NB: Rigg was a Bond girl too, opposite George Lazenby in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.
Well, possibly. But some movies, games, books come out with considerable hoopla, intended as the start of a franchise, or as more accomplished products. May be my personal opinion, but I think the original Star Wars holds up as a movie better than The Cage. And the first Harry Potter book was a pretty decent read.
I repeat, I’m a tad disappointed to sound so critical of TOS, given my family’s long and deep fandom of the franchise.
Thanks for all the suggestions, folk. Could the discussion be expanded? For example, Facebook started as a simple “rate your classmates”…
I loved TNG from day one. But watching it in the years since, season 1 is incredibly cringe, a painful watch.
I guess a lot of the issue with rating the first season, or first movie, of a franchise, is we forget that that was our introduction to the characters and the aesthetics.
So watching episode 1 originally, it was the first time of seeing Picard et al, hearing the theme music, and seeing the modernist and positive aesthetic. All amazing.
When we look back, we’re familiar with all that, so all we are noticing is the stories, the acting and direction. Which are all just inarguably bad in season 1.
BTW If we’re opening this up to TV series, I’m going to say Superstore, Black Mirror and, controversially, The Office (I enjoyed the British office, and the very close first US season is…OK, but the series found it’s feet after moving beyond it).
And in addition to the licensed products, they were also very heavily ripped off by Blizzard and other companies.
That’s what I was going to nominate. Not even considering the series: the first movie is a snooze-fest, and 2 and 3 are forgettable to say the least, but 4 and 5 are really excellent (6 is okay, 7 is incomplete).
Funny. I’m not a Tom Cruise fan, but vaguely recalled the 1st movie as a mildly enjoyable superspy flick. Not sure I ever watched any of the later ones.
But the TV show was a classic - from the self destructing tape on! (I’m sure it would be unwatchable now!)
How about Perry Rhodan? A weekly magazine started in 1961, and is still going strong.
Yes. I guess I failed to convey that humble beginnings being the default does not mean there aren’t new things put out with big money and full-blown promotion. They just aren’t the default scenario.
Really interesting thread - are we adjudicating mediocrity at the time or relative to later performance, wearing our high-powered hindsight goggles?
J.K. Rowlings’ original Harry Potter manuscript was assessed as unpublishable a dozen times, until the moment when Bloomsbury decided that it was. I’m sure many classic and fertile franchises had the same journey. The Marvel Universe was once just a bunch of comic books which, at the time, were considered largely disposable.
My own vote probably goes to Marvel for its Universe, purely on the cynical monetisation that they have been able to achieve, and lowering audience expectations so far that they will accept any old shit in spandex as a new contribution and extension of the canon.
The exact origin to the Marvel Universe is Motion Picture Funnies Weekly–a 1939 36 page comic book created to be a promotional giveaway in movie theaters. Only 8 or 9 copies were created to show theater owners but it never went to press to be widely distributed. (The comic featured the debut of Namor The Sub-Mariner.)
A couple of early literary franchises: Perry Mason and Tarzan. Both were rapidly popular and book form and quickly were turned into movies. The books continue for Perry Mason with only a few movies at first. Then in the late 50s the TV show with Raymond Burr was a huge hit. Later TV movies, a now a prequel type cable series. Tarzan books continued for a long time, branching into Burroughs Pellucidar series of books which produced a few movies of it’s own. The movies were moderately successful originally, then took off when Johnny Weissmuller took over the role. More movies followed as well as a TV show.
Neither of the 2 franchises show any sign of fading away.
My impression is that that’s a pretty common and uncontroversial view of The Office.
Speaking of TV, did anyone watching the first season of Saturday Night Live imagine that it would still be a big deal fifty years later and would spawn the careers of dozens of major stars?
And, remembering that that first season had muppets, are The Muppets another candidate for an impressive franchise with a mediocre beginning?
To be fair, my entire experience with the James Bond franchise has been one Sean Conney film (Dr. No) and two, if not three, Daniel Craig films (Skyfall, Quantum of Solace, and maybe another).
Dr. No was impossibly dated by the time I saw it (c. 2004), and it seems like it got mixed reviews even back in 1962. I’m to understand that the Bond franchise has been hit-and-miss over the decades, but I think the two Craig films were pretty OK. This coming from a man who just generally isn’t into action or double-agent or spy movies (never got into the Mission:Impossible or Jack Reacher franchises, for example).
I would say yes–the Muppets debuted on Sam and Friends–a local TV show based out of Washington DC that aired in 1955 and most of the original episodes were NOT taped and sare considered lost.
Fast & The Furious: any viewer unfamiliar with the franchise would get severe whiplash watching the latest movie and then watching the very first one where the plot centered around hijacking a truckload of VCR/DVD combo players.
And, for that matter, Dungeons & Dragons.
It started as a set of variant rules for traditional wargames, developed by a couple of wargaming enthusiasts who enjoyed fantasy novels, and wanted to create a game where the players could play heroic fantasy characters.
The original rules were a trio of slim digest-sized booklets, produced on a shoestring budget: they spent $2000 to produce 1000 copies, leading to a decidedly amateurish feel, particularly in the artwork. The rules themselves were complex, and assumed that the players were already very familiar with traditional wargaming rules.
It took them about a year to sell those first 1000 copies, and though the game became considerably more popular by the end of the '70s, it was still an extremely niche hobby. 50 years later, it’s now widely played, has spawned an entire role-playing game industry, and has been the subject of three movies (one of them actually good 
) and an animated television series, as well as frequent mentions in other media as a touchstone for nerd culture.
I sat down to watch The Wizard of Oz when I was a kid somewhere between the ages of 6-8. My father said, “When I was your age, those flying monkeys scared the hell out of me.” I was incredulous. How could those flying monkeys scare anyone no matter their age? Works of art age. Even a classic like Casablanca can seem weird to modern audiences because of acting styles or production values. When TNG came out I was a kid, but I didn’t remember anyone thinking it was cringey at the time. But with the passage of time some things age better than others.
Turnabout is fair play. Warhammer 40k ripped off Dune, Aliens, Predator, and Terminator and those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head.
Crazy. The other Pirates movies are fantastic, the fourth one being a bit of step down, but still quite fun.
Dr. No pretty much sucks. Goldfinger is a pretty good movie, even today. I’d check out a nice HD, hopefully remastered, version of that one.
I like Bond, but have never seen Dr. No more than one time. It was boring, the only high point being that Sean Connery did seem cool in it.