› ›

Is the Bond franchise a zombie?

GetafixGetafix
edited December 2011 in Skyfall Posts: 11,425
Obviously I love Bond, but is the franchise not actually the living dead? To be honest, I've hardly enjoyed any of the films since The Living Daylights - they've all been mirthless, charmless, yawn-fests, living off past glories. If I'm perfectly honest, I think the only reason the franchise has lasted as long as it has is Roger's irresistible charm - he kept the show on the road when it probably should have been packed up and sent home, purely through his star charisma. Brosnan was the absolute nadir and although Craig is excellent by comparison, he is dull and utterly lacking in likeability. What is the point in making more of these putrid, product-placement vehicles?
«13

Comments

  • craigrulescraigrules
    Posts: 284
    that's life let's all kill ourselves!
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Because people other than yourself likes them, that's why they keep getting made. I'm sorry that your viewing experience has dissolved since TLD, but others (such as myself, born after TLD) enjoy both old and new films. Maybe you just need to adjust your standards.
  • PanchitoPistolesPanchitoPistoles 2.0
    Posts: 4,619
    Getafix wrote:
    What is the point in making more of these putrid, product-placement vehicles?

    Most people believe Craig is the best Bond since Connery and CR is the best Bond film since the 60s. Skyfall has an Academy Award winning director and one of the best casts a Bond film has ever had.

    Is the franchise the living dead? It hasn't been this alive since 1969!
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Let's go with this. Besides, I'm a zombie writer, so I know zombies, and the Bond franchise is definitely not a zombie.
  • licensetoforumlicensetoforum
    Posts: 371
    Well it is all perspective. I bet some said this during every decade Bond was around. The point is they are still entertaining and now there are so many films to go back to that it adds to the magic.
  • UnivexUnivex
    Posts: 6,710
    What Panchito said :)>-

    PS: "What Panchito Said" should be a title for something. Short story perhaps? :))
  • GeorgeLazenbyGeorgeLazenby
    Posts: 295
    It died in the 80s, went Zombie in the 90s/early 00s and was reborn in 2006.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    it depends on your perspective...

    people talk about product placement in films today like its something new (much like remakes - like all of sudden it's something new to the world of cinema that needs to stop)... while I'll agree, that both are over in abundance in today's world of film - it's something that none of us have any control over... so you either stop watching movies from 1985 on, or you simply just learn to bear with it...

    your statement of these films being "the living dead" is far from the case - point being, they make money, and a lot of it... so if cash and box office draw is a franchise's life line, then this franchise has never been more alive..... transpose your statement to franchises like Romero's Living Dead series (past Day).. Saw.. Resident Evil - and various others like those...

    and your comment about Rog - while true for the 70s and 80s, when his welcome was starting to wear a little thin towards the end.... you can't ignore that Brosnan and Goldeneye helped bring this franchise out of a 6 year abyss, when many thought the franchise dead and gone.... so sorry - I can't say this recent and continued run of success with Bond had anything to do with Roger.
  • SJK91SJK91
    edited December 2011 Posts: 1,310
    What about the shameless AMC product placement in The Man with the Golden Gun, then? There is a scene that even takes place in an AMC car dealership for God's sake. (With Pepper saying, "How about a demonstration?") That has always been the most cringeworthy product placement in a Bond film for me...yes, it even beats the infamous Rolex line in CR.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    edited December 2011 Posts: 28,694
    Getafix wrote:
    If I'm perfectly honest, I think the only reason the franchise has lasted as long as it has is Roger's irresistible charm - he kept the show on the road when it probably should have been packed up and sent home, purely through his star charisma. Brosnan was the absolute nadir and although Craig is excellent by comparison, he is dull and utterly lacking in likeability. What is the point in making more of these putrid, product-placement vehicles?


    Roger Moore saved the franchise eh? That is laughable my friend. If he saved anything at all it was giving Bond fans more time to do what they wanted instead of trying to get through one of his Bond films. Roger may have kept going and swept in fans in the 70's and early 80's, but he did so sacrificing the character of Bond, a cold, ruthless, unforgiving killer, into a stand up comedy act. I don't appreciate it and avoid the films as much as possible. I'll stick with Sean DN through TB and Craig with CR, QoS, and in the future, SF.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    I disagree about the series being dead since TLD. I can think of at least three films that deserve praise: LTK, GE and CR. We can debate about the rest of the lot.

    Anyway, I predict this thread will be a living dead very soon...
  • dchantrydchantry
    Posts: 278
    Without Roger Moore the Bond films would have ended 30 odd years ago, end of story. Irrespective what anyone thinks of him and his portrayal of Bond, it was the right thing for the era. Its funny how he always gets the blame for the excessive gadgets and comedy, but they actually started with YOLT and DAF respectively.
    Growing up in the 70's and 80's we were just happy to get a Bond film to enjoy every 2 years and trust me, I love all of the different interpretaions of Bond, but while remaking cold war thrillers like FRWL would appeal to Bond fans, it certainly wouldn't drag the mainstream audience back into the cinema for 50 years.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,250
    dchantry wrote:
    Without Roger Moore the Bond films would have ended 30 odd years ago, end of story. Irrespective what anyone thinks of him and his portrayal of Bond, it was the right thing for the era. Its funny how he always gets the blame for the excessive gadgets and comedy, but they actually started with YOLT and DAF respectively.

    We don't know for sure. I too believe that Moore helped to keep Bond alive but for all we know a different actor could have generated even more fanhood for 007. Moore played an important part in keeping Bond successful but was he really the ultimate conditio sine qua non? I just don't know...
  • dchantrydchantry
    Posts: 278
    That is the interesting thing. 50 years continuous and lots of different incarnations of Bond. They must be doing something right.
    For me, Rog and Pierce are both weak areas in my opinion as I'm a big book fan, but their box office, inflation adjusted is up there with the best of them.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Roger was successful as Bond, no doubt - but I think it's far cry to say that he "saved" the franchise during his tenure... because at that point, it didn't really need to be saved... it could've easily have tanked 3 different actors in 3 straight films? (granted, one of them was Connery returning for one last go around).. but the franchise was still strong - it wasn't in dire straights when Roger took the helm - so for the OP to make it sound like Roger rode in on a white horse and saved this franchise from the bowls of movie hell is anything but true.
  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Yep, I think it's safe to say Roger 'saved' the series. At the time. Eon had no idea into how much trouble the series really could get. Rog was a very popular Bond in his day, at least from TSWLM onwards. Not the die-hard-Fleming-buff's version, but the one the crowds queueing in front of theaters wanted to see. It wasn't Rog alone, Eon headed into different directions and cleverly tried to jump on every popular bandwagon. But Moore was the one Bond who went along with everything and he even managed to preserve a certain dignity in the mid of the whole hotchpotch.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    Kennon wrote:
    Eon headed into different directions and cleverly tried to jump on every popular bandwagon. But Moore was the one Bond who went along with everything and he even managed to preserve a certain dignity in the mid of the whole hotchpotch.

    But then rather than innovating and being the bandwagon like the early films, they chose to copy whatever was popular at the time.

  • KennonKennon
    Posts: 297
    Agreed. But was innovation what was felt necessary at the time? People struggled with FYEO, so they played safe with OP and AVTAK. LTK was another step people weren't all happy with and the next few films had to play even safer IMO. Innovation was only welcomed once there was no way out other than breaking a few rules. And already the pressure is on to go back to the days of TSWLM.
  • dchantrydchantry
    Posts: 278
    Pes, absolutely. Trust me, if TSWLM and Moonraker had only shown the same interest as Golden Gun then you can guarantee that we wouldn't be celebrating 50 years continuous next year.
    It wasn't just Rog, but he was the front man.
  • fanbond123fanbond123
    edited December 2011 Posts: 1,661
    "Obviously I love Bond, but is the franchise not actually the living dead?"

    A cynical reply to your question would be it all comes down to:

    Money.

    The films make enough profit to justify Eon and MGM (or whoever owns MGM this week :P) making another Bond film. So every two to three years we get another one and then another one and so on! It may be be with Craig or some new guy but the Bond train never stops. I guess if something goes on too long they say "familiarity breeds contempt." Whether or not Babs and MG truly enjoy making endless Bond films, who knows? It could get a bit boring after a while. I'm sure making Bond films is exciting and cool but if you do the same thing forever it might lose a bit of appeal.

    I'm surprised Eon hasn't made a smaller independent film or a made-for-tv drama. Just something away from the endless cycle of making Bond films.

    And when you think about it, Daniel Craig does look a bit like a zombie. :P
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Bond is pure escapism entertainment and i love it! All the actors have brought something different to the role which is possibly why the franchise has been so successful! They always adapt to the film types around them that are also being released. Like when they made Moonraker instead of For your eyes only due to the success of star wars.

    In the same respect, i dont want the producers going down the route that super hero films take in reintroducing the hero and villains countless times! casing point being Batman as good as the movies are. Same is happening with Superman and i think maybe Spiderman too?

    As much as i love this new take with DC as Bond, whoever takes over the roll? I would like Bond to be an established experienced MI6 agent
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    The franchise seems to pretty popular right now, all the talk of these films being the most succesful ever is of course rubbish but any films that make over $500 million are doing big business.

    It's interesting that in terms of attendance and adjusted figures that the Living Daylights only really made a bit more than A View to a Kill, if people were really that fed up with Roger Moore shouldn't Timothy Daltons debut have been a lot bigger, what with it being the 25th Anniversary and all. Why did the Two Dalton films, while not flops in anyway, not quite reach the heights, should there have been a longer gap from Moore to Dalton, seemed to work for Brosnan and Craig?
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    thats a good point. the bond franchise is the third most successful after Star Wars and Harry Potter.
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Yes, Bond is a cinematic zombie. It will never die. And thank god for that.

    Roger Moore DID save the franchise. He proved that the public would accept another actor in the role and pushed the series into another decade of life. We wouldn't have Bond anymore w/o him. We'd have the first six films, maybe one more try with a different person after Laz who wasn't Moore, and that's it.
  • KennonKennon
    edited December 2011 Posts: 297
    Not sure about that. In our constantly reviving world of pop-culture I think we could have seen another go every fifteen or twenty years; smaller scale and maybe outright spoof. Doubt it would have been as successful though.
  • identigraphidentigraph
    Posts: 1,052
    just to clarify I meant the current Bond films being the "most successful ever" in the Bond series.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited December 2011 Posts: 13,356
    RogueAgent wrote:
    the bond franchise is the third most successful after Star Wars and Harry Potter.

    It's second. After only Harry Potter.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Really? Thats even better! Is that inflation adjusted though? I only remembered that because it was on the news when it was confirmed that Bond 23 was back on the cards again.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited December 2011 Posts: 14,662
    Who is Harry Potter... compared with Bondsteen?
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    lol! this is very true! Bond is the longest ever running franchise and is set to continue forever!!!!! Wahey!!!!! =D>
Sign In or Register to comment.