ryanbrennan wrote:
delgadosaur wrote:
ryanbrennan wrote:
delgadosaur wrote:
Here's an all-time franchise boxoffice list, adjusted for modernity, which is what this debate is about:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/?view=Franchise&sort=sumgross&order=DESC

It's interesting that if we went by the average per picture Bond would rank way down the list.  This list puts paid to the idea that Bond is the most successful movie franchise in history.

      


Agreed and accepted, since I posted the link, but where's Tarzan on the list?

Again, not ripping Greystoke, a completely more known character overall, totally admit that, simply stating the Bond films were more sustained and moved more successfully into modernity.

Not even a close contest between the characters in books and overall, the ape man wins hands down, simply comparing film careers.

As for where's Tarzan on the list we now face the fact that lists of this sort are biased against tabulating the box office of movies in the 1930s and 1940s.  The reason is simple because it takes a lot more work to come up the necessary numbers.  You can find some of them on some lists, and I suspect you find these because somebody else did the work, but overall there isn't parity.  Anyway, since I figure that the six Weismuller Tarzan films did nearly $600 million world wide then I'd put them down the list near THE MATRIX and ROCKY (a UA asset) films.  

This paragraph pretty much admits it is speculative.

If the Tarzan films had done Matrix money, they'd be on the list. 

If the Tarzan films had continued to make money for MGM, the same place that would later put out the Bond films, the rights would not have have and bounced from studio to studio.

Even the lousy 70's Bond films made money, or they would not have continued.