134 replies to this topic

[Byron]

Bond has already done that though with CR and continued off that with QoS.

I don't fully agree with this. Maybe to a small degree. I'm thinking more along the lines of a more faithful period adaptation (noir style).

[double o ego]

Oh ok you're talking about period pieces. Gotchya. Hmm, I dunno. The thing with period pieces is that, it'll never have the appeal and longevity as Bond films set in contemporary times and that being said, is it really worth the time, effort and resources? When, all of that could be put into making Eon Bond movie number x.
Some people find it frustratingly difficult to even sit through a 60s Bond film let alone a 50s period piece. However, I would personally like to see one made just out of curiosity as I'm a huge fan of old English values and style of that time period. The tv series mad men is great and gives me an idea as to what to expect. However, I do think that, to build upon a change in direction, the Eon movies could be attributed with elements of the noir themes you suggested, (CR touched on this slightly)and make more of an effort to adapt what's good about the novels and to of course improve upon in general, the writing of the scripts.

[Loomis]

It should be clear to us all that Bond is on its last legs.

The material is running out (unless, of course, we want to go back to endless variations on films like TOMORROW NEVER DIES - which we don't), the Fleming titles are running out, and, darn it all, the whole damn thing is coming to an end. Broccoli, Craig, Wilson - everybody's getting on. There will only be a handful more Bond films. Whether the next one comes in 2010, 2012 or 2015 is really, in the scheme of things, of as little account as sparrows' tears.

The one thing we can rely on is that Eon will wrap things up in suitable style, for let no man be blind to the fact that this is not just another era of James Bond - it's the final chapter.

But, it's all good. 007 will not simply peter out into insignificance - he'll get the sendoff he deserves.

I have spoken.

I happen to agree with you on this. How many more films do you think there will be? I hope to God we get at least another 6 or 7 before it reaches the end. Let's have one more Bond actor, and another half dozen films before we say goodbye to Bond.

How many more films? Three, probably. I doubt we'll see another Bond actor - in the current Eon franchise, anyway. Perhaps there'll come a point when the BBC or suchlike will make period adaptations of Fleming. Or maybe the Young Bond books will be filmed.

As for the current Eon franchise, though.... well, I certainly don't see that Eon - having worked so hard on CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and having given the (let's face it, ailing) series such an incredible shot in the arm - will want to continue churning out identikit standard-issue Bond outings once the Craig era is over purely in order to make $. By that logic, George Lucas would be doing STAR WARS EPISODEs VII - IX, but he isn't. Why isn't Stallone making ROCKY VII? Well, the answer is that people - smart people - know when to quit.

I credit Broccoli and Wilson with more than enough class and intelligence to realise that Bond needs to be carefully managed - it's not just a question of bunging out a new film every two years. Audiences began to lose interest when they were doing that in the 1980s with Moore and Dalton. By 1989, Eon had almost run Bond into the ground, and I'm sure that Eon will not make that mistake again.

Broccoli and Wilson must also be aware that, while Bond probably could continue indefinitely, it probably shouldn't do so. I think they'll want to go out on a high with Craig (a final film with a YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE-inspired ending certainly seems possible) rather than cheapen the brand, flood the market and let the series once again become, quite literally, a long-running joke. What do we want to see after Craig? Henry Cavill or Dominic West in remakes of THUNDERBALL or GOLDENEYE entitled TIME TO KILL ANOTHER TOMORROW or DIE THE SPY TO DEATH? Didn't think so. Okay, then, how about another first-mission reboot? Heck, they could film CASINO ROYALE all over again - it's not as though they don't have the rights. No? Well, then, what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way? I can't see any good possibilities.

[Vauxhall]

25 movies would be a nice round number if the end was to come sooner rather than later. Three more then.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I really don't seem them stopping any time soon unless some unforeseeable event makes Bond films unprofitable. I'm not saying that the producers are just grabbing for money, just that I think they will make them for as long as they can.

[Zorin Industries]

It should be clear to us all that Bond is on its last legs.

The material is running out (unless, of course, we want to go back to endless variations on films like TOMORROW NEVER DIES - which we don't), the Fleming titles are running out, and, darn it all, the whole damn thing is coming to an end. Broccoli, Craig, Wilson - everybody's getting on. There will only be a handful more Bond films. Whether the next one comes in 2010, 2012 or 2015 is really, in the scheme of things, of as little account as sparrows' tears.

The one thing we can rely on is that Eon will wrap things up in suitable style, for let no man be blind to the fact that this is not just another era of James Bond - it's the final chapter.

But, it's all good. 007 will not simply peter out into insignificance - he'll get the sendoff he deserves.

I have spoken.

I happen to agree with you on this. How many more films do you think there will be? I hope to God we get at least another 6 or 7 before it reaches the end. Let's have one more Bond actor, and another half dozen films before we say goodbye to Bond.

How many more films? Three, probably. I doubt we'll see another Bond actor - in the current Eon franchise, anyway. Perhaps there'll come a point when the BBC or suchlike will make period adaptations of Fleming. Or maybe the Young Bond books will be filmed.

As for the current Eon franchise, though.... well, I certainly don't see that Eon - having worked so hard on CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and having given the (let's face it, ailing) series such an incredible shot in the arm - will want to continue churning out identikit standard-issue Bond outings once the Craig era is over purely in order to make $. By that logic, George Lucas would be doing STAR WARS EPISODEs VII - IX, but he isn't. Why isn't Stallone making ROCKY VII? Well, the answer is that people - smart people - know when to quit.

I credit Broccoli and Wilson with more than enough class and intelligence to realise that Bond needs to be carefully managed - it's not just a question of bunging out a new film every two years. Audiences began to lose interest when they were doing that in the 1980s with Moore and Dalton. By 1989, Eon had almost run Bond into the ground, and I'm sure that Eon will not make that mistake again.

Broccoli and Wilson must also be aware that, while Bond probably could continue indefinitely, it probably shouldn't do so. I think they'll want to go out on a high with Craig (a final film with a YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE-inspired ending certainly seems possible) rather than cheapen the brand, flood the market and let the series once again become, quite literally, a long-running joke. What do we want to see after Craig? Henry Cavill or Dominic West in remakes of THUNDERBALL or GOLDENEYE entitled TIME TO KILL ANOTHER TOMORROW or DIE THE SPY TO DEATH? Didn't think so. Okay, then, how about another first-mission reboot? Heck, they could film CASINO ROYALE all over again - it's not as though they don't have the rights. No? Well, then, what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way? I can't see any good possibilities.

I couldn't disagree more, Loomis (naturally).

Bond films are not made for their key producing personnel to make money. That is not why they do it. They do it because they enjoy it, because it is a family business and because they have half a century's worth of films - a legacy that no-one would surrender easily.

Also, the Ian Fleming estate is not naive. They know that Eon Productions is the dog that wags literary Bond's tail. The Fleming people are not going to take the franchise elsewhere (even if they wholeheartedly and legally can).

And I would be wary of claiming that Eon "ran" Bond "into the ground" when there is little evidence to support that. Maybe LICENCE TO KILL didn't make shedloads of cash but it made enough. These films have made back their money almost before they are released as the guaranteed audience is there. And films like A VIEW TO A KILL, THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL are not evidence of the series running out of steam. If that was at all the case then there would have been no studios wanting to continue and rebrand Bond in 1995 after a six year gap. Those late 1980's entries actually secured the series as they were the box office and cultural evidence that proved Bond is still a viable commodity in the international markets.

And Barbara Broccoli and Micheal Wilson are not the only producers of Bond. There are plenty of other family branches (both creative and personal) already making a name for themselves as film makers - and it is they who may (just may) be the "management" in years to come.

[Loomis]

So what's going to happen, then? Bond will continue forever? The series will be on BOND 64 (or BOND 69, oo-er! Fnarr!) by the time we're in our dotage? I ask again: what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

[DAN LIGHTER]

Well said Zorin!

Only time will tell Lomis. I am sure EON will take care of it.

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 17 April 2009 - 11:35 AM.

[Zorin Industries]

what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

Henry Cavill.

Or whoever else may set the screen alight when he screen tests for the role. Cinema evolves. That is how it survives. It is also how James Bond 007 survives.

[Jim]

All sounds to the good. Distracting themselves with something else for a bit may be sensible. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and all that sort of thing.

[Orion]

I quite like having a largeer gap between QOS and Bond 23, it'll help build excitement for it. I never got as exctied about QOS as i did about CR or DAD (even though i loved QOS more than DAD and almost as much as CR) and it was because the excitement of CR hadn't eliviated before they where announcing things for QOS. With the longer gap between films i'll now be craving new Bond when it starts casting and whatnot.

[DAN LIGHTER]

Im sure they already know what they are going to do with the next one. I bet Daniel Craig has plenty of film projects to keep himself going.........although just checking the IMDb it seems not?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185819/

Anyway lets hope the wait makes it worthwhile. I am sure it will be a good one.

Edited by DAN LIGHTER, 17 April 2009 - 01:26 PM.

[Von Hammerstein]

As long as Bond makes money there'll be James Bond. And if it stops making money some production company or studio will buy the rights wait a few years and reboot all over again, maybe even re-film all the novels.

Bond. Go away? That's blasphemy sir!

Seriously, if Batman can survive "Batman and Robin" and Star Trek can survive the many poor films in that franchise, and we're soon to see the re-invention of Sherlock Holmes, Bond Will Never Die.














PS: Mickey and Babs, please if you read this, don't use Bond Will Never Die as a title,
Thanks
Von

[Germanlady]

Im sure they already know what they are going to do with the next one. I bet Daniel Craig has plenty of film projects to keep himself going.........although just checking the IMDb it seems not?

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0185819/

Well - he said, he wouldn´t do anything for a while and Tin Tin wasn´t planned either. Guess even a man, who loves acting as much as he does, needs a rest after 4/5 years of shooting back to back 5 films.

[dogmanstar]

So, THAT's where baby Bonds come from? Glimmers in mommy Bond's eyes? I knew I should have paid more attention in health class!

[Loomis]

what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

Henry Cavill.

Or whoever else may set the screen alight when he screen tests for the role. Cinema evolves. That is how it survives. It is also how James Bond 007 survives.

Unquestionably so, Zorin, but you're rather dodging the question.

I wasn't asking who can replace Daniel Craig as Bond (and neither am I suggesting that Craig is irreplaceable and that the series will end for that reason).

Casting was actually far from my mind. I mean, Craig is a wonderful 007 and deserves an enormous amount of credit for his role in revitalising the series, but he doesn't come up with the stories or creative directions. Neither would Cavill or any other actor.

What I was asking, basically, was: how can the series evolve (and survive) from the point of view of new material and new directions once the Craig era is over?

You see, I believe that - sooner rather than later - Eon will inevitably run out of worthwhile things to do with the character and films. This is no disgrace to Eon - it's just the way things are. As I'm sure you know, it's not just a question of "Create a villain and a villainous scheme and then think up a few action setpieces, and Bob's yer uncle, you've got a Bond film".

[double o ego]

So what's going to happen, then? Bond will continue forever? The series will be on BOND 64 (or BOND 69, oo-er! Fnarr!) by the time we're in our dotage? I ask again: what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

For starters, they could do what they've been doing all along and use current political climates as a template to tell their story all the while still realising that the films are still pure fantasy. That's one of the problems I felt QoS sufered from. It's like the film wasn't entirely sure to either be ultra realistic or keep that element of fantasy when it should have been an algamation of both. Batman and superman comics have been in circulation a couple of decades shy of a century, you'd think their respective audiences would have seen and read it all but guess what, they're still in continuous print. As long as the world needs policing there'l always be a place for James Bond. Part of the appeal is that, it's not the same actor in the role for obvious reasons and thus brings various interpretations which naturally bring out something different. Like I've said before Bond is essentially the same character but there's always something different worth seeing and besides, people in general will always wnat to see Bond and to quote a scene before Carver's death in TND, "Give the people what they want".

[Zorin Industries]

what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

Henry Cavill.

Or whoever else may set the screen alight when he screen tests for the role. Cinema evolves. That is how it survives. It is also how James Bond 007 survives.

Unquestionably so, Zorin, but you're rather dodging the question.

I wasn't asking who can replace Daniel Craig as Bond (and neither am I suggesting that Craig is irreplaceable and that the series will end for that reason).

Casting was actually far from my mind. I mean, Craig is a wonderful 007 and deserves an enormous amount of credit for his role in revitalising the series, but he doesn't come up with the stories or creative directions. Neither would Cavill or any other actor.

What I was asking, basically, was: how can the series evolve (and survive) from the point of view of new material and new directions once the Craig era is over?

You see, I believe that - sooner rather than later - Eon will inevitably run out of worthwhile things to do with the character and films. This is no disgrace to Eon - it's just the way things are. As I'm sure you know, it's not just a question of "Create a villain and a villainous scheme and then think up a few action setpieces, and Bob's yer uncle, you've got a Bond film".

You did actually ask how they could continue post Craig. My two word response was Henry Cavill.

Bond is reliant upon the times. And unless the world folds in on itself, there will always be new ways to tell, produce and consume James Bond films. It is a formula that evolves because it cannot stand still. Set five minutes into the future, the series tweaks just enough for most of the audience to not realise or care that they are watching something that is a new take on what has gone before. It is hard for Bond to "run out" of ideas as it is not strictly "new inventive ideas" that move Bond forward. It must be fresh but it can echo itself too. It has done since day one.

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm a musican and a songwriter (and 22) well one day in guitar lessons i blurted out "I'm pissed cause everything i write sound like a mixture of Who and yes" to which case my guitar teacher calmly replied "So You can't reinvent the A chord just play from the heart the rest will follow"


Same with bond I actually believe MGW and BB enjoy the character of 007 As does Gregg Wilson Etc. Loomis How can the keep going 40 years into the future well same way theyve been doing things in the past 40+ years (coming up on nearly 50) Try and create a balance between Fleming Fantasy and the current real world problems.

[Craig is 007]

The James Bond series has just been rebooted, so I really don't think the films of 007 will come to an end in near future. Just because Wilson and Broccoli is taking a break, doesn't mean that the Bond films will end. Actually it was good to hear that they are "recharging the batteries", which means that they are getting ready for another Bond adventure.

[Germanlady]

Just found this old article, we remembered Wilson talking abouta break. Its way back and obviously has nothing to do with them thinking taking a longer break would give us a better film (like some think and better is objective, of course).


Director Marc Forster says no to Bond 23, Craig commits
Its from 07-04-08
So its long planned and agreed on.

"Quantum of Solace" director Marc Forster has confirmed he will not be back for the follow-up adventure "Bond 23".

"If I would ever do a big movie again in that size," he said, "it has to be my own franchise, which I would create from scratch, which I would cast, create the look and really create the franchise on my own."

How about 007 himself? "I want them to stand alone and be good films," Daniel Craig said. "As long as that continues, then we'll keep making them. And if it doesn't, then we'll stop."

Producer Michael G. Wilson has indicated there will be a breather before the 23rd James Bond film starts pre-production, meaning it may be more than two years before Craig is seen as 007 for a third time.

http://www.mi6.co.uk...php?itemid=6093

[Quantumofsolace007]

I'm going to throw out 3 franchises

Friday the 13th

Halloween

Nightmare on Elm Street


If these 3 franchises can still keep going strong Bond has nothing to worry about.

[Mr. Somerset]

The James Bond series has just been rebooted, so I really don't think the films of 007 will come to an end in near future. Just because Wilson and Broccoli is taking a break, doesn't mean that the Bond films will end. Actually it was good to hear that they are "recharging the batteries", which means that they are getting ready for another Bond adventure.

Excellent point. I believe Mickey G said something along the lines that no one wants to be involved in the "last" Bond film...on the CR dvd documentary I believe. I don't think he's planning on quitting anytime soon. Sources are pointing to 2011 for B23, be nice to see an official announcement of the release date, though.

[Safari Suit]

What I was asking, basically, was: how can the series evolve (and survive) from the point of view of new material and new directions once the Craig era is over?

You see, I believe that - sooner rather than later - Eon will inevitably run out of worthwhile things to do with the character and films. This is no disgrace to Eon - it's just the way things are. As I'm sure you know, it's not just a question of "Create a villain and a villainous scheme and then think up a few action setpieces, and Bob's yer uncle, you've got a Bond film".

There are always talented and inventive screenwriters out there (or talented writers in other fields who maybe be able to stretch themselves into another medium) who will be able to bring a fresh new spin on the character, and for that matter directors who can bring a unique vision for these scripts. EON can always find such people. If the series is truly getting stale, they can allow these writers/directors a much freer reign than perhaps has been given to others in the past.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

OK. If we suppose for the sake of argument things do get wrapped up after Craig and the series 'ends' for good.
Could anyone say that sometime in the future, in this very commercial world we live in (and where film studios need to make their money), it would never occur to a producer or studio exec to bring back Bond? For me, as long as the answer to that question is NO there will always be Bond.

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 17 April 2009 - 05:03 PM.

[doublenoughtspy]

I can't believe what I'm reading.

If the series was going through a revolving door of actors, ala 69-73 where we had 3 different Bonds in 3 different films, or if it were the doldrums of the early 90s when it didn't look like a film would get made for a long stretch - I could understand fans predicting doom and gloom.

The franchise is strong and continues to make money and will continue to make money.

[dee-bee-five]

So what's going to happen, then? Bond will continue forever? The series will be on BOND 64 (or BOND 69, oo-er! Fnarr!) by the time we're in our dotage? I ask again: what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

Well, I guess people could have been asking the question "how can the Bond series continue beyond Connery or Moore or Brosnan in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?"

My guess is that Bond will now be with us just as Sherlock Holmes has never really gone away. The films may be much more sporadic than we're used to, but producers - even if it's not Eon at some future point - will always believe there's potential to make money from a Bond film. That alone will be incentive enough.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Neither could I. I actually wondered if it was the first of April

Edited by sthgilyadgnivileht, 17 April 2009 - 05:24 PM.

[Loomis]

I'm going to throw out 3 franchises

Friday the 13th

Halloween

Nightmare on Elm Street


If these 3 franchises can still keep going strong Bond has nothing to worry about.

None of those franchises is exactly renowned for high quality films, though. I'm taking it as read that it's not enough for us simply for Bond to continue (or at least it shouldn't be) - what's equally important, if not more so, is that the series should continue to deliver quality.

You don't worry about quality if you're making POLICE ACADEMY 9 or the eightieth CARRY ON film, but Bond has always (even in the Moore and Dalton dog days of the '80s) been tailored to a much higher standard than most of the competition.

I don't dispute that Bond can keep going. What I wonder is whether the well of good ideas is about to finally run dry.

Now, I'm sure that There Will Always Be James Bond™ in the sense that, to quote dee-bee-five, producers - even if it's not Eon at some future point - will always believe there's potential to make money from a Bond film. But I certainly believe that the current Eon series is on its way out.

[MattofSteel]

what's your suggestion as to how the Bond series could continue beyond Craig in a fresh, exciting and worthwhile way?

Henry Cavill.

Or whoever else may set the screen alight when he screen tests for the role. Cinema evolves. That is how it survives. It is also how James Bond 007 survives.

Yep. To both parts. I really don't think the search for Bond #7 will be nearly as interesting as #6

I can't believe what I'm reading.

If the series was going through a revolving door of actors, ala 69-73 where we had 3 different Bonds in 3 different films, or if it were the doldrums of the early 90s when it didn't look like a film would get made for a long stretch - I could understand fans predicting doom and gloom.

The franchise is strong and continues to make money and will continue to make money.

No kidding! The films are taking in the upper registers of 500 million each, close to 600. Craig is almost universally loved. The franchise was in the best shape since 1965 after Casino Royale, and it took only the slightest of hits b/c of Quantum's "un-universal" admiration (but general admiration nonetheless). I mean, I wasn't alive when fans survived Moonraker, and I was an infant when they survived A VIEW TO A KILL. The idea that one film could kill the Bond franchise is almost laughably ludicrous. It's an idea that allowed them to roll the dice twice with CR and QOS, in their own respective ways, and come up with wins.

I also have to say I'm surprised people are getting hung up on the declining volume of remaining Fleming material. Really? Faithful Fleming adaptations stopped with the 4th film of the series. Out of 22. (Discounting a reappearance for OHMSS, CR,...and I haven't read LALD in awhile, but isn't that one kind of close?) Otherwise - what is a Bond film since 1967, but a generally original (cinematic) plot sprinkled with elements and influence of Fleming?

The series, for me, has never really been about adapting Fleming. It's been about emulating Fleming. Call it 'Flemulation', although that term sounds a bit dodgy for obvious reasons! Even Goldfinger and FRWL, my two favourites, take considerable exception with their source material.

Someone asked the question on the boards recently, could QOS have been a Fleming novel? Well for my money, yes, there was something distinctly Flemingesque about elements of it - and yet it's adapted from nothing. Emulated. That's the best we can hope for, that the filmmakers do it, and do it well. Even the Brosnan era, which would be far less reviled were it not for a few brief sci-fi elements and aspects in DAD, hardly used direct Fleming material.