Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The Nadir of the Bond Franchise?
ForYourEyesOnly
In the untained cradle of the heavens
Having just engaged in discussion about DAD, I was prompted to check if this thread had been done before, and to my great surprise, it hasn't. As we all know, the Bond franchise is legendary for its longevity - its ability to reinvent itself, its capacity to bounce back from any disaster and continue on. So I'd like to ask you people - justify your responses if you can - what was the nadir, the absolute lowest point (or perhaps there was more than one), of the Bond franchise? And this doesn't necessarily mean the worst film, but just the worst time for Bond - the time when Bond's future seemed most to be in serious jeopardy.
Was it when the inexperienced Lazenby took over in (the then-considered failure) OHMSS, and promptly left the role after? Did it seem like Bond could ever recover?
Or was it during the peak of the outrageousness in Moore's films, when Jaws became a loving gentle giant as people went to laser war in space, all of which was to piggyback on the success of Star Wars? Did that seem like it irreparably damaged the credibility of the Bond franchise and turned it into an absolute comedy?
Or perhaps it was the end of the Dalton era, where Bond had (by far) its worst decade at the box office, and it felt like Bond was now almost indistinguishable from the typical gritty 80's action films? Perhaps it was a few years later, in 1993-1994, when we hadn't had a Bond film for an awfully long time, and it really felt like Bond was a relic of the Cold War, and now extinct?
Maybe it was the end of the Brosnan era - when external threats peaked, with rival franchises and even parodies of Bond gaining considerably on the real deal. Perhaps the invisible cars and parasailing and abysmal lines of Die Another Day were more laughable than anything in the Moore era - and perhaps it was Bond's poor showing during the turn of the millennium that would seemingly consign the franchise to history.
Or perhaps it's now, where Bond feels perhaps confused, without much interest from some of its biggest people (Craig, Mendes, Waltz) in how it's going to continue. Perhaps it's now that Bond feels most future-less.
What do you guys think? I'm particularly interested to hear from those who've been here since the beginning, and have been with Bond during all of his highs and lows. But everyone else is equally welcome to share their opinion on this.
Was it when the inexperienced Lazenby took over in (the then-considered failure) OHMSS, and promptly left the role after? Did it seem like Bond could ever recover?
Or was it during the peak of the outrageousness in Moore's films, when Jaws became a loving gentle giant as people went to laser war in space, all of which was to piggyback on the success of Star Wars? Did that seem like it irreparably damaged the credibility of the Bond franchise and turned it into an absolute comedy?
Or perhaps it was the end of the Dalton era, where Bond had (by far) its worst decade at the box office, and it felt like Bond was now almost indistinguishable from the typical gritty 80's action films? Perhaps it was a few years later, in 1993-1994, when we hadn't had a Bond film for an awfully long time, and it really felt like Bond was a relic of the Cold War, and now extinct?
Maybe it was the end of the Brosnan era - when external threats peaked, with rival franchises and even parodies of Bond gaining considerably on the real deal. Perhaps the invisible cars and parasailing and abysmal lines of Die Another Day were more laughable than anything in the Moore era - and perhaps it was Bond's poor showing during the turn of the millennium that would seemingly consign the franchise to history.
Or perhaps it's now, where Bond feels perhaps confused, without much interest from some of its biggest people (Craig, Mendes, Waltz) in how it's going to continue. Perhaps it's now that Bond feels most future-less.
What do you guys think? I'm particularly interested to hear from those who've been here since the beginning, and have been with Bond during all of his highs and lows. But everyone else is equally welcome to share their opinion on this.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
DAF - yeah it's all goofy fun but it follows a high quality film and they don't even seem to try
LALD - never been too much into this one, check out the negativity thread for my reasons
TMWTGG - I like it but most people don't
TSWLM - the exception here, the majority loves this one
MR - cash-in on the sci-fi hype, terrible plot, childish and lazy
For me it's the only decade that comes close to a score under 50%. I like TMWTGG and TSWLM (most people don't like GG but like LALD instead), the other three not so much.
I don't feel there is a definite "nadir" to the franchise.
It certainly wasn't OHMSS, that's for sure. In any case that was the high point of the sixties. Yes, even more than FRWL or GF, if only a tad.
If I have to choose a "nadir" (I don't like the word actually) then it was 71 to 74.
LOW BUDGET B-MOVIE FEEL Bond with sometimes embarrassing "special effects" that make the few seconds of CGI in DAD look glamorous.
DAF could be singled out as the low point if we talk one movie. It doesn't matter how it was received back then or if it has friends today. The same applies to DAD as well.
Of course the low point in the series also could be seen in a long gap happening.
In that case it's definitely the 4 year gap between QOS and SF. UNFORGIVABLE.
I'm starting to think that now may be a period of jeopardy though, which is discouraging after the release of Skyfall it felt like the series was in the best health it had ever been. The change of direction in Spectre from what they initially laid out in the DC era feels like we've taken steps back (to some degree) to 2002. I say to some degree because Spectre is far superior to DAD, but has returned to the trad Bond formula and the humour of earlier Bonds that the DC era initially ran away from. Where do they go from here? Do they ape the earlier Bonds as in Spectre? Forget that and continue in the same vein as CR and QoS? Or do they do something radically different? Do they even know? Maybe this is just overreaction after the (in my view slightly) disappointing Spectre?
I was not around in 1979. I did happen to see most Bond films for the first time in a more or less chronological order. What I felt after Moonraker was: how can you go from OHMSS to this in one decade?
Anyway, I feel that the nadir of the franchise is when they produced the largest amount of mediocre films in the shortest possible period. There are no 70's films in my top 10 (#11 and #12) and three of them are in my bottom 5.
That makes the 70's the nadir for me I'd say.
I don't think it's an overreaction. Skyfall is loved by many and it is not comparable to any of the other 22 movies that came before it. Spectre did disappoint the people that regard Skyfall as the "right way" for Bond.
But Skyfall was the exception to the formula that worked for 40 years. That has to be realised by its fans. There will not be another Skyfall.
In any case nothing that happened in the Craig-era can be seen in the slightest as a nadir to the franchise, except if we talk long gaps, then the 4 year gap qualifies.
I think we as Bond fans need to start praising our hero and each other.
True we are probably in for a longer wait for B25 but maybe we need to go back and enjoy what Bond we have for now.
Just my opinion. I don't mean it negative against the poster ...I really don't. And maybe not appropriate here to even say.
I think if reasonable people discuss this thread without getting into a bash-fest of a single movie or actor, we are fine.
Besides that I feel the same, too many threads concentrating on negatives about the franchise.
Still I find this thread a good idea as it keeps it very general and is not aimed at one single thing.
The nadir was probably 1990 when it began to become apparent that the series was truly in jeopardy. Nothing to do with the films as such (although they were steadily making less profit in the 80s), but the boardroom issues, court case, Cubby's doubts about the future after LTK failed to light up the box office.
There were moments when it looked like it was all over.
But Eon had a clear out, parted ways with John Glen and they found their way out of it.
I always wondered how the "miracle" of GoldenEye came to life. Everything was falling into place perfectly including roaring success at the BO.
Was that all Cubby? I know he chose Brosnan, but what about everything else, the score, Martin Campbell, the cast, Tina Turner, etc?
Does anybody know details about those 6 years?
The thing about Spectre is that I really did enjoy it in the cinema, and it did make me want to watch all the older Bond films again as well as read the continuation novels that I haven't got around to. It could also be a really interesting time. None of us are really sure what's going to happen, whether Craig will return or not, or what direction they may take.
Yeah it wasn't until I watched Everything or Nothing that I knew that Cubby was even entertaining selling up Danjaq.
https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/movies/ge_production.php3?t=mi6&s=ge
Yes, great stuff.
1990's Had seen a plethora of generic, benign action movies and GE just tapped into that, to be honest.
It just went backwards, really, playing it safe on every single level...
I think this is the correct answer, if we're looking at both the creative aspect of the franchise as well as simply the survival and longevity of the franchise.
If we're only looking at a creative nadir for the franchise, it's a tossup between the 1970s and right now. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker are the only two films of the 1970s that are worth writing home about, and neither of them are, IMO, top 10 Bond films, although I do recognize being in the minority in my opinion about TSWLM.
I also think we could be facing such a period right now. Coming off of what could be the greatest three-film stretch in the franchise, from Casino Royale to Skyfall, only for EON to, IMO, put forward the worst film in the franchise with Spectre. Couple that with the fact that everything seems to be in limbo yet again, and we could be looking at another rock bottom for the franchise depending on who gets the Bond franchise. If we emerge from 2016 with Disney in control of the films and someone like Aiden Turner playing Bond, then I think this current period would absolutely clinch it in terms of being the nadir of the franchise.
Looking back this was indeed a worrying time. LTK underperformed and they had a Bond who was hardly setting the world alight. No internet, just month after long month waiting for 007 magazine which always shipped about 6 months late.
Historically though I'd probably agree with others who have said that post TMWTGG was when the series was at its lowest ebb.
We had had 3 different Bonds in 4 films, Harry had sold up, creatively the last 3 had been worse and worse culminating in the extremely tired and lacklustre TMWTGG and it just felt like they had completely run out of steam. You have to give Cubby a lot of credit for pulling off the triumphant TSWLM.
By comparison post DAD was barely a blip. They had a very popular Bond and DAD had done good business. They could easily have made another DAD or just dialled it back a bit like FYEO post MR. But I never got the feeling the continuation of the series was in jeopardy like I did in the early 90's and, looking back, how it must have been post TMWTGG.
Actually now seems to be more worrying than post DAD where through sloppy writing and misguided faith in the director they have painted themselves into a corner which is going to be difficult to get out of easily. If Dan stays you are forced to continue the unconvincing Blofeld arc. If he goes you are stuck with doing a total reboot or carrying his personal arc with someone completely new.
Honestly, was there ever a timeline before CR?? I don't think so, no one ever thought about that topic, only with the obvious reboot that became something to talk about.
Bond 25 with a new actor doesn't even have to reference the Craig-era.
And if the new actor is anywhere between 35 and 42 years old there is no need to explain a thing.
So what we just forget stepbrothergate ever happened. Blofeld is in prison and there's an end of it?
And why not, did EON ever explain a thing of a past Bond movie or felt the need for a continuation of sorts? The PTS of FYEO doesn't count.
Did Brosnan Bond ever explain why he wasn't happily ever after with Natalia?
Sure Blofeld didn't die, but did he ever? Again FYEO doesn't count.
EON even can cast a different actor for Blofeld, should he appear again in a future Bond with a new actor, hell they can re-cast him for the next one, it has been done time and time again. Remember YOLT, OHMSS and DAF??
People are too obsessed with continuity nowadays with the Bond franchise.
We are only obsessed with continuity because EON put it on the map.
They could've quite easily continued with standalone Bond films post CR but they decided to make a sequel. They seemed to have extricated themselves from that with SF and set things up for standalone Bonds but then f**ked it all up with an idiotic retcon job and now we are where are.
They are being hoist by their own shoddily scripted petard.
The reason being, after GE, I noticed that the producers appeared not to have a clue how to make a 'real' Bond film. They were including all the tropes (perhaps even overemphasizing them) no doubt, but Bond was quickly becoming a caricature of itself.
To me, it was almost like the studio had decided to self parody. It was somewhat noticeable during TND, but only because of how reminiscent that film was of the past (like SP). However, it was only with TWINE and DAD that I realized they had completely lost the plot.
I believe now that this noticeable reliance on the past and on tropes at the expense of quality was a direct result of Cubby's passing & the ensuing transition to the children.
Moreover, I think it was due to a lack of confidence in the relevance of their own product post-Cold War. With the unprecedented box office and cultural success of Austin Powers etc., EON probably felt the need to join them.
I was so glad to hear of the 'reboot' because I realized that they perhaps finally understood their strategic error, especially post-Bourne (it was clear to me that this series had a massive influence on EON's thinking, which is why I hold it as one of the great franchises that we all owe a debt of gratitude to). 911 helped too.
However, I wasn't sold on Craig, but was willing to give him a chance. The first scenes of CR put any worries I had to rest. Bond was back at his best!
---
If one is asking about the nadir from a 'commercial' perspective, then it is unquestionably the LTK era. That film was a colossal failure at the North American box office. As has been discussed here ad nauseam, and no matter what one may think of him, Dalton's interpretation didn't agree with the US public. Brosnan put the ship back on course commercially with GE, and he is to be commended for that.
Thank Apocalypse for the reboot.
The Dalton era, IMO, was euthanized by people who failed to spot the heart still beating strong. A slight course correction and perhaps a three years hiatus would have sufficed to bring us another great Dalton film. But domestic box office results talked to the execs and they talked dirty.
I'm more inclined to suggest the Brosnan era, ending on that weird Batman & Robin note. VR goggles, ice water surfing, lasers for Mister Kill and "Yo Momma". What were they thinking? Sigmund Freud, analyse that!
Same as SP. A total flop some would have you believe due to the yanks not embracing it like they did SF.