4014 replies to this topic

[tdalton]

IMO, such high turnover in the role and/or having dramatically fewer films made over a large period of time will eventually doom the franchise.  It'll be the opposite of what happened in the 80s, where Bond fatigued started to set in as they'd gone 20+ years with a new film arriving mostly on an every-other-year schedule. 

[Dustin]

Serious thought, and one that many fans share.

Up to now fans - casual and hardcore alike - seem willing enough to wait those average three years. Will that change if an actor does only three to four films during his tenure? I wouldn't think so but it's impossible to say for sure without people actually being aware of of these facts. I suspect the general audience will be more forgiving about it than the hardcore fans.

But is it really that big a difference to have only three or four films in a decade? For me it's not relevant how many films there are in a given period - as long as their quality justifies it. That's the dealbreaker in my view. And with fewer films a flop would also have graver consequences for the series as a whole.

[Odd Jobbies]

Maybe at this point the 3-4 films per actor is the model of the future, though.

 

- It frees actors who don´t want to be stuck in the role too long, thereby allowing access to those who otherwise would never want to be Bond.

 

- The event character of a Bond film is bigger if there are fewer films released.

 

- In an age of the minuscule attention span a more frequent change of the Bond actor will get the media and the audiences more excited.

 

 

Mind you, I don´t enjoy those possible reasons at all.  I still prefer to get a great actor who LOVES to be Bond and see at least six or seven films in a two-year cycle.

 

But who asks me?

I agree. I'm sure they're hoping to find a younger guy whose perfect for the role, but i'd bet this is their plan B - a bigger name for fewer movies. That'd be preferable to either casting a substandard young actor, or losing potential profits while waiting for the perfect younger actor who may never appear.

[sharpshooter]

So far, bookies and reddit users have managed to drive the entire news cycle for the possibly non-existent search for a new Bond.

Indeed. Lately, I feel it's more likely Craig returns. And good to see you back on the forums, tdalton.

[Odd Jobbies]

Serious thought, and one that many fans share.

Up to now fans - casual and hardcore alike - seem willing enough to wait those average three years. Will that change if an actor does only three to four films during his tenure? I wouldn't think so but it's impossible to say for sure without people actually being aware of of these facts. I suspect the general audience will be more forgiving about it than the hardcore fans.

But is it really that big a difference to have only three or four films in a decade? For me it's not relevant how many films there are in a given period - as long as their quality justifies it. That's the dealbreaker in my view. And with fewer films a flop would also have graver consequences for the series as a whole.

I think we're definitely looking at only 3 films per decade if the actor keeps changing.

 

And longer pre-production doesn't guarantee a better movie. A better guarantee is ponying up for quality talent and the more movies they make the more money they have to do that with.

[Jim]

The current run of four films in nine years isn't so bad, y'know.

[SecretAgentFan]

Serious thought, and one that many fans share.

Up to now fans - casual and hardcore alike - seem willing enough to wait those average three years. Will that change if an actor does only three to four films during his tenure? I wouldn't think so but it's impossible to say for sure without people actually being aware of of these facts. I suspect the general audience will be more forgiving about it than the hardcore fans.

But is it really that big a difference to have only three or four films in a decade? For me it's not relevant how many films there are in a given period - as long as their quality justifies it. That's the dealbreaker in my view. And with fewer films a flop would also have graver consequences for the series as a whole.

 

I believe that James Bond is already a brand that works whenever it appears on the screens.  It would take a really bad and unpopular actor to put a dent into that.  

 

So if a Bond film comes along every two, three, four or - heck - even more years, people will check it out.  And the hardcore fans will turn up, too, no matter how loud we protest on a message board.

 

And yes, the Dalton tenure proves that even only two films do not take away from the actor´s impact.

[tdalton]

I think the danger of having significantly more time between each film moving forward is that, eventually, the franchise could lose its footing with the general public, especially when you look at what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars.  Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter these days, and those franchises that are constantly in the public's eye and consciousness are going to get more of the attention.

 

I'm not saying that Bond needs to release every year.  It doesn't even need to make it a point to release every other year on a regular basis.  But, at the same time, it can't just settle for being a once every four years exercise.  First, that keeps it out of the public eye for too long, relying on the tabloids, bookies, and reddit users to keep it in the news for all of the wrong reasons, as we've seen this summer.  Second, it also makes it more likely that the films will take fewer and fewer risks, as having them come around only twice a decade, which would be the case if we move to a 4-year window, would create more of a focus on the bottom line (moreso than it is now, even) and lead to a product that's watered down so that it can reach the biggest audience humanly possible, as the existential risk of a flop becomes more and more grave as the films become less and less frequent.  

 

It won't happen right away, of course, but moving to a 4-year window will begin the slow march towards Bond becoming less relevant and would potentially do a decent amount of damage to the overall quality of the films moving forward.

[S K Y F A L L]

@Jim - isn't it more like 4 films in 14 years + next year and so on.

 

@SAF - I agree but do most mainstream fans know who Dalton is?

 

@Odd Jobbies - I agree with this line of thinking. 

 

Not every film has to be a huge extravaganza. DN wasn't, either was DAF, LALD, TMWTGG, OP, AVTAK, TLD, LTK or TND IMO. 

Sure anniversary films go all out, TSWLM, DAD, SF but since DAD they've tried to turn every film into an event. With countless homages and basically branding Bond with his PPK and DBS/5. Moore did not have all these thing and he's the man.

Maybe EON does not have the right stuff anymore, if their priority is for test screening audiences.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think the danger of having significantly more time between each film moving forward is that, eventually, the franchise could lose its footing with the general public, especially when you look at what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars.  Attention spans are getting shorter and shorter these days, and those franchises that are constantly in the public's eye and consciousness are going to get more of the attention.

 

I'm not saying that Bond needs to release every year.  It doesn't even need to make it a point to release every other year on a regular basis.  But, at the same time, it can't just settle for being a once every four years exercise.  First, that keeps it out of the public eye for too long, relying on the tabloids, bookies, and reddit users to keep it in the news for all of the wrong reasons, as we've seen this summer.  Second, it also makes it more likely that the films will take fewer and fewer risks, as having them come around only twice a decade, which would be the case if we move to a 4-year window, would create more of a focus on the bottom line (moreso than it is now, even) and lead to a product that's watered down so that it can reach the biggest audience humanly possible, as the existential risk of a flop becomes more and more grave as the films become less and less frequent.  

 

It won't happen right away, of course, but moving to a 4-year window will begin the slow march towards Bond becoming less relevant and would potentially do a decent amount of damage to the overall quality of the films moving forward.

 

I´m on the fence on the relevancy issue - I could imagine that fewer Bond films (although I don´t want to see less of them at all) could rather drum up interest.  On the other hand, the deciding factor for box office success is a shrinking group of young people who don´t go to the movies as often as before.  As this year´s disastrous summer box office proves audiences do turn up for opening weekends if they are interested in a movie - but they stay away in droves if they are dissatisfied.  The middle ground seems to vanish, people who give a movie a chance or even add to the repeat business.

 

And since Bond has more older fans than younger ones it could indeed become a problem if the younger generation does not show enough interest and will not groom the following generation to show interest either.  This would be the argument for more films, just to keep Bond in the headlines and constantly modernize it so it does not become just a nostalgia effort.

 

As for taking less risks - I fear that this will happen anyway.  As long as the budget for a Bond film (or any other mainstream blockbuster) is insanely high, risks will be minimized.  And as I understand the studios are in panic mode after this summer, striving for even more controlled product.

 

The only saving grace for a Bond film is the fact that this franchise still travels very well worldwide.  US box office is important but the rest of the world has always embraced Bond much more and therefore can save it.  But I definitely expect the next film to pander to the Chinese market - like so many blockbusters now do.  And that could lead to taking less risks again.

[Odd Jobbies]

Happy Friday, everyone

 

[Dustin]

Hilarious! Explains...everything.

[Surrie]

Poop? HA!

[Harmsway]

The current run of four films in nine years isn't so bad, y'know.

No kidding.

[Odd Jobbies]

My fave is the gun appearing from the mouth of the 'Janus head', with '!!!!!!"

 

I think it's probably an allusion to 'woman power'; a female M and hench-woman, but '!!!!!'  is much funnier than my boring analysis

[tdalton]

The current run of 4 films in 9 years isn't bad, but that's buoyed by the presence of QOS only two years after CR.  Now that EON and MGM don't seem to want to return to that schedule, the average of films per decade is going to drop to, potentially, two per decade if they follow through with only having one every four years.

[Dustin]

MGM would probably love to return to that schedule...

[Orion]

MGM​ is the cause for the longer gaps what with their financial "issues" EVERY. OTHER. FILM

 

MGM SEEKS CO-FUNDER FOR 007

 

oh, is it that time already?

[SecretAgentFan]

Not to stoke any new fires for Hiddleston - but his impressions of co-stars (even Idris Elba) are spot-on: 

 

https://www.vanityfa...social_facebook

[Odd Jobbies]

It's either Idris or a potty mouthed Dick Van Dyke

[tdalton]

Hiddleston's impressions are OK, but I think the media makes them out to be far better than they are.  Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what they've done with Hiddleston himself.  

 

I would have been OK with Hiddleston as Bond back in June, but the more he speaks to the media, the less of a chance I find myself being willing to give the idea.  

[SecretAgentFan]

I get the impression that he has given up on the idea himself.

[Harmsway]

I get the impression that he has given up on the idea himself.

The lack of any reports confirming his association with the role suggests that something fell through. If he was really going to be Bond, odds are that we'd hear something.

My guess is that the offer to Hiddleston was part of an effort to get momentum moving on BOND 25, but things stalled with MGM and so everything is in wait-and-see mode pending further developments.

I'd bet that P&W are at work on a script.

[hoagy]

With BenHur flopping, perhaps the round-cheeked young fella in the lead will be out of 007 contention.  He is all wrong for Bond and I'd be shocked were his name mentioned due to anything more than speculation and publicist rumor-placing.

[hoagy]

I realize it may seem shallow to discount the feasibility of a particular actor for the part based on appearances, but, really, round-cheeked, round-faced does not a Bond make.

[tdalton]

I get the impression that he has given up on the idea himself.

 

Hopefully that's the case.  If any of the so-called "contenders" the bookies were throwing out there as the next Bond the past few weeks were to actually get the job, the franchise would be in big trouble.

[Odd Jobbies]

With BenHur flopping, perhaps the round-cheeked young fella in the lead will be out of 007 contention.  He is all wrong for Bond and I'd be shocked were his name mentioned due to anything more than speculation and publicist rumor-placing.

Haven't seen Ben Hur but the i'd imagine it gives him little room to act - far less than Bond at any rate.

 

He stole the show in Boardwalk Empire with his loyal but deadly, laconic, disfigured WWI vet.

[Dustin]

I get the impression that he has given up on the idea himself.

Hopefully that's the case. If any of the so-called "contenders" the bookies were throwing out there as the next Bond the past few weeks were to actually get the job, the franchise would be in big trouble.

Up to now the troubles of the series never stemmed from its choice for the main part. I wouldn't worry so much about the candidates; I'd be far more sceptic about what they would actually want to do with their hero than about who depicts him.

[tdalton]

I've long given up on them putting together a decent script.  Unless there's a Fleming novel to directly adapt, the current EON regime has shown themselves incapable of putting one together.  

 

I'm not worried about them casting Bond, as I know that Broccoli, who managed to identify and then convince Craig to take the part, wouldn't be the one pursuing any of the lightweights that have been mentioned by the media over the summer.  If any of them got the part, I'd say that they'd gotten the casting wrong for the first time since Lazenby, and that the franchise would be in trouble. 

[Harmsway]

TDalton, CB.n's reliable voice of doom and gloom.