James Bond as the moneyraker

Nov. 20 - Hollywood studios may never come up with another movie franchise quite as enduring as James Bond, but no doubt they will keep trying. Few could have guessed back in 1962 that the Cold War spy hero created by novelist Ian Fleming still would be a world-class moneyraker four decades later. Today, of course, nearly every big-budget action film is launched with an eye toward possible sequels.

“EVERY STUDIO IS LOOKING for the next franchise,” said Robert Bucksbaum, president of ReelSource Inc., a box office tracking firm. “They don’t just want to make one film. That second go-round is so much bigger, because you can bank on it doing at least two-thirds of the original. They definitely get a return on the investment.”

For the creators and producers of the Bond movies, the return has been nothing short of phenomenal — $3.3 billion in global box office receipts, not counting video sales and licensing revenue. No other franchise comes close except the saga, which surpassed Bond this summer with $3.4 billion in box office receipts over five films, according to Box Office Mojo, which tracks movie ticket sales.

After adjusting for inflation, Bond probably still ranks as the box office champ and appears likely to outlast any of its younger rivals, including the projected six — or possibly more — episodes of “Star Wars” and seven of the series.

“I don’t see anything that long-lived on the horizon,” said Harold Vogel, a money manager and author of “Entertainment Industry Economics.” The success of the series is all the more remarkable since the producers appeared to run out of momentum — and source material — by the late 1980s.

But after a six-year break Bond was reborn bigger than ever in the 1990s, with as the unflappable 007 helping to rake in more than $1 billion over three movies. Some analysts predict the latest episode, featuring Oscar winner could be the biggest Bond yet at the box office.

A LONG HISTORY OF FRANCHISES

Franchise movies are really nothing new for Hollywood, according to film history buffs who trace the trend back to the silent era and characters like Little Tramp, who debuted in 1915 and went on to appear in dozens of films.

“From the beginning of film there have been franchises,” said John Freitas, who teaches film at The New School in New York. “There has always been a way to codify or recognize certain kind of movies.”

Throughout Hollywood’s Golden Age the studio system churned out one series after another, frequently based on popular on-screen couples like and in the movies, or and in a variety of romantic comedies.

But in recent years the concept of the action-hero movie series has exploded, in part to satisfy the demand for a steady stream of marketable characters that can generate theme park admissions, merchandise sales, video revenues, television programming and other ancillary revenue for the giant conglomerates that now own most of the major studios.

“It would be very difficult for a studio head today to OK a $150 million film if they couldn’t sell something with it,” said Freitas.

And while there are exceptions, especially from the Disney studios, the kind of enduring characters that generate such merchandise sales typically spring from an ongoing series rather than a single movie.

This year’s launch of the projected series is just the most visible entry in a crowded field that increasingly features comic book characters, which seem perfectly suited to the franchise mold, with their deep libraries and open story lines.

“Almost every superhero imaginable is getting a movie now,” said analyst Brandon Gray of Box Office Mojo. “There is relatively low risk involved and the potential payoff is tremendous.”

PROTECTING THE LEGACY

Bond, of course, is not a cartoon character — just an invincible action hero with an arsenal of implausible high-tech gadgets. But the series also stands out because MGM has managed to prevent overexposure, tightly limiting spin-offs like action figures, theme-park rides, T-shirts and other paraphernalia.

“They decided at a certain point that they were going to keep very close control over the Bond name and subject matter — that the films would be the sole product,” said Robert Sklar, a professor of cinema studies at New York University. “They presumably decided that was the way to keep this guy alive as a mythical figure and to maximize their profits. And they have been very assiduous.”

The move has paid off for the studio, a former Hollywood giant that has struggled in recent years despite its impressive library of more than 4,000 film titles, including and

“The value to MGM is obvious,” said Jeffrey Logsdon, an analyst with Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co. “This franchise has generated hundreds of millions of dollars in profits to the company over the years, which makes it one of the most successful film franchises out there. … There are a lot of very successful films in that library, but none quite as profitable as James Bond.”

Others went even further.

“Without the Bond movies, they would be out of business,” said Bucksbaum. “I don’t see how they could have lasted as long as they have. It’s the one consistent winner they have had over the years.”

And because MGM is a relatively small company, the success of the new Bond movie is considered crucial in a year when the studio has endured some high-profile failures including “Windtalkers.”

“They really do need a hit this time,” said Vogel. “They are more dependent than most of the other companies on how these movies perform because they are a smaller company.”

In recent weeks MGM’s battered stock has surged more than 35 percent, at least partly because of rising expectations and media hype surrounding the release of the film.