Which film is more important to the franchise: GE or CR?

[Jedi007]

This is an interesting thread I've found on CBn after visiting it to see if it's still a DC love site, and yes it is still is. Anyway, I just want to know what do you think or what do you consider to be more important to the franchise, GE or CR.

Bond would have never returned to the cinema after LTK, and I think GE's more important because of this. After DAD there could still be a new Bond film, no matter if Brosnan stays in the role or they hired a new one and whoever might that be.

[The Sweeney]

This is an interesting thread I've found on CBn after visiting it to see if it's still a DC love site, and yes it is still is. Anyway, I just want to know what do you think or what do you consider to be more important to the franchise, GE or CR.

Bond would have never returned to the cinema after LTK, and I think GE's more important because of this. After DAD there could still be a new Bond film, no matter if Brosnan stays in the role or they hired a new one and whoever might that be.

Right now, I'm tempted to say GE. Bond had been in the wilderness for 6 years, and for some reason people were tired of Bond (even though LTK was a far superior film to DAD).

GE really put Bond back on the map. However, CR pretty much has done something similar, although like you said, DAD didn't mean the films couldn't continue in a similar vain if they wanted to. If they did, then that would have killed the franchise eventually, IMO.

Let's see how well Bond 22 does first. I have this feeling that CR has won a whole new set of Bond fans over (including hard-nosed critics) to make him as popular as he was during the hey-day 60's. If Bond 22 becomes even bigger than CR, and 23 becomes bigger than 22, then in hindesight you could say CR saved the franchise (by looking at the mess that was DAD, and how horrible it all could have gone had they continued like that).

[stockslivevan]

GE saved the franchise on financial terms. CR saved the franchise on quality terms, while gaining $100+ more than its predecessor, which used to be the biggest grosser.

[Captain Nash]

Awaiting the fallout from Stocks post.
Not that I disagree with you there Stocks, infact I agree with it, but there will always be nit pickers and the like that can't face facts.
Inflation adjusted, ticket sales, blah blah blah bs.
As for the result. I'd say a tie.
Bond was absent not because of LTK or Timothy Dalton, but because of legal reasons and the sale of Mgm / UA.
Had Dalton returned in GE I think there would still be an audience for Bond. Pierce Brosnan may have had a larger audience, but even after the (then) biggest Bond of all time DAD, a new and controversial Bond (Daniel Craig) takes over and trumps the well established Bond of Brosnan, by making not only the biggest Bond film of all time, but winning the fans and critics alike. Even getting a nomination from Bafta. The first time ever that an actor portraying Bond has been nominated for and award.
Brosnan may have had a hugely successful film and era as James Bond, and he should be respected for his contribution. But then so too has Daniel Craig thus far.

[Kristatos]

but there will always be nit pickers and the like that can't face facts.
Inflation adjusted, ticket sales, blah blah blah bs.

Way to close down a debate. Yes, it's just bs to point out that the only reason CR was more successful than DAD, at least in the US, was that ticket prices increase at a rate vastly higher than inflation, and that DAD managed to get 2 million more bums on seats than CR. Worldwide is a different story and I bet you won't think it bs to say that CR did better than DAD even taking inflation into account.

[James]

Even getting a nomination from Bafta. The first time ever that an actor portraying Bond has been nominated for and award.

One thing I had underestimated regarding Craig was his 'luvvie' credentials. The British critics really seemed to like Bond being played by a serious actor who looks a plumber.

[Captain Nash]

Jeez did you two wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning?
Lighten up.

[Skywalker]

I sort of agree with Stock. CR, although not my sort of Bond film, was a step up in class in terms of production from DAD. However, GE certainly took Bond to another level in terms of popularity. Whether this was due to fans just wanting a Bond film after such a lond gap is difficult to say, but GE did re-juvanate the franchise.

Personally speaking, I feel LALD was the film that saved the franchise.

[stockslivevan]

What's with the hostility? Forgive me for bringing up the facts.

James, I doubt it's Craig's so called "plumer face" that had critics praising. They went down to what really matters.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

GoldenEye revived the Cubby Broccoli Bond movie series. Casino Royale signalled the end of it with a modern interpretation of Bond - a classless, musclebound, everyman character that appeals to a new audience and that isn't really James Bond or related to the 20 movies of the Cubby Bond series.

[stockslivevan]

Classless?

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Yes. Daniel Craig's Bond was more working class. Did you not notice?

[stockslivevan]

Yes. Daniel Craig's Bond was more working class. Did you not notice?

Of course, I even saw the same with Connery. The rest I can't say the same.

[The Sweeney]

Yes. Daniel Craig's Bond was more working class. Did you not notice?

Of course, I even saw the same with Connery. The rest I can't say the same.

You got him there.....

[stockslivevan]

Oh, the burden of being always right!

[Commander 0077]

GoldenEye revived the Cubby Broccoli Bond movie series. Casino Royale signalled the end of it with a modern interpretation of Bond - a classless, musclebound, everyman character that appeals to a new audience and that isn't really James Bond or related to the 20 movies of the Cubby Bond series.

Yes, they're entirely two different franchises. The "Cubbys" (nice name for an award) adapted a self-deprecating, dangerous but human character to the films. They created a new genre -- fantastic but not (usually) completely OTT. Bond wasn't a total snob in the books, and he didn't take himself that seriously in the films, etither. Note the novel OHMSS. Bond is impersonating a baronet. While waiting in the airport, he throws down his financial times (I forget the name of the newspaper, but it's supposed to signify an upper class reading material). Then he realizes how silly he looks, and he throws the paper down in self-disgust, remembering that the real Sir Hillary was probably skipping after goats around mountain peaks.

The Cubby version invented a modern day knight -- a dashing Errol Flynn. The films were/are meant as entertainment, never, ever a slice of real life. And so everything was glossy and beautiful -- locations, the women and of course 007 himself. The villains had voices of doom (I read that somewhere) and not your everyday gangstas.

The Brosnan era at least tried to follow the Cubbys, but they missed some of the boat because, of course, Cubby / Saltzman were no longer around.

The "Babs" version did not invent a new genre -- no longer a leader but a follower. They threw away the essentials that made the Cubby Bond something different. They followed the generic action film formula. Not a bigger than life hero who enjoys himself, but a sour puss.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

Connery did not play Bond like a confused social inadequate. Although working class, Connery did not look like some weatherbeaten Ukrainian farmer.

[Captain Nash]

I'm trying to think of an actor who played Bond that way Dom?
Do you have a problem with Ukrainian farmers?
The W.U.F.A. (Weatherbeaten Ukrainian Farmers Asscoiation) may not take kindly to your comments

[The Sweeney]

The "Babs" version did not invent a new genre -- no longer a leader but a follower. They threw away the essentials that made the Cubby Bond something different. They followed the generic action film formula. Not a bigger than life hero who enjoys himself, but a sour puss.

If DAD is what you call leading the pack, then you are welcome to it!

[The Sweeney]

Connery did not play Bond like a confused social inadequate. Although working class, Connery did not look like some weatherbeaten Ukrainian farmer.

Neither does Craig.