Image via Wikipedia
IO9 has an article trying to figure out how James Bond can last as long as it has while so many other movie franchises seem to stop at #3. This is something I’ve wondered as well. Maybe they should spend less time trying to emulate Star Wars. Especially since the prequels proved even George Lucas himself can’t pull it off.
Bond, on the other hand has gone through numerous movies and actors. (Not being Snell I really couldn’t tell you how many of each.) The franchise continues to go without being known as James Bond 23 or something. More proof Hollywood needs to get their act together. Check that article for further evidence.
BW Media Spotlight 
3 reasons why the Bond franchise has soldiered on so long and successfully:
A) Good and copious source material. The fact that they didn’t have to call them Bond III or Bond X meant that they were using actual pre-existing stories (albeit more and more loosely), and not having to wing it each time the studio decided they wanted to crank out another one.
B) The Broccolis. The Bond rights weren’t owned by some studio, but by Albert Broccoli, who did almost nothing else in his movie career besides produce Bond movies. Thus he (and later his daughter & stepson) could focus almost 100% on the Bond franchise, which gave them a commitment to quality other franchises haven’t enjoyed.
C) Bond is flexible enough a concept that it can mutate to match the times–it can be hard core espionage or light super-spy romp, have fantasy insane billionaires or topical threats as the villains, Other franchises seem tethered to a particular zeitgeist, and don’t change themselves enough to fit the new times.
LikeLike