The arrogant explanation: Since when does the peasant audience decide what is art?
The other personal explanation: Even the lower performers (OHMSS, TMWTGG, AVTAK, LTK) offer many delights and often should have been recognized by the audience as well as the big hitters. Was SF really worth the billion and OHMSS not? Gee, whiz, of course not.
But, you know, there is that German word, and the Bonds are full of it.
Zeitgeist. Yes.
Am pressed for time right now, so later more about this. Iâd just like to offer this Forbes article as a handy list of domestic, global and adjusted-for-inflation revenue so we have a general idea where films rank:
Thunderball
Moonraker
Spectre
All polish ( thanks@jim) what has gone before it. Through the prism of time they become more like art.
Iâm going with TRUTH! (not Truth Social, ta-dum).
There is no such thing as a list without outliers but over the course of 20-odd films, there is enough of pattern to boldy exclaim - TRUTH. The âbetterâ films do inhabit the top end, while some of the duds (hey there TMWTGG) also made a ârelativeâ less. Yes, OHMSS is a massive exception, and Iâd throw QoS in there as example of a film making a ton of money even though a great many were typing how much they hated it (not me). Perhaps they needed to go more than once to really nail what they didnât like!
In general, I think the box office is going to generally reflect a critical consensus.
Todayâs âuniversally acknowledged truthâ⹠© is controversial: as @secretagentfan already pointed out, do DIE ANOTHER DAY or SKYFALL really tower so far above ON HER MAJESTYâS SECRET SERVICE in terms of financial revenue with any justification? Isnât even LICENCE TO KILL a decently made effort to deliver something watchable out of a shoestring budget?
It all hinges on what weâd consider to be entertainment and whether its merits should be reflected in its profits. But entertainment is in a very very unique place here. If we compare ordinary products, say, cars you could take a number of objective criteria and see how different models do. Same with most products, you make a list of criteria they have to meet and you can assess almost anything from Asia-made goods to high end luxury goods.
With entertainment we havenât got any objective benchmarks; itâs entirely up to the consumer whether one feels adequately entertained by whatever it is. Of course thereâs also the question of consumer awareness: Do Klingons know about my brand new tome of blood poetry? If not my poetry could be a landmark of Klingon culture and still wouldnât sell.
But this is patently not the situation of any Bond film after 1964. Whenever thereâs a new one in the theatre people know about it. And frequently they go to watch the flick. So any time this particular product is available its prospective audience knows itâs there. And whenever thatâs the case the audience usually gives it a try, regardless what critics and tabloids say about it*.
So the box office of every entry in the Forbes list, even that of 1967âs CASINO ROYALE, reflects what the audience of the day made of it. These films are made for the broadest possible square section of the public. How else to decide whether theyâve reached them other than the box office?
There could of course be outside influences, true. In LTKâs case the competition is oftentimes mentioned. But can it really be somehow âunjust/unfairâ if thereâs an Indiana Jones or a Batman film playing on the screen next door?
If European consumers donât buy US cars that may not be the fault of the cars, so one might get the idea to try and alleviate unjust trade barriers. But what if they still donât buy US cars then? You can hardly force them to. And if people rather watch TEMPLE OF DOOM than LICENCE TO KILL thereâs likewise nothing to do about it.
A film may be under-appreciated, misunderstood or clash with the zeitgeist, all true. But first and foremost any entertainment has to appeal to its audience. If it does any dollar earned was deservedly earned. If it fails it really only can blame itself, not the masses who didnât show up.
*There is a case for many passing on OHMSS because it didnât have Connery and bad word of mouth about the bummer ending might have contributed to this. But itâs a singularity within the series and the backlash beginning in the 80s earned it the dubious honour of having been remade - unsuccessfully - twice in a row.
As others have pointed out, OHMSS and LTK despite being box office disappointments (anyone else see a cartoon obese man with a cigar with that phrase?) both have grown in respect in time. LTK actually got me through a really hard time in my life.
Shoutout for the Blood Poetry!
This oneâs complicated. Thunderball arguably did as well as it did because it rode on a tidal wave of Bondmania set in motion by Goldfinger. So did it âdeserveâ to beat out a film that more or less handed it itâs success on a platter? (Not for me, but itâs not about me) Likewise, Moonraker looked at the hits of 1977 and cannily melded the plot of âSpyâ with elements of Star Wars. It was brilliantly calculated to make money and so it did, but did that make it âbetterâ than TSWLM? (Yes for me, but itâs not about me). Itâs not uncommon in other franchises as well to see a follow-up movie benefit from the foundation laid by the preceding entry. Things get easier when the heaviest liftingâs already been done.
To the extent some Bonds have done more poorly (and even a âfailedâ Bond film would be a B.O. success by any other standard) I think itâs more because they were ill-timed or failed to capture the zeitgeist. People werenât ready for OHMSS after a run like GF, TB and YOLT, but that doesnât make it inferior. TMWTGG came way too soon after LALD and it was asking a lot to ask people to turn right around and go back for another helping. I donât think itâs a great entry, but to some extent Iâm not sure that mattered to the final take as much as other factors did. LTK was too dramatic a shift in tone for many so soon after Roger and, more importantly, it was pathetically marketed in a year with huge competing blockbusters. The PR team deserves an âFâ but does the film itself?
Iâm also curious to know if the totals on that list cover only the filmsâ initial releases or if it includes return engagements over the years in double-bills, etc. In the days before home video, it was pretty common for the early Bonds to end up back on the big screen years after their initial release whereas after the early 80s that practice was pretty much ended.
Overall, there are enough contradictions between box office totals and actual quality for me to rate this a âtruth.â To be fair, this one is always going to be subjective as it depends on which films you consider âworthyâ of huge profits and which you consider âless worthy.â And as weâve so often seen, there are as many âbest to worstâ lists as there are fans.
No Moore Bond did it better than MOONRAKER. It is an all-time high.
Itâs truth. Money is the only thing that matters.
Ka-Ching!
Absolutely agree. The Lazenby and Dalton films more than hold their own. They contain all time great contributions to the franchise, from soundtracks, story and performances.
September 4.
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a Bond film only needs Bond, M/equivalent, Villain and Woman. The story has to bother to justify any other character.
Truth. Although DR NO has that armorer guy and Moneypenny they arenât needed. They are in the book, so they popped up in the film, too. But this stuff is padding, merely there to illustrate the Bond world a bit more. CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE have both shown you need no Q scene and no Moneypenny banter.
Iâm even tempted to declare M is likewise unnecessary. You could throw Bond right into the mission and not lose momentum on the briefing. But about that Iâm not entirely sold as you need Bond as a function of some greater authority usually represented by M in some form. Otherwise weâd have an agent entirely left to his own whims, probably not a good idea.
Truth because it already has proven to be working.
But the great thing about these âcharactersâ (not really characters, rather âamusing one-note comic relief personsâ) are that they also worked extremely well when they only had their one or two scenes.
Screenplay gurus (not really screenplay writers, just con men who sold their wisdom based on their actual failure in the business, blinding everyone to that fact and getting asked to consult - hmm, do we sense a pattern here?) manipulated filmmakers into believing that everything and everyone has to get an ARC, to go on a JOURNEY and to have their own DEVELOPMENT.
And actors LOVED it, of course. These days even âcellmate no. 8â has to get a real name, a motivation and appear at least three times.
So the truth becomes fiction, although it did not need to.
Folks seem to be interpreting this one as âBond doesnât need the Scooby Gang whispering through his earpiece,â and if thatâs the question, I agree.
However, the wording is âno other character,â and Iâm not sure I can buy into that. Would we really have been better off without the likes of Kerim Bey, Jaws, Vijay, Paloma or any version of Felix? Were they all essential to the plot? Ehhh⊠But did they add hugely to the films they appeared in? Absolutely.
So no, we donât need to know about Q or Moneypennyâs love lives or Mâs struggles with upper management, Bond shouldnât need anyone talking into his ear to help him out of a tight spot (or save him from having to actually deduce anything) and no one needs an âarcâ but BondâŠscratch that, including Bond. But we absolutely need the colorful, quirky characters who populate his world in the form of loyal and/or funny allies, bizarre contacts and most importantly, memorable henchmen who as often as not make up for lackluster main villains.
So Iâm not sure how to vote on this one. Yes, give us interesting side characters, but keep them safely in the shadow of Bond and in support of his story.
My answer is truth but, like pretty much every post Iâve written over the 15+ years of being here, thereâs an asterisk.
The series has not done well by or with other characters - as DavidM pointed out there is a substantial list that are indispensable to the experience - and yet I do get the feeling that itâs despite the âcreatorsâ rather than because of them. Felix is a prime example of a character that has been underused or misused, and so it has become self-fulfilling that we only need Bond.
I, for one, ran out of Q-mileage a long time ago, so would happily say âitâs Bond, Mâ and thatâs yer lot. But to be fair, there wouldnât be much left for writers to do if that were the case.
Itâs True that the series does not need other âregularâ characters, but too often itâs left itself short of other âinterestingâ characters as a result. (and no, we canât keep blaming Jack Lord for wanting to be SCâs equalâŠ!!).
True *
One example of an entirely superficial character in the books would be Dikko Henderson*: heâs only there to make the contact with Tanaka, then he disappears. The film shortens the process considerably by killing him off on the spot and providing Bond with the first lead into the rocket scheme. In the book he could just as well be cut out and we wouldnât notice. Film-YOLTâs Henderson becomes an important plot point.
In this manner characters other than the main cast can be crucial for the story while others provide mainly backdrop and atmosphere - see the gypsy women fighting in FRWL or the little sub-spy Grant kills at Hagia Sophia - theyâre not necessarily central to events but weâd miss them if they were no longer there.
*whose real life counterpart Richard Hughes was such a vibrant and knowledgeable expert on the Asian theatre he also inspired le Carré to use him as Old Craw in The Honourable Schoolboy.
To paraphrase Godard (who said he was quoting Griffith), the only things you need for a Bond movie are Bond, a girl, and a gun.
YOLT overall is a good example of the whole âhow other characters should/could be used.â Iâm always disappointed that Tanaka gets short shaft in a film where the source material offered more (not unusual I know). Maybe through Tanaka and onto Draco there was a sense at EON that âweâve been there done that with Kerim Bey and it canât be topped.â (Iâd argue then maybe cast actors who donât need to be dubbed, duh?).
But itâs reflective of the seriesâ overall attitude to âother charactersâ that a semi-involved one-off sidekick doesnât appear again until Topol in FYEO. Are films in-between hurt by this absence? Arguably, no, but it also reflects (or just is) the loss of potential narrative options.
Do I think Bond should continually be palling around with a series of one-off troupe members? No, buuuut ⊠if it was good enough for Fleming every now and againâŠ,