(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.
You did point out that the property was so attractive that it wouldn't be a hard decision for an investor to pick it up. Yet, despite those things, Saltzman couldn't get anyone to overlook his shortcomings for such a promising prospect, which was my point.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
You did point out that the property was so attractive that it wouldn't be a hard decision for an investor to pick it up. Yet, despite those things, Saltzman couldn't get anyone to overlook his shortcomings for such a promising prospect, which was my point.
If you'll forgive me, that isn't actually what I pointed out, although it may have been your inference. What I said was that the prospect of a series films based on Ian Fleming's successful Bond novels represented "a fairly sound investment."
I absolutely agree with you that it took both Broccoli's brio and contacts to secure the deal with UA. I'm not sure if we're even in disagreement about much of this.
To go back to the original question.. "Are Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson the saviours of the series?"
I would say no. I don't think the series was in terminal decline under Cubby's leadership. By the time LTK came out Bond had been around for over 25 years! It is an amazing accomplishment to keep a movie series going beyond 2 or 3 installments and to keep it relevant. This is always the pro-Moore argument right? Like him or not give him credit for keeping the series alive. Same goes for Cubby after Saltzman! Yes, people may not like the direction the film series took or stayed on depending on when you want to pinpoint the start of the tongue and cheek approach but Bond through LTK was still entertaining and viable unlike Rocky V, Halloween XXXVII or whatever they ended with Smokey and the Bandit III etc. The point is Cubby/EON wasn't just cashing in. There was still an effort to put out a quality movie.
Now how are we judging success? Is it by largest gross? biggest profit margins? I'm not sure any of that is fair to a long running series. I read a James Garner (Maverick/Rockford Files) quote once where he said he never wanted to be number one because from there you can only go down. Instead he wanted to be right in the middle. Well I think for Bond it had to be the same approach. From what I can see each Bond film has turned in a tidy profit, which is why there has always been a follow up. They may not have all big the biggest of blockbusters but they were profitable and profitable enough to warrant yet ANOTHER Bond film. Again that's a pretty impressive accomplishment! Some were more profitable. I think Thunderball rode on the coattails of Thunderball and MR on the coattails of TSWLM and Star Wars! Some didn't do as well and maybe AVTAK suffered from Roger being too old, or the fact that in 1985 there were a lot more "action" films then a decade before. But even the less successful films were profitable!
But here is where it also gets interesting. Moonraker made more than FYEO, but Moonraker was certainly elevated by a strong Bond movie before it and the whole "space" thing so FYEO not only saw some normalization but it may have been hurt by Moonraker's over the top plot.. okay.. so then OP makes less than FYEO but it also had to compete with NSNA. Maybe they didnt' compete directly but it certainly could have lost money from those who decided they'd rather wait until they could see Connery on th big screen. AVTAK makes less that OP.. again aging actor/more competiton? TLD rebounds but why? My guess is the curiosity in a new actor and now LTK dips and actually doesn't really even make a profit in the USA (apparently the only Bond movie this has happened to).
Why? The common answer is that Dalton's approach was too severe to an audience weened on Roger Moore. I don't know if agree with that. Dalton's approach WAS more severe but TLD is a classic Bond film that has the Bond feel to it and all the Bond elements. To me, LTK doesn't have that. It's TOO severe. I wonder if Dalton's second movie had been more like TLD and maybe LTK had been his 3rd or 4th (wouldn't that have been nice!) if it would have been better received people would have had a chance to get used to Dalton's Bond before he got even edgier... Okay before I completely get off track the point is was LTK's lackluster boxoffice due to Dalton or the movie itself? Since Dalton didn't get to do a 3rd movie it's tough for us to really figure that out.
So now comes Brosnan and pretty good success and Craig and so far outstanding success but... as much as I like and really enjoy these movies they seem to lack the "feel" of a Bond movie and they do feel like somewhat generic action movies. Yes, to a point made in an earlier post.. "The Bond films have always reflected the film environment they were made in " but Bond has always been DISTINCTLY Bond in the 90's Bond often felt to me like True Lies, Mission Impossible, Patriot Games, etc. As much as I like Craig I thought the new Bond's heavily borrowed from the "feel" of the Bourne Movies and they have lost some of that Bond "feel". I can accept this because I think for the franchise to continue it has to evolve and the direction is an interesting one but I wonder if they are losing what has made the Bond movies special and what has allowed the franchise to continue on for 50 years. With the way the series has evolved will it go for another decade or more?
To go back to the original question.. "Are Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson the saviours of the series?"
I would say no. I don't think the series was in terminal decline under Cubby's leadership. By the time LTK came out Bond had been around for over 25 years! It is an amazing accomplishment to keep a movie series going beyond 2 or 3 installments and to keep it relevant. This is always the pro-Moore argument right? Like him or not give him credit for keeping the series alive. Same goes for Cubby after Saltzman! Yes, people may not like the direction the film series took or stayed on depending on when you want to pinpoint the start of the tongue and cheek approach but Bond through LTK was still entertaining and viable unlike Rocky V, Halloween XXXVII or whatever they ended with Smokey and the Bandit III etc. The point is Cubby/EON wasn't just cashing in. There was still an effort to put out a quality movie.
Thanks for tackling the question head-on. You're absolutely correct about Cubby Broccoli's achievements. It really is remarkable that he kept the series going for so long and he was justifiably proud of it. When you look at how many series have come and gone in the time that Bond has been on screen, it's remarkable. The Supermans, the Batmans, the Sherlock Holmes... and the ratings eventually declined and the series withered and died (and, often, were resurrected and went through it all again. But Bond's still here.
I suppose, looking at the adjusted box office graph I posted in my original post, the series appeared to be in terminal decline in 1974. TMWTGG had just been released to terrible reviews and the worst box office in the series' history, a new wave of edgy, auteur-driven films was beginning to dominate Hollywood and Europe, the Bond role had been recast three times in the past 5 years and Harry Saltzman broke up the partnership and sold his shares to a studio. It would have been easy to simply throw in the towel but Broccoli created a monster hit with TSWLM and reinvigorated the series.
But here is where it also gets interesting. Moonraker made more than FYEO, but Moonraker was certainly elevated by a strong Bond movie before it and the whole "space" thing so FYEO not only saw some normalization but it may have been hurt by Moonraker's over the top plot.. okay.. so then OP makes less than FYEO but it also had to compete with NSNA. Maybe they didnt' compete directly but it certainly could have lost money from those who decided they'd rather wait until they could see Connery on th big screen. AVTAK makes less that OP.. again aging actor/more competiton? TLD rebounds but why? My guess is the curiosity in a new actor and now LTK dips and actually doesn't really even make a profit in the USA (apparently the only Bond movie this has happened to).
Why? The common answer is that Dalton's approach was too severe to an audience weened on Roger Moore. I don't know if agree with that. Dalton's approach WAS more severe but TLD is a classic Bond film that has the Bond feel to it and all the Bond elements. To me, LTK doesn't have that. It's TOO severe. I wonder if Dalton's second movie had been more like TLD and maybe LTK had been his 3rd or 4th (wouldn't that have been nice!) if it would have been better received people would have had a chance to get used to Dalton's Bond before he got even edgier... Okay before I completely get off track the point is was LTK's lackluster boxoffice due to Dalton or the movie itself? Since Dalton didn't get to do a 3rd movie it's tough for us to really figure that out.
Great point that the success of a film will carry over to the box office results for its sequel (I think this works with other franchises like Spiderman etc. too). I really think that LTK's lacklustre box office was down to a combination of both the film, Dalton, the marketing campaign and the competition. It was an incredibly competitive summer box office, the film was edgy and hard fought but didn't really have a massive "hook", the one hook that it did have - that Bond goes rogue - was neutered by changing the title from Licence Revoked and the marketing campaign was awful. Also, I adore Dalton as Bond but I think it's often overlooked that he just doesn't have the star quality of Connery, Moore, Brosnan or Craig (It's interesting to note that before and since his stint as Bond, Dalton has very rarely taken lead roles whereas Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig almost exclusively take lead roles.)
So now comes Brosnan and pretty good success and Craig and so far outstanding success but... as much as I like and really enjoy these movies they seem to lack the "feel" of a Bond movie and they do feel like somewhat generic action movies. Yes, to a point made in an earlier post.. "The Bond films have always reflected the film environment they were made in " but Bond has always been DISTINCTLY Bond in the 90's Bond often felt to me like True Lies, Mission Impossible, Patriot Games, etc. As much as I like Craig I thought the new Bond's heavily borrowed from the "feel" of the Bourne Movies and they have lost some of that Bond "feel". I can accept this because I think for the franchise to continue it has to evolve and the direction is an interesting one but I wonder if they are losing what has made the Bond movies special and what has allowed the franchise to continue on for 50 years. With the way the series has evolved will it go for another decade or more?
This is where we disagree, I'm afraid, as I enjoy the Craig films immensely and think they're far more Bondian than Moore's films, for example. But that's just an opinion. You can be sure that the series will keep adapting and will get back to a point you enjoy at some point!
This is where we disagree, I'm afraid, as I enjoy the Craig films immensely and think they're far more Bondian than Moore's films, for example. But that's just an opinion. You can be sure that the series will keep adapting and will get back to a point you enjoy at some point!
I actually enjoy the Craig films (haven't watched Skyfall yet) a lot. I also liked the Brosnan films too but maintain they have lost some of the "feel" of the classic Bond films and seem to follow the lead of the action movies of their time.
I assume when you say that you think the Craig films are more Bondian, you mean closer to the literary character. I can't debate you on that as I have never read the books ( 8-) I grew up with the film series firmly established and during Roger Moore's tenure, so reading the books has never been essential to my enjoyment of Bond.. although I DO want to read them at some point..) But being closer to the literary character doesn't mean capturing what has made the film series special.
This is where we disagree, I'm afraid, as I enjoy the Craig films immensely and think they're far more Bondian than Moore's films, for example. But that's just an opinion. You can be sure that the series will keep adapting and will get back to a point you enjoy at some point!
I actually enjoy the Craig films (haven't watched Skyfall yet) a lot. I also liked the Brosnan films too but maintain they have lost some of the "feel" of the classic Bond films and seem to follow the lead of the action movies of their time.
I assume when you say that you think the Craig films are more Bondian, you mean closer to the literary character. I can't debate you on that as I have never read the books ( 8-) I grew up with the film series firmly established and during Roger Moore's tenure, so reading the books has never been essential to my enjoyment of Bond.. although I DO want to read them at some point..) But being closer to the literary character doesn't mean capturing what has made the film series special.
That was my fault for inferring something which you didn't say. You should give SF a go - it really makes a point of trying, at least, to capture the "classic Bond" feel.
This is where we disagree, I'm afraid, as I enjoy the Craig films immensely and think they're far more Bondian than Moore's films, for example. But that's just an opinion. You can be sure that the series will keep adapting and will get back to a point you enjoy at some point!
I actually enjoy the Craig films (haven't watched Skyfall yet) a lot. I also liked the Brosnan films too but maintain they have lost some of the "feel" of the classic Bond films and seem to follow the lead of the action movies of their time.
I assume when you say that you think the Craig films are more Bondian, you mean closer to the literary character. I can't debate you on that as I have never read the books ( 8-) I grew up with the film series firmly established and during Roger Moore's tenure, so reading the books has never been essential to my enjoyment of Bond.. although I DO want to read them at some point..) But being closer to the literary character doesn't mean capturing what has made the film series special.
If the Roger Moore Bond films are your benchmark for what makes the series special, then I can certainly understand your feelings concerning the Daniel Craig era. I have only read a couple of the novels, so my interest in Bond really stems from the movies. I am a tremendous fan of the Connery films, and although they became less serious and more campy as the series progressed, for me the Bond movies went completely off the rails with the Moore films, at least up until FYEO. That's why I was so pleased when Dalton took over and the films took on a flavor that was more hard-edged spy film than lighthearted romp (although even the Dalton movies aren't free of fantastical elements, and that's fine.). The Brosnan films occupy a weird middle ground that I was fine with until the 2nd half of DAD. Now we have the Craig-style Bonds, and again I am enjoying the harder edge, although so far Casino Royale is still at this point the best of his stints as 007. As far as I'm concerned the series is still pretty special. I hope that continues to be the case. At any rate, I'll be watching! :007)
This is where we disagree, I'm afraid, as I enjoy the Craig films immensely and think they're far more Bondian than Moore's films, for example. But that's just an opinion. You can be sure that the series will keep adapting and will get back to a point you enjoy at some point!
I actually enjoy the Craig films (haven't watched Skyfall yet) a lot. I also liked the Brosnan films too but maintain they have lost some of the "feel" of the classic Bond films and seem to follow the lead of the action movies of their time.
I assume when you say that you think the Craig films are more Bondian, you mean closer to the literary character. I can't debate you on that as I have never read the books ( 8-) I grew up with the film series firmly established and during Roger Moore's tenure, so reading the books has never been essential to my enjoyment of Bond.. although I DO want to read them at some point..) But being closer to the literary character doesn't mean capturing what has made the film series special.
If the Roger Moore Bond films are your benchmark for what makes the series special, then I can certainly understand your feelings concerning the Daniel Craig era. I have only read a couple of the novels, so my interest in Bond really stems from the movies. I am a tremendous fan of the Connery films, and although they became less serious and more campy as the series progressed, for me the Bond movies went completely off the rails with the Moore films, at least up until FYEO. That's why I was so pleased when Dalton took over and the films took on a flavor that was more hard-edged spy film than lighthearted romp (although even the Dalton movies aren't free of fantastical elements, and that's fine.). The Brosnan films occupy a weird middle ground that I was fine with until the 2nd half of DAD. Now we have the Craig-style Bonds, and again I am enjoying the harder edge, although so far Casino Royale is still at this point the best of his stints as 007. As far as I'm concerned the series is still pretty special. I hope that continues to be the case. At any rate, I'll be watching! :007)
I realize you're not a fan of Roger Moore (I wonder if you appreciate anything about what he brought to the role?) However to me the benchmark for what makes the series special, what gives it the "Bond feel" is Goldfinger. It has all the elements that to me define a Bond movie, great music, gadgets, girls, action, and witty humor. If you asked me who my favorite Bond is, it's absolutely Roger Moore! If you ask me who the BEST Bond is I'd probably have to say Connery. I think Roger was great with the cool, suave, aspects of Bond. He was the best with humor, he was also excellent with the dramatic but the movies were tailored to those traits that came easily to Roger. But Roger's films still captured those elements that all came together in Goldfinger. TLD had them.. I don't like LTK to me it didn't feel like Bond. Brosnan, well I don't know he seemed like a combination of Connery and Moore but not as good as either in the respective strengths and the movies felt too much like action movies and not enough like adventure movies (if that makes sense). Craig.. I really have enjoyed his first two. Grit has replaced adventure. I miss the adventure but like edgy realism. They do feel more like Bourne than Bond but the series most evolve. You don't like the gags and humor of the 70's and 80's but that was the evolution that kept the series relevant during that time frame. I am accepting that this is change of direction to keep the series relevant and while I do like it I also miss some of the elements that are now downplayed or missing altogether.
I actually enjoy the Craig films (haven't watched Skyfall yet) a lot. I also liked the Brosnan films too but maintain they have lost some of the "feel" of the classic Bond films and seem to follow the lead of the action movies of their time.
I assume when you say that you think the Craig films are more Bondian, you mean closer to the literary character. I can't debate you on that as I have never read the books ( 8-) I grew up with the film series firmly established and during Roger Moore's tenure, so reading the books has never been essential to my enjoyment of Bond.. although I DO want to read them at some point..) But being closer to the literary character doesn't mean capturing what has made the film series special.
If the Roger Moore Bond films are your benchmark for what makes the series special, then I can certainly understand your feelings concerning the Daniel Craig era. I have only read a couple of the novels, so my interest in Bond really stems from the movies. I am a tremendous fan of the Connery films, and although they became less serious and more campy as the series progressed, for me the Bond movies went completely off the rails with the Moore films, at least up until FYEO. That's why I was so pleased when Dalton took over and the films took on a flavor that was more hard-edged spy film than lighthearted romp (although even the Dalton movies aren't free of fantastical elements, and that's fine.). The Brosnan films occupy a weird middle ground that I was fine with until the 2nd half of DAD. Now we have the Craig-style Bonds, and again I am enjoying the harder edge, although so far Casino Royale is still at this point the best of his stints as 007. As far as I'm concerned the series is still pretty special. I hope that continues to be the case. At any rate, I'll be watching! :007)
I realize you're not a fan of Roger Moore (I wonder if you appreciate anything about what he brought to the role?) However to me the benchmark for what makes the series special, what gives it the "Bond feel" is Goldfinger. It has all the elements that to me define a Bond movie, great music, gadgets, girls, action, and witty humor. If you asked me who my favorite Bond is, it's absolutely Roger Moore! If you ask me who the BEST Bond is I'd probably have to say Connery. I think Roger was great with the cool, suave, aspects of Bond. He was the best with humor, he was also excellent with the dramatic but the movies were tailored to those traits that came easily to Roger. But Roger's films still captured those elements that all came together in Goldfinger. TLD had them.. I don't like LTK to me it didn't feel like Bond. Brosnan, well I don't know he seemed like a combination of Connery and Moore but not as good as either in the respective strengths and the movies felt too much like action movies and not enough like adventure movies (if that makes sense). Craig.. I really have enjoyed his first two. Grit has replaced adventure. I miss the adventure but like edgy realism. They do feel more like Bourne than Bond but the series most evolve. You don't like the gags and humor of the 70's and 80's but that was the evolution that kept the series relevant during that time frame. I am accepting that this is change of direction to keep the series relevant and while I do like it I also miss some of the elements that are now downplayed or missing altogether.
I get what you're saying, and I agree to a large extent. Your example of Goldfinger is a good one - it's my favorite because it features my favorite Bond actor with all of the elements of a classic Bond film firmly in place. Some of those elements are indeed missing from Craig's films, but once I experienced Timothy Dalton's more serious turn as Bond, I wasn't too keen on going back to the more light-hearted aspects of the previous films. That is one reason I have come to embrace Craig's Bond (plus the fact that I think he's a terrific actor). As for Moore, I think he is a fine actor in the right role, but I am just not impressed with his portrayal of Bond. Yes, he is good with a quip, but I think Connery actually does it better (funny with a sardonic edge). As I have complained ad nauseum. Moore is awkward in the action scenes and to me he just doesn't project a sense of danger. I just never warmed to him as 007.
The answer is no. They may save a franchise, but in the end it will end up nothing like the Fleming-Bond, it will end something that I am not going to be interested in seeing. But you have to take one thing into consideration. Between 1969 and 1989 there were 12 James Bond movies. between 1994 and 2012 there were only 7. I think about 1983 a Bond fatigue started that coincided with an aged Roger Moore.
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?
"And if I told you that I'm from the Ministry of Defence?" James Bond - The Property of a Lady
Choosing the 20-year period between 1969 and 1989 and comparing it with the 18-year period between 1994 and 2012 reflects a particular viewpoint. To look at it another way, In the 15-year period between 1978 and 1993 there were 6 James Bond movies; in the 15-year period between 1994 and 2009 there were also 6.
I appreciate that you may not like the direction the films have taken but that will always be the case with a film series that makes changes. I guess the flip side is that the series wins new fans along the way.
The answer is no. They may save a franchise, but in the end it will end up nothing like the Fleming-Bond, it will end something that I am not going to be interested in seeing. But you have to take one thing into consideration. Between 1969 and 1989 there were 12 James Bond movies. between 1994 and 2012 there were only 7. I think about 1983 a Bond fatigue started that coincided with an aged Roger Moore.
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?
Comments
You did point out that the property was so attractive that it wouldn't be a hard decision for an investor to pick it up. Yet, despite those things, Saltzman couldn't get anyone to overlook his shortcomings for such a promising prospect, which was my point.
If you'll forgive me, that isn't actually what I pointed out, although it may have been your inference. What I said was that the prospect of a series films based on Ian Fleming's successful Bond novels represented "a fairly sound investment."
I absolutely agree with you that it took both Broccoli's brio and contacts to secure the deal with UA. I'm not sure if we're even in disagreement about much of this.
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 would say no. I don't think the series was in terminal decline under Cubby's leadership. By the time LTK came out Bond had been around for over 25 years! It is an amazing accomplishment to keep a movie series going beyond 2 or 3 installments and to keep it relevant. This is always the pro-Moore argument right? Like him or not give him credit for keeping the series alive. Same goes for Cubby after Saltzman! Yes, people may not like the direction the film series took or stayed on depending on when you want to pinpoint the start of the tongue and cheek approach but Bond through LTK was still entertaining and viable unlike Rocky V, Halloween XXXVII or whatever they ended with Smokey and the Bandit III etc. The point is Cubby/EON wasn't just cashing in. There was still an effort to put out a quality movie.
Now how are we judging success? Is it by largest gross? biggest profit margins? I'm not sure any of that is fair to a long running series. I read a James Garner (Maverick/Rockford Files) quote once where he said he never wanted to be number one because from there you can only go down. Instead he wanted to be right in the middle. Well I think for Bond it had to be the same approach. From what I can see each Bond film has turned in a tidy profit, which is why there has always been a follow up. They may not have all big the biggest of blockbusters but they were profitable and profitable enough to warrant yet ANOTHER Bond film. Again that's a pretty impressive accomplishment! Some were more profitable. I think Thunderball rode on the coattails of Thunderball and MR on the coattails of TSWLM and Star Wars! Some didn't do as well and maybe AVTAK suffered from Roger being too old, or the fact that in 1985 there were a lot more "action" films then a decade before. But even the less successful films were profitable!
But here is where it also gets interesting. Moonraker made more than FYEO, but Moonraker was certainly elevated by a strong Bond movie before it and the whole "space" thing so FYEO not only saw some normalization but it may have been hurt by Moonraker's over the top plot.. okay.. so then OP makes less than FYEO but it also had to compete with NSNA. Maybe they didnt' compete directly but it certainly could have lost money from those who decided they'd rather wait until they could see Connery on th big screen. AVTAK makes less that OP.. again aging actor/more competiton? TLD rebounds but why? My guess is the curiosity in a new actor and now LTK dips and actually doesn't really even make a profit in the USA (apparently the only Bond movie this has happened to).
Why? The common answer is that Dalton's approach was too severe to an audience weened on Roger Moore. I don't know if agree with that. Dalton's approach WAS more severe but TLD is a classic Bond film that has the Bond feel to it and all the Bond elements. To me, LTK doesn't have that. It's TOO severe. I wonder if Dalton's second movie had been more like TLD and maybe LTK had been his 3rd or 4th (wouldn't that have been nice!) if it would have been better received people would have had a chance to get used to Dalton's Bond before he got even edgier... Okay before I completely get off track the point is was LTK's lackluster boxoffice due to Dalton or the movie itself? Since Dalton didn't get to do a 3rd movie it's tough for us to really figure that out.
So now comes Brosnan and pretty good success and Craig and so far outstanding success but... as much as I like and really enjoy these movies they seem to lack the "feel" of a Bond movie and they do feel like somewhat generic action movies. Yes, to a point made in an earlier post.. "The Bond films have always reflected the film environment they were made in " but Bond has always been DISTINCTLY Bond in the 90's Bond often felt to me like True Lies, Mission Impossible, Patriot Games, etc. As much as I like Craig I thought the new Bond's heavily borrowed from the "feel" of the Bourne Movies and they have lost some of that Bond "feel". I can accept this because I think for the franchise to continue it has to evolve and the direction is an interesting one but I wonder if they are losing what has made the Bond movies special and what has allowed the franchise to continue on for 50 years. With the way the series has evolved will it go for another decade or more?
Thanks for tackling the question head-on. You're absolutely correct about Cubby Broccoli's achievements. It really is remarkable that he kept the series going for so long and he was justifiably proud of it. When you look at how many series have come and gone in the time that Bond has been on screen, it's remarkable. The Supermans, the Batmans, the Sherlock Holmes... and the ratings eventually declined and the series withered and died (and, often, were resurrected and went through it all again. But Bond's still here.
I suppose, looking at the adjusted box office graph I posted in my original post, the series appeared to be in terminal decline in 1974. TMWTGG had just been released to terrible reviews and the worst box office in the series' history, a new wave of edgy, auteur-driven films was beginning to dominate Hollywood and Europe, the Bond role had been recast three times in the past 5 years and Harry Saltzman broke up the partnership and sold his shares to a studio. It would have been easy to simply throw in the towel but Broccoli created a monster hit with TSWLM and reinvigorated the series.
Great point that the success of a film will carry over to the box office results for its sequel (I think this works with other franchises like Spiderman etc. too). I really think that LTK's lacklustre box office was down to a combination of both the film, Dalton, the marketing campaign and the competition. It was an incredibly competitive summer box office, the film was edgy and hard fought but didn't really have a massive "hook", the one hook that it did have - that Bond goes rogue - was neutered by changing the title from Licence Revoked and the marketing campaign was awful. Also, I adore Dalton as Bond but I think it's often overlooked that he just doesn't have the star quality of Connery, Moore, Brosnan or Craig (It's interesting to note that before and since his stint as Bond, Dalton has very rarely taken lead roles whereas Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig almost exclusively take lead roles.)
This is where we disagree, I'm afraid, as I enjoy the Craig films immensely and think they're far more Bondian than Moore's films, for example. But that's just an opinion. You can be sure that the series will keep adapting and will get back to a point you enjoy at some point!
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 actually enjoy the Craig films (haven't watched Skyfall yet) a lot. I also liked the Brosnan films too but maintain they have lost some of the "feel" of the classic Bond films and seem to follow the lead of the action movies of their time.
I assume when you say that you think the Craig films are more Bondian, you mean closer to the literary character. I can't debate you on that as I have never read the books ( 8-) I grew up with the film series firmly established and during Roger Moore's tenure, so reading the books has never been essential to my enjoyment of Bond.. although I DO want to read them at some point..) But being closer to the literary character doesn't mean capturing what has made the film series special.
That was my fault for inferring something which you didn't say. You should give SF a go - it really makes a point of trying, at least, to capture the "classic Bond" feel.
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.
If the Roger Moore Bond films are your benchmark for what makes the series special, then I can certainly understand your feelings concerning the Daniel Craig era. I have only read a couple of the novels, so my interest in Bond really stems from the movies. I am a tremendous fan of the Connery films, and although they became less serious and more campy as the series progressed, for me the Bond movies went completely off the rails with the Moore films, at least up until FYEO. That's why I was so pleased when Dalton took over and the films took on a flavor that was more hard-edged spy film than lighthearted romp (although even the Dalton movies aren't free of fantastical elements, and that's fine.). The Brosnan films occupy a weird middle ground that I was fine with until the 2nd half of DAD. Now we have the Craig-style Bonds, and again I am enjoying the harder edge, although so far Casino Royale is still at this point the best of his stints as 007. As far as I'm concerned the series is still pretty special. I hope that continues to be the case. At any rate, I'll be watching! :007)
I realize you're not a fan of Roger Moore (I wonder if you appreciate anything about what he brought to the role?) However to me the benchmark for what makes the series special, what gives it the "Bond feel" is Goldfinger. It has all the elements that to me define a Bond movie, great music, gadgets, girls, action, and witty humor. If you asked me who my favorite Bond is, it's absolutely Roger Moore! If you ask me who the BEST Bond is I'd probably have to say Connery. I think Roger was great with the cool, suave, aspects of Bond. He was the best with humor, he was also excellent with the dramatic but the movies were tailored to those traits that came easily to Roger. But Roger's films still captured those elements that all came together in Goldfinger. TLD had them.. I don't like LTK to me it didn't feel like Bond. Brosnan, well I don't know he seemed like a combination of Connery and Moore but not as good as either in the respective strengths and the movies felt too much like action movies and not enough like adventure movies (if that makes sense). Craig.. I really have enjoyed his first two. Grit has replaced adventure. I miss the adventure but like edgy realism. They do feel more like Bourne than Bond but the series most evolve. You don't like the gags and humor of the 70's and 80's but that was the evolution that kept the series relevant during that time frame. I am accepting that this is change of direction to keep the series relevant and while I do like it I also miss some of the elements that are now downplayed or missing altogether.
I get what you're saying, and I agree to a large extent. Your example of Goldfinger is a good one - it's my favorite because it features my favorite Bond actor with all of the elements of a classic Bond film firmly in place. Some of those elements are indeed missing from Craig's films, but once I experienced Timothy Dalton's more serious turn as Bond, I wasn't too keen on going back to the more light-hearted aspects of the previous films. That is one reason I have come to embrace Craig's Bond (plus the fact that I think he's a terrific actor). As for Moore, I think he is a fine actor in the right role, but I am just not impressed with his portrayal of Bond. Yes, he is good with a quip, but I think Connery actually does it better (funny with a sardonic edge). As I have complained ad nauseum. Moore is awkward in the action scenes and to me he just doesn't project a sense of danger. I just never warmed to him as 007.
I appreciate that you may not like the direction the films have taken but that will always be the case with a film series that makes changes. I guess the flip side is that the series wins new fans along the way.
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.