GoldenEye Remains The Most Important Box Office Hit In James Bond History

(Welcome to Tales from the Box Office, our column that examines box office miracles, disasters, and everything in between, as well as what we can learn from them.)

“I think you’re a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the Cold War.” Those are the words of Judi Dench as M in 1995’s “GoldenEye.” She was speaking directly to Pierce Brosnan’s James Bond, but in many ways, it was addressing concerns that the public and media had pointed out. Before this movie’s arrival, the world at large was questioning whether or not the “James Bond” franchise was still relevant.

1962’s “Dr. No” kicked off the franchise with a bang, with Sean Connery birthing a cinematic icon based on the character created by author Ian Fleming. But by 1995, Bond had been on 17 official adventures on the big screen (18 if you count the unofficial “Never Say Never Again”), and the series appeared to be suffering from the law of diminishing returns. Heading into this uncertain new era, 007 had something to prove.

Thanks in no small part to landing the right actor at the right time and marrying him with the perfect director to help bring Bond into the ’90s, this reboot proved to be precisely what the franchise needed at a time when it needed it most. Years later, it remains the most important hit in the character’s long and storied on-screen history.

In this week’s Tales from the Box Office, we’re looking back at “GoldenEye” in honor of its 30th anniversary. We’ll go over how the film came to be, why it was fighting an uphill battle, what happened when it hit theaters, what happened in the aftermath of its release, and what lessons we can learn from it all these years later. Let’s dig in, shall we?

In the film as we know it, a powerful satellite system falls into the hands of Alec Trevelyan, AKA Agent 006 (Sean Bean), a former MI6 agent turned enemy. It’s up to James Bond (Brosnan) to save the world from this highly advanced weapon that could destroy the world.

It’s easy to take for granted now, but there was a sense, at the time, that “GoldenEye” could be the end of the franchise if it didn’t go well. Timothy Dalton had preceded Brosnan in the role of Bond and stuck around for just two movies, 1987’s “The Living Daylights” and 1989’s “License to Kill,” which was a little too gritty and ahead of its time for its own good. The producers then decided to move on, which took some time.

There was a six-year gap between “License to Kill” and Brosnan’s debut. In that time, much had changed. The ’90s brought with it a new crop of action movies, including the likes of “The Fugitive,” “Speed,” and others that felt more with the times, as it were.  As “GoldenEye” effects coordinator Chris Corbould once explained, the team believed this was a make-or-break moment for the franchise.

“We all felt that this could be the end of the Bond franchise if we didn’t get it right. During that lay-off there had been some extraordinary films. I thought the stuff they did in “True Lies” was mind-blowing, for example. Films like that really upped the ante for Bond. It was crucial to make this a fantastic Bond film, otherwise it was going to fade into oblivion.”

It certainly didn’t help that Dalton’s films, particularly “License to Kill,” weren’t viewed as home runs in their day. There was also a significant drop-off commercially, with “Living Daylights” pulling in $191 million worldwide, while “License to Kill” made far less at $156 million. That was after Roger Moore’s tenure came to an end with “A View to a Kill,” also viewed as a low point for the series.

The point is that by the time the ’90s rolled around, it had been years since the franchise had birthed anything resembling a classic. To make matters worse, a complicated lawsuit over the “James Bond” rights ensued in 1989, which tied up development on the eventual reboot for several years. Once the dust settled, longtime producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli brought in some new blood to occupy the director’s chair in the form of Martin Campbell (“No Escape”).

“I remember that there was a lot of bad press, because there’d been such a long gap since Dalton’s films,” Campbell explained in a 2015 interview. “Plus, they had been considered a low in terms of the Bond franchise. Everyone was feeling that it might be over. There were things in the press about its being past its sell-by date, and finished, and a relic, and not relevant to the 1990s, and all that sort of s***.”

From a commercial point of view and from a critical point of view, “Bond” was up against the ropes, in the most precarious situation the franchise had been in since its inception more than three decades earlier.

The man tasked with filling the shoes of the beloved MI6 spy was Brosnan. The actor had a history with the role, as he was the first choice to succeed Moore and was due to be announced as our next Bond in 1986. However, NBC exercised a contract option to make a fifth season of “Remington Steele” at the 11th hour, which forced Brosnan to return for the show, preventing him from becoming Bond.

It was a devastating blow for the actor at the time, but after the lawsuit, Brosnan once again got his chance. The actor was openly influenced by both Connery and Moore’s versions of the character, which offered up a new tone. This Bond was suave but fun. Dangerous but lovable. A unique combination we hadn’t seen from the spy previously. In a pre-release interview, Brosnan expressed confidence that waiting nearly a decade to take on the role was actually a good thing.

“This is a better James Bond than it would have been from Brosnan back in 1986. I don’t think there would have been the presence of the man or the texture of the man that is here now in this movie we’ve made. You have to remember, I was coming off TV, I was coming off of Remington Steele. My education and my articulation in the world of film was very slight, very small.”

“It just feels that the way it went down in ’86 was meant to be. I wasn’t meant to do it then. I was meant to do it now,” Brosnan concluded.

Marketing was key and, thanks in no small part to a stellar teaser trailer that leaned on some incredible imagery, including Brosnan’s Bond leaping off a massive dam, MGM and Eon somehow managed to make the next era of “James Bond” look classic and modern, all at the same time. It proved to be extremely effective. The film was met with generally great reviews, which set it up for a huge opening weekend.

“GoldenEye” hit theaters on the weekend of November 17, 1995. It easily took the top spot at the box office in the U.S. with $26.2 million, besting “Ave Ventura: When Nature Calls” ($19.5 million), which was on its second weekend. While the film had to surrender the top spot to Pixar’s smash hit “Toy Story” ($39 million) over the Thanksgiving holiday frame, it held strong, dropping just 31%. This reinvention of Bond was resonating with audiences.

More importantly, the film played like gangbusters overseas, which is key as “Bond” has always been a global franchise. It even helped lead to the biggest weekend ever at the U.K. box office at that time. Campbell’s fresh take on 007 traveled similarly well across the globe. It was a home run.

“GoldenEye” finished its initial run with $106.4 million domestically to go with $249.9 million overseas for a grand total of $356.4 million worldwide. Against a reported $60 million, it was the biggest “Bond” movie ever up to that point, not adjusted for inflation.

Whatever doubt existed ahead of the film’s release was good and truly squashed by the time its theatrical run was in the rearview mirror. Bond was back, baby. The producers made quick work of a follow-up, with Brosnan returning for 1997’s “Tomorrow Never Dies.” Though it failed to take down “Titanic” at the box office, it was another big success, taking in $339.5 million worldwide, albeit against a much larger $110 million budget.

Brosnan suited up twice more as 007, in 1999 for “The World is Not Enough” ($361.7 million worldwide) and in 2002 for “Die Another Day” ($431.9 million worldwide). Commercially, it was a hot streak, but after the critical misfire that was “Die Another Day,” the producers moved on from Brosnan in favor of Daniel Craig for a grittier, more grounded take on the character that would arrive in the form of “Casino Royale” ($594.4 million worldwide) in 2006. With Campbell returning to direct, it’s widely regarded to this day as the best “Bond” movie ever.

That set up Craig for a five-movie run as the character, peaking in 2012 with “Skyfall,” which made $1.1 billion worldwide and became the biggest “Bond” ever. Craig would return for 2015’s “Spectre” ($879 million worldwide) and 2021’s “No Time to Die” ($758.9 million worldwide,) which broke ground by *spoilers* killing Bond on screen for the first time ever.

None of what Craig accomplished could have happened without “GoldenEye.” This movie’s success paved the way for a further three decades of Bond on screen, with more to come in the future.

As it stands, “James Bond” is one of the longest-running, most successful franchises in cinema history. With 25 official movies to its name to date, it has spanned more than 50 years and successfully weathered several creative reboots. Another big one is on deck as Amazon bought the rights to the franchise earlier this year, with longtime shepherds Broccoli and Wilson no longer in creative control.

It remains to be seen who will succeed Craig at this time, nor is it clear what the tone will be. We know that Denis Villeneuve (“Dune”) will be in the director’s chair. One thing Amazon would do well to learn from “GoldenEye” is that playing it safe probably isn’t the answer. Fortune favors the bold, and trying to mimic Craig’s grittier, “Dark Knight” era Bond feels like a fool’s errand. Whatever comes next must have its own identity and, once again, prove to the world that Bond still has a place in it.

More broadly, Hollywood at large remains obsessed with franchises and established IP. Oftentimes, it feels like superhero movies or other franchise fare try to go up the middle in an attempt to please everyone. “GoldenEye,” all these years later, represents the great things that can happen when those in control of these franchises take big, creative swings. Playing it safe only serves to lower the ceiling.