constantly breaking the 4th wall, knew exactly what type of story he was in and was always messing around with it, not just with Elmer Fudd's expectations but with the audiences.
But as Gassy Man says, there's postmodernism, which has become more of a thing since the 80s, audiences expect a story to be hip and selfreferential and to deconstruct its own tropes even as it fulfills them. We live in a more cynical age, and audiences who fancy themselves hip do not accept a story that is straight and earnest. That raises their suspicions and they then start overanalysing all the inherent cultural biases to prove they are smarter than the storyteller. So the storyteller has to flatter them by inserting elements that knowingly undermine all those elements (eg M's speech at the beginning of Goldeneye), thus the audience's belief in its own hipness is reinforced and they can enjoy the thrill ride of the story.
I know in advertising, good ads have to acknowledge and undermine the expectations of a salespitch for the cynical audience to be swayed. No modern consumer would ever fall for the straight forward ads that were still common in the early 70s when I was a kid. Same with TV, movies, and comics.
Excellent posts and a great thread. Really interesting stuff.
The changing nature of Bond's returns through the 70/80s into GE in the US market is really interesting and how it shifts around.
TMWTGG: US rank for year #17 - Global rank for year #9 - US 21% of global BO total
TSWLM: #9 - #5 - 25%
MR: #9 - #1 - 33%
FYEO: #8 - #2 - 28%
OP: #6 - #3 - 37%
AVTAK: #13 - #4 - 33%
TLD: #19 - #3 - 27%
LTK: #36 - #11 - 22%
GE: #6 - #4 - 30%
OP's success in the US is quite incredible. Despite sharp declines in the US with AVTAK and TLD they still maintain a #4 and #3 rank globally respectively.
I love all of the official 80's Bond films. My top ten includes every single 80's release, with For Your Eyes Only being at the top, and Octopussy as the least preferred.
FYEO had the classic and wonderful elements of a realistic, back to basics Bond film that felt like a huge refresher after the campy early Moore days. I love Moore's performance here more than any of the other ones he did, and the supporting cast were 'perfect' to me in regards to acting and likability. The locations were by far the greatest in the series in my opinion, with some of the best action scenes in the series. The only thing I disliked was the final confrontation between Bond and the villain - there wasn't one. Otherwise, 'perfect' entry.
OP was and is still a great disappointing coming after Eyes Only, but when I looked beyond that at what the film offered, you have a fantastic performance by an ageing Roger Moore, a great villain, exotic India and not-so-exciting Berlin, a great final stunt in mid-air and a suspenseful plot. Loved General Orlov's performance, Maud Adams as Octopussy and everyone else - including Robert Brown who joined the cast made a great performance. Least favourite 80's Bond, but still in my top ten.
AVTAK is the most underrated film in the series. While Moore does 'look' old for the role, he looks trimmer and more energetic in some ways than in OP, where he certainly weighed a lot more. This film has one of the greatest plots in the Bond series, perhaps my favourite villain played by Christopher Walken, and a fantastic supporting cast. Tanya Roberts is not the best, nor worst Bond girl, and sits in the middle for me. Loved Patrick Macnee, San Francisco (one of the big 'pull' factors for me) and the action scenes where Bond saves Stacey from a burning elevator. This is one of my favourite Bond films, and I'm proud to admit it.
TLD is my favourite first performance from a Bond actor, and Dalton is the best of all the actors in my opinion. Real cold war esq film here, and everyone in the cast is up there with the brilliance of FYEO. Where FYEO was more realistic, this one cracked the dial up and made it harder-edged. The only thing that worked against this brilliant flick were the villains, and that there was no real final showdown (similar to FYEO). I loved the locations, action and the plot is so intriguing, couldn't turn my eyes away. I just can't get over the brilliance of Timothy Dalton, the one who Ian Fleming pictured as James Bond and it really shows here. TLD is classic Bond, and screams 007 throughout the film.
LTK is a roller-coaster ride for those who haven't seen it. It is a wonderful Bond film and Timothy Dalton's performance as Bond is at it's peak here. Robert Davi plays my second favourite villain behind Walken, and the film is full of excitement. Revenge plot against the killing of Felix Leiter's wife, the blood and gore making it the most violent Bond film to date, and the way that Bond works into scheming against Sanchez and turning him against his own allies. The only aspects working against this underrated picture are the Bond girls (very mediocre) and the locations which could have been a lot better. However, the Timothy Dalton era contribute to the main reason why the 80's is remembered.
In terms of how well they have aged, well it is a difficult thing to judge. I would go with the Timothy Dalton era, judging by Daniel Craig stepping in and portraying Bond to a similar manner as Dalton.
TLD is my favourite first performance from a Bond actor, and Dalton is the best of all the actors in my opinion. Real cold war esq film here, and everyone in the cast is up there with the brilliance of FYEO. Where FYEO was more realistic, this one cracked the dial up and made it harder-edged. The only thing that worked against this brilliant flick were the villains, and that there was no real final showdown (similar to FYEO). I loved the locations, action and the plot is so intriguing, couldn't turn my eyes away. I just can't get over the brilliance of Timothy Dalton, the one who Ian Fleming pictured as James Bond and it really shows here. TLD is classic Bond, and screams 007 throughout the film.
Does the showdown between Whitaker and Bond not count? That's a true showdown, one-on-one.
TLD is my favourite first performance from a Bond actor, and Dalton is the best of all the actors in my opinion. Real cold war esq film here, and everyone in the cast is up there with the brilliance of FYEO. Where FYEO was more realistic, this one cracked the dial up and made it harder-edged. The only thing that worked against this brilliant flick were the villains, and that there was no real final showdown (similar to FYEO). I loved the locations, action and the plot is so intriguing, couldn't turn my eyes away. I just can't get over the brilliance of Timothy Dalton, the one who Ian Fleming pictured as James Bond and it really shows here. TLD is classic Bond, and screams 007 throughout the film.
Does the showdown between Whitaker and Bond not count? That's a true showdown, one-on-one.
It does, but it comes off as a bit underwhelming and it all happens too fast. Bond and Koskov had no final showdown either, which would have been better than Whitaker.
TLD is my favourite first performance from a Bond actor, and Dalton is the best of all the actors in my opinion. Real cold war esq film here, and everyone in the cast is up there with the brilliance of FYEO. Where FYEO was more realistic, this one cracked the dial up and made it harder-edged. The only thing that worked against this brilliant flick were the villains, and that there was no real final showdown (similar to FYEO). I loved the locations, action and the plot is so intriguing, couldn't turn my eyes away. I just can't get over the brilliance of Timothy Dalton, the one who Ian Fleming pictured as James Bond and it really shows here. TLD is classic Bond, and screams 007 throughout the film.
Does the showdown between Whitaker and Bond not count? That's a true showdown, one-on-one.
It does, but it comes off as a bit underwhelming and it all happens too fast. Bond and Koskov had no final showdown either, which would have been better than Whitaker.
Whitaker is the boss, not Koskov. There are much faster final showdowns between Bond and the villain. The biggest problem with the scene is that it is tacked on to the end and doesn't flow with the movie. I really like that Koskov is arrested rather than killed. It would have just been repetitive if he was killed too.
Does the showdown between Whitaker and Bond not count? That's a true showdown, one-on-one.
It does, but it comes off as a bit underwhelming and it all happens too fast. Bond and Koskov had no final showdown either, which would have been better than Whitaker.
Whitaker is the boss, not Koskov. There are much faster final showdowns between Bond and the villain. The biggest problem with the scene is that it is tacked on to the end and doesn't flow with the movie. I really like that Koskov is arrested rather than killed. It would have just been repetitive if he was killed too.
That's just the thing, you would want a showdown with whoever is seen more in the film. Also, it is suggested that Georgi Koskov is killed with the whole diplomatic bag speech at the end of the scene. I love TLD to death, even though it does sound like I am complaining a lot.
Great write up Wadsy! And interesting posts by all Gassy Man seems to be analyzing the 80s Bonds purely from the impression they made at the time of their release. I do not doubt his information of their lukewarm reception at the time, however I think this is rather missing the point of the thread. They may have been a bit stale at the time, but the advent of time has given them greater resonace. Now revisiting them after 3 decades, they possess a certain degree of charisma and are a lot of fun -{
PS I always loved the Whitaker, Bond shootout at the end of Daylights!
Speaking of age - watched OP last night as my Moore tribute. He looks way better in AVTAK. He's much slimmer, looks toned and fit for his age. OP he's a actually a bit podgy - especially in the "That's my little Octopussy" scene.
One thing I noticed in OP last night, is "That's amazing Q, it does work." the only compliment Bond ever gives to Q?
Comments
As Diabolik has answered for me correctly I see the merits of Goldfinger as a classic, but personally I am not a big fan.
"Better make that two."
There is one thing I don't think anyone's pointed out yet. In the 1960's Bond film's were the new kids on the block. They helped create the zeitgeist much like a film like The Matrix did for films of the early 2000's. They were fresh and exciting. By the 1980's film's like Mad Max 2 and Raiders Of The Lost Ark etc were the new kid's on the block ( and Raiders stuntwork holds up better than any 80's Bond film IMO because it didn't rely on awful rear projection for the actors...unlike Bond ). Goldfinger etc are considered classics now because they did it first. The classic film's from the 1980's are also the film's that were fresh, new and exciting for the time period...Bond film's hadn't been that since the 60's. From the 1970's to the present day Bond has been a follower of trends not a creator of trend's.
LALD = Blaxploitation
TMWTGG = Kung Fu films
MR = Star Wars
OP= Raiders
LTK = Lethal Weapon
DAD = The Matrix
Craig's film's = Bourne
It's interesting to note some film's considered good like FYEO or even one considered a classic such as TSWLM or GE drew from the well of Bond, not from cinema overall...and no...I don't think CR06 will go down in history as a classic, it's badly written and too much of it's time IMO. I could be wrong mind...the future isn't here yet.
One only has to look at action films such as Cobra or Commando to see the 80's Bond's have aged relatively well. Even LTK looks much more stylish than Lethal Weapon IMO.
On another note...does anyone else find themselves checking out a Bond girl in those old films only to realise the depressing thought that those women are now in their 60's or 70's? It's just another thing like bad rear projection that takes me out of the film.
Good points. I also think that TLD has a Raiders vibe (near the end) and AVTAK is GF for the 80s...
"Better make that two."
Yeah, AVTAK is basically the same plot as GF but the formula was getting creaky by then. When one compares AVTAK to First Blood Part Two or Commando ( released the same year ) one can see just how outdated Moores Bond had become ( I still loved it when AVTAK came out though ). It was time for a change. I wish 1980s Spielberg had directed a bond, the stunts and action in Raiders were fairly lowkey compared to things like the PTS in MR IMO but because of how they were directed, shot, edited and presented I find then much more exciting to watch than Bonds of the same era ( although I love the stuntwork in FYEO ). Interestingly it comes full circle. The stunts in Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull were contrived and cartoonish much like many Moore stunts instead of being fresh, exciting and organically humourous like they were in Raiders.
You hear about directors who want to direct a Bond but never get a chance yet the Broccolis hire directors ( such as Mendes, who aspirations for what a Bond film is is art and not pop art as I believe Bond should be ) who cleave to the current standards. Its a shame really. With new writers and new action directors Bond could be in the vanguard of action cinema again like it was 50 years ago. Its never happened though. I guess Bonds a product but like Madonna constantly reinventing it self it feels like watching your dad dancing at a wedding Imo.
I guess creative cowardice is rampant in Hollywood. Theres too much money to be made from the status quo.
Also the McGuffin in FYEO is similiar to the McGuffin in FRWL.
Bond started losing itself in the US market once Connery left - probably because of his brilliance but probably more due to the fact that Bond in the 60s represented pure, escapist entertainment. Something that other films began doing in a much better way at the end of the 70s and into the 80s.
I created a thread a while ago which looked at the contribution of the US market into the BO results for the films: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/48095/some-different-box-office-analysis/
The US really didn't buy into Dalton. Moore's films did well in spots (LALD, FYEO, OP) - but Moore had much stiffer competition through this tenure...
"Better make that two."
LTD was up against some really good action films with extroverted leading men such as Beverly Hills Cop 2 and Lethal Weapon and iconic action films like Robocop and Predator, so its no surpise it didn't do well in America. Yet at the worldwide box office only Eddie Murphy did better.
LTK was up against it. A summer release date for one. Then Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters 2, Lethal Weapon 2, Batman and reams of genre films. It doesn't seem American audiences were into seeing Dalton as Bond though ( or maybe they wanted to spend their money on the more recent franchises in cinema that summer ). LTK may have been the lowest grossing Bond film but look at the films it was trailing behind at the worldwide box office. It still made money.
But the real meet and potatoes is how profitable were the films.
https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
In that case it's the 60s and 70s films that gave the most for their investment. Since then Bond has been competing in a crowded marketplace. There's billions riding on the Bond franchise, it's no wonder they cleave to the current trends. The problem is when they do that they are applying current trends to a franchise that's so specific it could almost be called it's own genre. It's like putting ice cream on a Big Mac just because ice cream is popular. That's why classic Bond films are few and far between. Thats why many Bond films are so uneven in tone. It's interesting that when Eon gets a sizable hit like MR or DAD they try to return to basics. It's like Bond got everyones attention so they can play a bit of jazz. Then they settle into trends until they have more breathing room. It's like a marketplace war where the Bond franchise attacks then retreats.
It's all very cynical really but that's the nature of the beast. Although we get uneven Bond films we do get variety in tone and because they have blockbuster budgets coupled with a bond style the 1980s films do look better than many of their contemporaries. Its a Faustian pact really, between the audience and Hollywood business.
Its actually amazing Bonds been profitable for 55 years. In the 60s they were marketing a new character and formula. Ever since they've been marketing a competing brand. The classics of the 1980s aren't Bond films.
I dunno about that… LTK feels the most fresh to me, whereas FYEO is the most dated.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
Connery absolutely was at the heart of that thinking. By the 70s, that had largely waned, and the films were a parody of their former selves. This didn't change all that much in the 80s, though the productions tried to split the difference with the Dalton films. By then, though, Bond films were not looked at as A level filmmaking -- they were more like B+ films. That is, audiences recognized they had big budgets, but the assumption was the producers were no longer really trying. People went more for the stunts and comedy than for the overall experience that the 60s films had provided. A Bond film was less an event than a habit every other year or so.
You don't have to take my word for it. Read some of the reviews by critics at the time, who generally argue in one way or another that the films are passe and the producers are again milking the series for all its worth. When the 80s came around, a lot of the campy excesses were toned down but not to the point that Bond didn't in many ways retain the farcical elements of those films, even while critics still debated the relevance of the movies. A lot of the blame is on Moore for making the films campy, but they likely would have gone that direction regardless during the age of disco and bell bottoms, which then turned into the age of yuppies and Reagan.
At any time, the producers could have returned Bond to its roots, but that would have required a gamble they weren't willing to take with a cash cow -- it wasn't until George Lucas showed that there was money in prequels and Christopher Nolan showed that Batman could be taken as more than costume drivel that the Bond producers began to consider the notion of making a Bond film that not only was A level in quality but also took itself seriously enough to try to be fresh.
The Dalton films were another muddled attempt because while they fashioned the scripts around Dalton's sardonic personality, they couldn't quite figure out how to escape the legacy of the Moore films. It would have been better if Brosnan had taken over right away and the films had retained their lighter tones before introducing Dalton, whose gargoyle-like presence wasn't really suited to bridge from audiences who'd accepted Moore as Bond to something serious.
Glad you've made this point. For me DAF is evidence enough that the films went in this direction previous to Moore anyway. Moore's interpretation of Bond certainly didn't help but as you've said why would you risk the cash cow from the producer's/studio's perspective?
I also believe OHMSS' reception didn't help the cause for a serious, heavy style of Bond. Look at the complete 180 that followed it.
It's also important to note that many of the successful blockbusters of the late-70s and 80s were self-parodies, even before they were a sequel. They were lighthearted and deeply entrenched in comedy/adventure. Indiana Jones is just like OP - nothing serious - but a great time.
"Better make that two."
One thing about Indiana Jones -- it is a Bond movie. It literally uses the Bond template, such as beginning with Jones on a seemingly unrelated mission that will have connection to the rest of the film, his return to headquarters to get his debriefing, his putting out into the field while being watched by the enemy, his making contact with both an ally and old flame, his initial fight and win with the enemy turning into capture, his learning that what he thought was a fairly small operation has far greater implications, his breaking out while behind enemy lines to wreak havoc, and then his ultimate triumph while they are destroyed.
Of course, it has an American twist. Jones is cocky but also self-deprecating, he's more interested in his blue collar "field" pursuits than his white collar job as a professor, and he is prone to getting the short end of the stick for the comic relief.
Interestingly, post 1960s, entertainment took a real post-modern turn. This started in film and TV in the 1960s, but it took firm root by the 1970s. There were all sorts of signs. For instance, Bond became clearly self-referential -- not with the usual elements, such as the character's history or the occasional recurring character, but with the jokes and the set ups. Take the Bond apartment scenes in LALD, for instance.
It works not because it's necessarily funny on its own but because it plays with our conceits about the Bond character. He's not just a womanizer, he's able to seduce an Italian agent who doesn't even speak English and is willing to be AWOL to be with him. He's not just a gourmand, but he has a coffee machine that defies even something that Q would have created. He's not only fastidious about his tailoring, but he has a bootmaker, who he shares with Baines. These exaggerations work not because Moore has been cast as Bond but because we're so familiar with the Bond character by that point, the jokes need no context or explanation in order to be funny.
This isn't to say there wasn't some of that going on in the earlier films. When Bond says he has a slight inferiority complex in GF, it's obvious a nod to Connery's confidence as Bond, but it still stays within the context of the scene enough -- tall, dark, and handsome hero wearing a tuxedo and well armed -- that we can acknowledge some rooting in the scene. But with the Moore era, the jokes, when not being obvious puns or slapstick, required us to draw upon the history of the Bond character and films for greatest impact.
"Better make that two."
But as Gassy Man says, there's postmodernism, which has become more of a thing since the 80s, audiences expect a story to be hip and selfreferential and to deconstruct its own tropes even as it fulfills them. We live in a more cynical age, and audiences who fancy themselves hip do not accept a story that is straight and earnest. That raises their suspicions and they then start overanalysing all the inherent cultural biases to prove they are smarter than the storyteller. So the storyteller has to flatter them by inserting elements that knowingly undermine all those elements (eg M's speech at the beginning of Goldeneye), thus the audience's belief in its own hipness is reinforced and they can enjoy the thrill ride of the story.
I know in advertising, good ads have to acknowledge and undermine the expectations of a salespitch for the cynical audience to be swayed. No modern consumer would ever fall for the straight forward ads that were still common in the early 70s when I was a kid. Same with TV, movies, and comics.
They increased the budget between TSWLM and MR. MR is such a cash in. I guess they were trying to keep up.
TSWLM is at 1224% while Moonraker is at 578% and FYEO is at 598%. No wonder that they went Raiders in OP. They were aiming for a bigger hit in 79 and Raiders in 83, while inbetween with FYEO they stopped aping Bond tropes through the prism of Star Wars and went for more rooted, character based stuff much like ESB did ( something similiar happened with The Matrix, DAD, The Bourne Supremacy, CR and QOS).
OP is at 582%. It looks to have leveled off. They must not have known what to do. Maybe thats why a lot of people think AVTAK is a tired retread of GF. They returned a little to slavishly to formula.
The percentage just kept dropping til LTK at 272. They must have been pleased with Goldeneye at 494%. No wonder TND is generic. They increased the budget for TND though. They must have been confident in the franchise.
TND is 209% though. Funny how they chase bigger and bigger hits. All they did was make the main Bond girl the villian for the next one.
TWINE is at 168%, DAD is at 204% while CR is at 483%. Its no wonder they went all matrixy in DAD. They were probably trying different avenues to change the Bond formula aiming for a bigger hit. Then they scaled back when they ripped off Bourne, reboots and, like someone else said, prequels in CR. No wonder QOS was such a mess.
QOS is at 157% while SF is at 455%. No surprise Mendes ended SF basically at the start of DN. They seem to go down to Earth and back to Bond after something doesn't seem to have the blockbuster profit margins they seem to be aiming for. It can't be a coincidence Silva is always a step ahead like the Joker in TDK was either.
Its also not surprising that SP threaded the same ground as SF or that it interconnected every film. It's in vogue and making money elsewhere. Maybe they figured they'd found their blockbuster formula.
SP is only at 291 %. I can smell the greed from here.
I read somewhere once that a blockbuster can be summed up in one line. Fairy tale in space = Star Wars. Hunting a killer shark = Jaws. Bond in space. Moore was relatively solid during the 80s, dropping below 400% when Dalton arrives. It also seems that when Eon ran out of blockbuster hooks copied from outside films they came up with AVTAK, TLD and GE. Of those three only AVTAK and GE had over 400%. No wonder they mixed things up for LTK and kept close to the Bond formula for GE, TND and TWINE. LTK worked out at 272%, the lowest percentage up until that point in time. They churn out films within relatively similar profit projections based on the proceeding films last substanial budget increase and current trends that they adapt to Bond. It's still a gamble and they lose more often than not but with the kind of profits Bond films make its worth it, because they never lose money and when they do hit on a formula that clicks with the audience their profits get substantially larger, such as with CR, SF and SP. However, their budgets got larger in QOS and SP which explains why there near the bottom. How long can they keep going at this rate? It swings like a pendulum.
The problem is that as blockbuster competition becomes ever more heated, the frequency of the margin getting larger slowly becomes less, because of escalating budgets and a saturated market. The last 9 films in a row all fall below 500%. That's why, nowadays, Bond films are less profitable in the percentage versus budget sense. In the 60s and 70s Bond had a corner on the market, the franchise could do what it wanted and it did until it first dipped its toe in what other films were doing with LALD. They must have known it worked because they rushed out the Kung Fu influenced MWTGG. When that didn't do as well they went back to the Bond formula with TSWLM. Moonraker was the first Bond that cost over $100 million and it was the first one after Star Wars. Since the dawn of the modern blockbuster the Bond franchise releases have all been one of many genre films jockeying for position. That's why Bond films cynically cleave to modern trends, because its half the reason why the franchise has lasted so long, but, ironically, it's also the reason why Bond isn't the cultural phenomenon it was in its first 15 years. Between shrinking profit margins and bigger budgets they become just one of many products to be put out, whereas in the early years Bond was its own thing. That's what happens when a franchise is the forerunner of modern action cinema and its stays around for 55 years. We get to see how it tries to keep up, because cultural relevance = money and securing the franchises stability in the years ahead.
One can't deny the quality of the machinations behind the planning and releasing of Bond films. The product is a moneymaking machine but like monkeys at a typewriter it does produce some quality sometimes. But I think there's reasons the Bond films were more relevant to earlier decades. it's just a double edged sword. Eon plays what it thinks is the safest bet and, for the most part, Bond get's to fool people into believing their watching a contemporary character.
I dunno if those numbers are accurate though or how the artistry of each film or the Bond actor effects it all but Connery was no slouch back in the day and Moore had a couple up there too. Also it does seem they went in the wrong direction for a late 80s audience with LTK. But whatever's going on its interesting to me all the same.
I guess Bond films do try to give the audience what Eon thinks we want. Bond's an icon so he's malleable enough to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or traverse a sea of troubles. Bond's such a huge franchise and has had so much milage that it really is interesting witnessing the changing trends within the franchise.
Yeah, Raiders is basically a Bond film. Like I said, Bond imitates the imitators. Maybe Hollywoods like a snake eating it's own tail...eventually it will consume itself.
https://www.thejamesbonddossier.com/james-bond-films/box-office-figures-for-the-james-bond-series.htm
There are many other ways to look at it though.
The changing nature of Bond's returns through the 70/80s into GE in the US market is really interesting and how it shifts around.
TMWTGG: US rank for year #17 - Global rank for year #9 - US 21% of global BO total
TSWLM: #9 - #5 - 25%
MR: #9 - #1 - 33%
FYEO: #8 - #2 - 28%
OP: #6 - #3 - 37%
AVTAK: #13 - #4 - 33%
TLD: #19 - #3 - 27%
LTK: #36 - #11 - 22%
GE: #6 - #4 - 30%
OP's success in the US is quite incredible. Despite sharp declines in the US with AVTAK and TLD they still maintain a #4 and #3 rank globally respectively.
"Better make that two."
FYEO had the classic and wonderful elements of a realistic, back to basics Bond film that felt like a huge refresher after the campy early Moore days. I love Moore's performance here more than any of the other ones he did, and the supporting cast were 'perfect' to me in regards to acting and likability. The locations were by far the greatest in the series in my opinion, with some of the best action scenes in the series. The only thing I disliked was the final confrontation between Bond and the villain - there wasn't one. Otherwise, 'perfect' entry.
OP was and is still a great disappointing coming after Eyes Only, but when I looked beyond that at what the film offered, you have a fantastic performance by an ageing Roger Moore, a great villain, exotic India and not-so-exciting Berlin, a great final stunt in mid-air and a suspenseful plot. Loved General Orlov's performance, Maud Adams as Octopussy and everyone else - including Robert Brown who joined the cast made a great performance. Least favourite 80's Bond, but still in my top ten.
AVTAK is the most underrated film in the series. While Moore does 'look' old for the role, he looks trimmer and more energetic in some ways than in OP, where he certainly weighed a lot more. This film has one of the greatest plots in the Bond series, perhaps my favourite villain played by Christopher Walken, and a fantastic supporting cast. Tanya Roberts is not the best, nor worst Bond girl, and sits in the middle for me. Loved Patrick Macnee, San Francisco (one of the big 'pull' factors for me) and the action scenes where Bond saves Stacey from a burning elevator. This is one of my favourite Bond films, and I'm proud to admit it.
TLD is my favourite first performance from a Bond actor, and Dalton is the best of all the actors in my opinion. Real cold war esq film here, and everyone in the cast is up there with the brilliance of FYEO. Where FYEO was more realistic, this one cracked the dial up and made it harder-edged. The only thing that worked against this brilliant flick were the villains, and that there was no real final showdown (similar to FYEO). I loved the locations, action and the plot is so intriguing, couldn't turn my eyes away. I just can't get over the brilliance of Timothy Dalton, the one who Ian Fleming pictured as James Bond and it really shows here. TLD is classic Bond, and screams 007 throughout the film.
LTK is a roller-coaster ride for those who haven't seen it. It is a wonderful Bond film and Timothy Dalton's performance as Bond is at it's peak here. Robert Davi plays my second favourite villain behind Walken, and the film is full of excitement. Revenge plot against the killing of Felix Leiter's wife, the blood and gore making it the most violent Bond film to date, and the way that Bond works into scheming against Sanchez and turning him against his own allies. The only aspects working against this underrated picture are the Bond girls (very mediocre) and the locations which could have been a lot better. However, the Timothy Dalton era contribute to the main reason why the 80's is remembered.
In terms of how well they have aged, well it is a difficult thing to judge. I would go with the Timothy Dalton era, judging by Daniel Craig stepping in and portraying Bond to a similar manner as Dalton.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
Does the showdown between Whitaker and Bond not count? That's a true showdown, one-on-one.
It does, but it comes off as a bit underwhelming and it all happens too fast. Bond and Koskov had no final showdown either, which would have been better than Whitaker.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
Whitaker is the boss, not Koskov. There are much faster final showdowns between Bond and the villain. The biggest problem with the scene is that it is tacked on to the end and doesn't flow with the movie. I really like that Koskov is arrested rather than killed. It would have just been repetitive if he was killed too.
That's just the thing, you would want a showdown with whoever is seen more in the film. Also, it is suggested that Georgi Koskov is killed with the whole diplomatic bag speech at the end of the scene. I love TLD to death, even though it does sound like I am complaining a lot.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
Plus the shooting at the gun shield and not body is one of the dumbest moments in the series.
"Better make that two."
That was funny lol! The way he just starts laughing while shooting, and Bond is furiously running away.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
PS I always loved the Whitaker, Bond shootout at the end of Daylights!
Yes, that scene was bad......
Mine in AVTAK.
One thing I noticed in OP last night, is "That's amazing Q, it does work." the only compliment Bond ever gives to Q?
"Better make that two."
"I've got to hand it to you, Q" (fake fingerprints)
and
"You've surpassed yourself this time" (voice changer)
Cheers Barbel. It is rare though right?
"Better make that two."