ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
May 2 15 10:08 AM
May 2 15 1:22 PM
May 2 15 2:23 PM
May 2 15 5:55 PM
Right on both counts, Rick
And before we throw the Ape Man under the bus, let's see if there are still also 007 motion pictures a century after the first one...
May 2 15 7:27 PM
May 3 15 1:12 PM
delgadosaur wrote:I acknowledge the longevity, but the Tarzans ebbed and flowed, while the Bond string is continuous.
May 3 15 1:20 PM
delgadosaur wrote:When they've made 24 Tarzan films at the same studio, let me know. The property has drifted around from studio to studio, while the Bond brand, even through the awful films of the 70's kept plugging right along.
May 3 15 2:31 PM
amanaplan1 wrote:1) None of the Tarzan or Chan or whoever movies became an international phenomenon like the Bond series did, and 2) over a sustained period of time.
Don't have figures on the Chan films but the Weismuller Tarzan films made as much money internationally as they did in the U.S. Being that not all the Tarzan pics were U.S. made also makes them international productions. By sustained I guess you mean one continuous series moving from one installment to the next. On the other hand, despite being made by many hands with many different actors in the role, Tarzan has lasted 97 years and will be back in 2016. A pretty good run for any movie character.
May 3 15 2:35 PM
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.
May 3 15 2:43 PM
Rick wrote:Oh, I'd be willing to bet that the first two Bonds didn't perform as well as the first two Weissmuller Tarzans. DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE were obviously successful enough to warrant a third film, but the big sensation didn't hit till GOLDFINGER, which was, indeed, a big sensation. edit: And I'd also be willing to bet that "Bond. James Bond" didn't become a familiar and imitated phrase till after GOLDFINGER at the earliest, while "Me Tarzan, you Jane" was instantly drafted into daily conversation.
The first six Weismuller Tarzan movies made nearly $100 million each world wide when adjusted for inflation. DR. NO did $46 million worldwide, adjusted. FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE did nearly $100 million world wide, adjusted. After that, of course, it became a phenomenon, peaking with THUNDERBALL (which remained the Bond champ -- by leaps and bounds -- until SKYFALL).
I'd say that the Tarzan yell is a pretty recognizable calling card.
May 3 15 3:08 PM
Wich2 wrote:Both are bad situations. And respectful disagreement about the plugging in of new leads, amana. I think the public saw the run of TARZAN flicks as all Tarzan movies, not really caring what studio's logo was at the head. Ditto, the CHANS. Also, by the time of OHMSS, there had been several Holmes since Rathbone. Throw a few different Zorros, Robin Hoods, Batmen, and Supermen into the mix, and the change from Connery was not really breaking new ground in the public's eyes. -Craig
Weismuller = Tarzan = Weismuller. Johnny had a 16 year run in 12 Tarzan films, better than any Bond actor. After that he went into the Jungle Jim series. The other attempts at Tarzan during his reign were either flops or financial disappointments. One is tempted to think that if Weismuller had aged differently he would have gone on playing the character longer.
So it looks like one actor, typecast, was so closely identified with a character that when he stopped making those films it was difficult for audiences to make an adjustment. On the other hand, audiences like the character of Bond. They don't really care who plays him. Even with the hiccup of OHMSS, which, based on its budget flopped in the U.S. but made money world wide, audiences continue to return to the films through all the incarnations.
But so much has changed in the industry since those days that some of these comparisons seem strained. Bond arrived at the right time to exploit the many changes. Bond wasn't a studio film in the same sense of the Tarzan films or any series prior to the 1960s. United Artists, with no sound stages or backlot, wasn't even really a studio. It was a distributor.
May 3 15 4:33 PM
Here's what I think, trying to be objective and sticking to facts, not assertions:
01) Bond is one of the most successful franchises ever.
02) Bond is not the most successful franchise ever.
03) Bond beats Tarzan at the box office.
05) Tarzan was wildly successful in its day and continues to be popular
06) Tarzan is a much longer-lived character at 97 years than James Bond.
Opinion:
01) Bond is likely to go on indefinitely. His demise has been forecast many times. What will happen when the second generation owners pass on is anyone's guess.
02) Tarzan is likely to go on indefinitely. That so many individual films have been made attests to faith in his allure. He could be a franchise again if the right creative talent gets behind the project.
03) Depending on the room, I'd bet Tarzan and Bond are equally well-known.
May 3 15 5:56 PM
May 3 15 8:07 PM
May 3 15 10:28 PM
ryanbrennan wrote:delgadosaur wrote:I acknowledge the longevity, but the Tarzans ebbed and flowed, while the Bond string is continuous.Two interruptions of 6 & 4 years. That's not counting the 8 years between the false start of CASINO ROYALE and DR. NO.
May 3 15 10:32 PM
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=DESCIt'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.
May 3 15 10:33 PM
ryanbrennan wrote: Here's what I think, trying to be objective and sticking to facts, not assertions:01) Bond is one of the most successful franchises ever.02) Bond is not the most successful franchise ever.03) Bond beats Tarzan at the box office.05) Tarzan was wildly successful in its day and continues to be popular06) Tarzan is a much longer-lived character at 97 years than James Bond.Opinion:01) Bond is likely to go on indefinitely. His demise has been forecast many times. What will happen when the second generation owners pass on is anyone's guess.02) Tarzan is likely to go on indefinitely. That so many individual films have been made attests to faith in his allure. He could be a franchise again if the right creative talent gets behind the project.03) Depending on the room, I'd bet Tarzan and Bond are equally well-known.
May 3 15 10:38 PM
Wich2 wrote:Thanks for the facts, Ryan. For folks who respect the truth, they matter.Small asterisk:As far as Box Office champ, we'd have to total ALL receipts from ALL Bond and Tarzan films. And there have been more Tarzans - in fact, as cited above, even within their respective first 50 years. Would Bond's 25 beat Tarzan's 40, adjusted for inflation?-Craig
May 4 15 1:45 AM
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=DESCIt'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. If we want to half that number to $300 million as their domestic only take then we'd place them down around the RAMBO, EXORCIST, and PINK PANTHER (UA's third big asset).
BTW, I'd suggest that Bond debuted at the beginning of what was then a new and modern phase in the film business and was at least partly responsible for that change.
Edgar Rice Burroughs was apparently something of a visionary as he wanted to capitalize on his creation across the board. He was already thinking of multiple media outlets and merchandising long before this thinking became the norm. So Tarzan brought something new to the party, too.
May 4 15 2:12 AM
delgadosaur wrote:ryanbrennan wrote:delgadosaur wrote:I acknowledge the longevity, but the Tarzans ebbed and flowed, while the Bond string is continuous.Two interruptions of 6 & 4 years. That's not counting the 8 years between the false start of CASINO ROYALE and DR. NO.Thank you, yes, interruptions. The Bond films stayed with UA/MGM/Sony/The Broccolis for all these years.Studios give up the rights when they properties do not make money anymore, and the Tarzan films bounced around from studio to studio, some successful other not.That's the core of this discussion, the steady stream of Bond films into modernity, which is something the Tarzan films could not maintain.Try making a Bond movie and Sony would fight tooth and nail.Seems like the Tarzan film rights open up every few years or so.
Regarding rights go, as far as I can tell no one ever had the rights to all the Tarzan novels. Burroughs didn't relinquish them. They were sold more or less piecemeal. That's why you could have rival films that were still legal. The Tarzan movies were hits from the get go, something which probably kept Burroughs from letting the rights go too cheaply or at all.
On the other hand, while the Bond novels sold well, the first foray, the TV version of CASINO ROYALE, didn't excite anybody or hint at the future potential. No subsequent offers were forthcoming and, despite trying, Fleming couldn't break into the film world. He had to wait nearly a decade before he was able to really cash in on his creation and sold off his entire fiction oeuvre.
Share This