Connery: Man with the golden run

[sparklingblue]

The Sunday Herald

Connery: Man with the golden run

New figures prove Sir Sean was the best, biggest grossing Bond

By Toby McDonald


WE can argue forever over who was the sexiest or the toughest or which one was the slickest with a Walther PPK or a dry martini, but we now finally know which Bond was the best where it counts – at the box office. And it’s Sean Connery.
The original James Bond star was the man who pulled in most money of all five actors who stepped into the tuxedo of Ian Fleming’s spy.

A new league table featuring the accrued takings of Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and Pierce Brosnan, puts Connery well ahead of those who followed in his footsteps.

The league table, which was compiled by Dr Adam Webb of the University of North Carolina, who has written a PhD on Ian Fleming’s superhero, ranks the stars who carried a licence to kill, according to their earning power.

At today’s prices Connery’s six films would have earned over £1.68 billion at the box office. Roger Moore, with seven films under his belt, comes a close second with £1.63bn.

Ireland’s Pierce Brosnan, the latest incarnation of the superspy, earned a very respectable £908 million in just four outings, George Lazenby pulled in £180m with one, while Timothy Dalton’s two Bond movies earned £302m. In total, the entire Bond back-catalogue earned a staggering £4.7bn at the box office.

With filming due to start later this month on the 21st Bond movie, which is expected to be Brosnan’s final outing in the role, there is fresh speculation that a line-up of actors including Ewan McGregor, Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman and Colin Farrell are vying for the part.

“ Sean Connery set the standard for the film version of the character and is the reason for the high popularity and box office figures for his films, as well as the continuation of the Bond franchise for 40 years,” said Webb.

“James Bond is the most successful film franchise ever. Other series like Star Wars and the Lord Of The Rings trilogy may surpass briefly – but none has the longevity of more than 40 years of history.

“James Bond is an icon which is capable of re-inven-tion and, in the case of Brosnan, reinvigoration. He is the alter ego most men aspire to be. I believe he has the potential to continue for another 40 years.”

Connery made seven films in his Bond career, starting with Dr No in 1962, but 1983’s Never Say Never Again has not been taken into account as it is not officially part of the Bond franchise. In all, the Connery movies took £1.6bn at today’s prices, an average of £281m per film.

After Connery, former model George Lazenby made one movie – On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – earning just £181m as Bond. Roger Moore then inherited the mantle and made seven films, including Moonraker and The Man With The Golden Gun, earning a total of £1.63bn index-linked, an average of £233m.

Former classical actor Timothy Dalton made just two Bond movies, The Living Daylights and Licence To Kill, to make £302m at 2004 prices, an average of £151m.

The latest 007, Pierce Brosnan, has revived the role with his four films, which began with GoldenEye, earning £909m index-linked .

The next Bond film, which has the working title Beyond The Ice, is understood to revolve around a master villain who holds the world to ransom with a “greenhouse weapon”. Due for release next Christmas, Brosnan, who turned 50 in May, is expected to hang up his Walther PPK shortly afterwards. The following Bond movie – known at the moment as Bond 22 – will begin filming in 2006 for release in 2007.

Scots film star McGregor has added fuel to the latest rumours by saying in a recent interview that, although he has not had any official talks with Bond film-makers Eon, he hadn’t ruled out taking on the role.

“I think it might take a bigger man than me to turn it down,” he said. “There has been talk of it, but not with the people that matter. I believe Pierce is either doing his last, or he’s doing one more.

“It’s interesting. It’s a fun thing to talk about when it’s not really even on the cards. In the same respects, I’m not sure what would happen if it cropped up.

“I think you’d have to really think about it in the same way that I did with the Star Wars films. I really thought about it and spoke to people I knew, and in the end I just wanted to do it more and more, the closer it got.”

04 January 2004

***

So filming on Bond 21 starts this month? Interesting.

[curious george]

Gee, the guy who played the part in the most movies made the most money? Now there's a surprise.

cg

[Yuliya]

That's what I thought, too, but he also made more per movie. Ace, do you know how accurate the numbers are?

[Ace]

Actually Moore made one more official Bond film than Connery, 7 to Connery's 6. Connery's average is significantly higher with Moore and Brosnan almost about the same (according to this chart, though he calculates the money in pounds which is why he has DAD under GE even though it made more in $'s, he's converted it wrong based on current exchange rates)

Anyhow, this isn't exactly news, Connery was Bond at it's highest B.O. point. The film B.O. peaks with Goldfinger then Thunderball. Thunderball in inflation adjusted $'s made over $400m just at the U.S. B.O. Comparison... bigger than Spiderman here, bigger than any of the Harry Potter or LOTR films. The film was shown 24 hours a day in places like NYC and it played in theaters for about a year. And that was the peak even for Connery and his next two films made about 30-40% less. But then it's the only series to have each of the first 4 movies make more than the last. Going down from the peak was natural. The films were NEW in 1964 and 1965, Connery or no that level of popularity would not and could continue over 40 years and 20 films. What's interesting is that it's been resurrected and re-energized a few times over the last 3 decades.

The writer's assertion though that the films are still successful because of Connery though is erroneous. If that was true then it wouldn't matter who played Bond and as his numbers show it is because it would be all about Connery's legacy. Yes he made the films he was in successful and he launched the series but he's not responsible for it's strength or health 30 years later. Lazenby's film made less than 1/2 of what the proceeding and following Connery film made. Brosnan's Goldeneye made twice as much as the preceeding Dalton film. And Moore's films ran the gamut up and down depending on quality etc. And when Moore went up against Connery in 1983 when Connery had the unofficial Bond out Never Say Never Again Moore's film made about twice as much. So.....

And of course B.O. was also different than now. Movies played for a year not 3 months maximum and there wasn't the huge TV/Cable money let alone all the DVD/VHS money. In comparison DAD will make more outside the B.O. than it did at the B.O. and even while the older Bond films still sell well (in part because the back catalogue is boosted when the current films do well) they don't sell nearly the volume the new ones do and don't command a fraction of the TV/cable money.

Here's the World unadjusted chart (with DAD not updated, should be $430m)

www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/jamesbond/world.htm

The US adjusted chart:

www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/jamesbond/adjusted.htm

World adjusted exists but the charts are really not very accurate because of fluxuations in currency and inflation in too many countries, as well as releases at different dates (most particualarly years ago when films could be spread out 2-3 years) re-releases etc. So most WW charts just use the US cost of living increase (and that's not even accurate for US films, tickets prices fluctuate differently) and extrapolate that to other countries.

Ace