44 replies to this topic

[Pushkin]

While it does deal with SPECTRE and the next Bond film, the interview covers the entire film series. http://www.hollywood...el-craig-837655

[Simon]

Thanks for that. Interesting.

[Dustin]

Yes, great find!

[Mr_Wint]

GALLOWAY: I think Live and Let Die didn't do so well, and...

WILSON: No, it didn't, no.

Surprised that MGW didn't protest. Looking at the numbers it seems like LALD was one of the most successful films in the franchise.

[AMC Hornet]

Cut out all Wilson's "you know"s and the interview would take half the time to read.

[Royal Dalton]

And what's all this nonsense about Fox making Casino Royale?

[Vauxhall]

Great interview. Loads of interesting stuff I didn't know.

[Hockey Mask]

Yes, nice interview and good to see Wilson is involved and coherent.

[SecretAgentFan]

Wow.

[thecasinoroyale]

Thanks for sharing!

[SecretAgentFan]

So, January/February will be an interesting time for the future of the Bond films.

 

Also interesting: EON comes up with all the marketing ideas - and the distributor only executes it.

[Vauxhall]

Was meaning to say, January/February was so much quicker than I expected. Fingers crossed that means we'll avoid a period of dicey limbo. Also, is the general feeling a new studio would be wanting to build upon securing Bond as soon as possible, and encourage EON to get cracking on the next one?

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  The next distributor will not want to wait another three years to see the revenues.  

 

Also, the marketing of a Bond film every two years is much easier than every three years.  Let´s not forget: the general audience does not follow news about Bond as we do.  And especially the important teenage audience has to be gripped again and again.  Three years is a long time for that age group.  The 9 year olds who won´t go to see SPECTRE should definitely go to see BOND 25.  But they have to be introduced to Bond.  In the next three years, there will be so many more Marvel films and Star Wars films and DC films, they might lose track of Bond.  EON has to establish Bond again as something you can count on much more often.

[Dustin]

Whoever buys into Bond will of course want to start soonest. But it's not in fact up to them, they need Eon and Eon is moving in its own speed and circles. I agree that two years would be easier to keep on the public radar. But actually Bond films are present around the year now, practically on our fingertips, so I'm not sure Eon will see the need. If their next director-of-choice however would be raging to go, ideas and vision and story already steaming in his/her head, that might change a lot, also for Craig perhaps.

[SecretAgentFan]

True.  

 

Then again, QOS was keeping to the two-year-schedule, despite all the difficulties, writers´ strike included.  Only the legal issues led to the three years wait for SKYFALL.  And then, it was due to Mendes´ wish to focus on his theatre work that we got SPECTRE three years later.

 

Without Mendes I could imagine BOND 25 on schedule for 2017.

[Pushkin]

True.  

 

Then again, QOS was keeping to the two-year-schedule, despite all the difficulties, writers´ strike included.  Only the legal issues led to the three years wait for SKYFALL.  And then, it was due to Mendes´ wish to focus on his theatre work that we got SPECTRE three years later.

 

Without Mendes I could imagine BOND 25 on schedule for 2017.

 

I believe it was 4 years between QOS and Skyfall... Personally, I am a fan of the longer wait because I think a good story takes time. It's probably the hardest thing to get right in the movies.

[Dustin]

It doesn't take necessarily years for a good story to develop, you could have plenty of good stories within a few months. But then comes the scripting, the various drafts, stunts to include, locations, more drafts, other writers, complaints about this, too few lines for that character, changes, rewrites, too many lines for this character, weak dialogue, strong dialogue, plot holes, further changes, more rewrites, so on, so forth, you get the idea. There is no guarantee that more time gets you a better script. And without a good script it's hardly possible you get a halfway decent film.

[marktmurphy]

He's a clever man; always great to read an interview with him- thanks for sharing. I'd like to see something really in-depth about him; he's a figure that seems to go a bit unnoticed in Hollywood circles it feels and he's very interesting: a lawyer who didn't want to go into the movie business but ended up writing and producing one of the biggest movie series out there? How does that even happen?

[Simon]

Yes, I too get the feeling he is a deeply clever person.

 

But I wonder what his 'producing skill' is?  If one is to believe Saltzman was the salesman, Broccoli the showman... What then is Wilson's skill that has had no end of differing factors in an ever more complicated world to resolve while at the same time, producing creative and best selling art?

 

Lord only knows what it takes to succeed in that world and at that level, but if and when comes the time for a biography on this chap, I will be front and centre to read.

[FlemingBond]

it's strange how he continues to talk about how OHMSS barely made it's money back and i saw a list in the NY Times last week of the Bond films earnings. Adjusted for inflation it's actually 11th out of 23 films.

[Dustin]

He said it took a long time, longer than for any of the other films. It was costly and had an unusual story and import for Bond personally, that made it hard for OHMSS. But of course the film is still making them money and will continue to do so.

OHMSS's current standing with fans and critics came only about sometime in the 80s, when the series had turned into lots of fluff without enough substance. Before that it was the unloved stepchild. Nowadays it's a favourite of fans coming from the literary side and those of the early 'originals'.

[Pushkin]

I wonder if Connery ever regretted not doing OHMSS? He often talks about his love for FRWL because it had the best story and I think OHMSS surpasses it story-wise. To me, that should have been the last Bond film for Connery to make. 

[Mr_Wint]

it's strange how he continues to talk about how OHMSS barely made it's money back and i saw a list in the NY Times last week of the Bond films earnings. Adjusted for inflation it's actually 11th out of 23 films.

Yes but "adjusted for inflation" isn't the whole truth. There is no way you can compare films made over 53 by simply taking inflation into account. I know many people believe that, but I have some doubts.
 

OHMSS's current standing with fans and critics came only about sometime in the 80s, when the series had turned into lots of fluff without enough substance.

That's your view.
In any case, OHMSS was more embraced even by the filmmakers during the 80s. Like the direct references in FYEO (Tracy's grave and countess killed on a beach). Also, during Moore's tenure there were really only two versions of Bond that were accepted (Connery/Moore). Dalton and Brosnan made people realize that this character can be played by other actors, and that has certainly helped OHMSS a lot.

[Dustin]

OHMSS's current standing with fans and critics came only about sometime in the 80s, when the series had turned into lots of fluff without enough substance.

That's your view.
In any case, OHMSS was more embraced even by the filmmakers during the 80s. Like the direct references in FYEO (Tracy's grave and countess killed on a beach). Also, during Moore's tenure there were really only two versions of Bond that were accepted (Connery/Moore). Dalton and Brosnan made people realize that this character can be played by other actors, and that has certainly helped OHMSS a lot.

Oh you need not share it; surely OHMSS always had its followers. Only during the 70s/80s they were the splinter group of hardcore Fleming fans, not the average Bond fan. And critics of the time rarely came from the books and you find little love amongst their published work for OHMSS prior to, say, 1985. For a long time OHMSS used to be an insiders tip.

With the advent of video home entertainment the films became available for fans independently from cinemas which rather ran GOLDFINGER for the thousandth time than OHMSS. And from there its popularity surged.

[tdalton]

I wonder if Connery ever regretted not doing OHMSS? He often talks about his love for FRWL because it had the best story and I think OHMSS surpasses it story-wise. To me, that should have been the last Bond film for Connery to make.

I doubt he regretted it. I've never taken Connery for the kind of guy who would look back on that with regret, especially considering the ill will he held towards the franchise for a long timIe, and I'm sure still does to a certain degree.

I think the best thing for the franchise, at least from a creative standpoint, at that time would have been to have had On Her Majesty's Secret Service follow-up Thunderball and then, assuming Connery was still bitter towards the end of that film, back the Brinks truck up to his house like they did for Diamonds are Forever and convince him to do a proper You Only Live Twice.

[Mr_Wint]

OHMSS's current standing with fans and critics came only about sometime in the 80s, when the series had turned into lots of fluff without enough substance.

That's your view.
In any case, OHMSS was more embraced even by the filmmakers during the 80s. Like the direct references in FYEO (Tracy's grave and countess killed on a beach). Also, during Moore's tenure there were really only two versions of Bond that were accepted (Connery/Moore). Dalton and Brosnan made people realize that this character can be played by other actors, and that has certainly helped OHMSS a lot.

Oh you need not share it; surely OHMSS always had its followers. Only during the 70s/80s they were the splinter group of hardcore Fleming fans, not the average Bond fan. And critics of the time rarely came from the books and you find little love amongst their published work for OHMSS prior to, say, 1985. For a long time OHMSS used to be an insiders tip.

With the advent of video home entertainment the films became available for fans independently from cinemas which rather ran GOLDFINGER for the thousandth time than OHMSS. And from there its popularity surged.

It was your comment about the 80s films ("lots of fluff") that I don't share. Not going to argue about the fact that OHMSS always had lots of fans. But it seems like it got a more general acceptance first in the 90s.

[New Digs]

 

It was your comment about the 80s films ("lots of fluff") that I don't share. Not going to argue about the fact that OHMSS always had lots of fans. But it seems like it got a more general acceptance first in the 90s.

 

 

I would agree OHMSS got its recognition in the mid nineties. The Movie Collector article was the first proper appreciation of the film (directly outside of Bond fandom) that I ever remember reading, and that was published in March '95. In late '95 the film was finally released in Widescreen VHS in the full uncut print. Previous remastered editions of the Bonds on VHS did not include OHMSS at all. 

[FlemingBond]

it wasn't played much on tv in the 70s and 80s. it seems like it's since the mid 90s that more people caught it on tv and video.

some of the facts in that interview were off. they mention the cost of OHMSS, but YOLT cost more to make. they mentioned LALD didn't do well but it was actually TMWTGG that didn't do well.

but the reason i bring up how much it made is back then there was a different expectation. the Connery movies are still the record holders for ticket sales. So they're spending more money on the newer movies and they're actually making less money taking ticket price into account, but OHMSS is still being judged on a different scale.

Edited by FlemingBond, 15 November 2015 - 06:52 PM.

[Hockey Mask]

I'm not sure if I've ever seen OHMSS on TV. Would love to see the TV edit one day.

[FlemingBond]

you mean the really bad one from the 70s on ABC?