1017 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Certainly not with the kind of deal MGM have in mind. A leaner, smaller production would not justify the pound of flesh they ask of their partner studio for the privilege to finance 007 and take the lion's share of the risk in the bargain. Not that MGM is going to get everything they want in the future. But they have to make some profit from Bond or the whole of MGM will not look very appetising in their IPO prospectus...

[Mr_Wint]

It's fairly evident a much better, tighter story could have been found for SPECTRE, even one including the characters and personnel of Craig's timeline. Sadly, it's not what we've got and all we can hope for is that they do better next time. However, by now I think I'd rather not see Waltz's Blofeld returning, mainly because I found him to be relatively weak and uninteresting. Silva was a far more engaging character, everything Blofeld should have been. I would very much hope they concentrate on creating a similarly strong villain for BOND 25, whenever that may come to be.

Blofeld should have been like Silva? It feels like they are two very different characters, with Silva being the more flamboyant one.

Call me old-fashioned but I think SP has a far better villain than SF. Bardem's Silva is a flimsy mess and no match for Bond. Blofeld is an old-school Fleming-style villain. Check his introduction scene at the table or the meteorite scene again. That's a villain worthy of a Bond movie.

[Dustin]

Horses for courses...

[S K Y F A L L]

MGM Means Great Movies! 

[DavidJones]

Maybe casting a Chinese-British man as a regular character woiuld guarantee a China release.

[SecretAgentFan]

This actually makes SONY very attractive for MGM:

 

http://www.hollywood...alliance-932028

[Dustin]

Yes, this would put Sony in a very comfortable position. Could be this tips the scales in their favour.

[Mendalla007]

Maybe casting a Chinese-British man as a regular character woiuld guarantee a China release.

 

How about a Chinese Bond girl, maybe even a rebooted Wai Lin? Jing Tian is getting cast in tentpole pictures right and left (Kong : Skull Island, Pacific Rim 2, The Great Wall) and, while I have no idea how good an actress she is since I haven't seen her in anything yet, she's certainly got the looks to be a Bond girl.

[Dustin]

It's by no means a given a Chinese character would actually help a Western film on the market there, we just keep assuming this. But from what you hear regarding censorship in the PRC you can get into hot waters for any number of things, from sex to politics. It's literally unpredictable. The only sure thing is that a well-known franchise such as Bond still has enough clout and demand with the audience to make it there. At least for the time being. And with a partner who can offer access to the biggest number of theatres there...

[DavidJones]

Does the fact every film will be a 3-4 year wait actually put anyone here off being a Bond fan?

 

I, for one, am certainly less energized about the whole thing since the long gaps started.

[Tiin007]

Does the fact every film will be a 3-4 year wait actually put anyone here off being a Bond fan?

 

I, for one, am certainly less energized about the whole thing since the long gaps started.

 

Same. The lack of regularity (which was such a staple of the series for decades) makes me sometimes feel like the series is losing steam. I don't want every Bond movie to be an "event" film. I found the quality of the Dalton films to be very high, and I'd welcome a return to an every-other-year schedule with that level of quality.

 

Also, the series has now been around for 54 years. Half of that is 27 years-- meaning that LTK was in the first half of Bond films when measured by time. It's astounding to me that we got 16 Bond films in the same amount of time that we have subsequently received 8 of them. In other words, 2/3 of the Bond films were released in the first half of the years. EON's output has literally been cut in half.

[tdalton]

Does the fact every film will be a 3-4 year wait actually put anyone here off being a Bond fan?

 

I, for one, am certainly less energized about the whole thing since the long gaps started.

 

Same for me as well.  I don't much care for "event" films anyway, so the more they take Bond in that direction, the less inclined I am to really care about it all that much. 

[S K Y F A L L]

My thoughts exactly. 

[Dustin]

Next year I will be a Bond fan for 40 years. In that time I've seen, heard and suffered through lots of things, from Bond films being THE summer blockbusters of their year to them being 'just one more' - and back again. When I was a young man and there failed to show up a new film three years in a row I was fairly sure they were already done - and I knew nothing then of the tricky behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

Today, we are much better informed, but also much less patient about getting news. Or downright mad when the news we get doesn't agree with us. I can understand this, but nonetheless it's still not even a year after SPECTRE. And while the overall situation may not be ideal to say the least, it's fairly sure that the series WILL commence. That was not the case after '89.

These longer gaps, while certainly annoying, do not really influence my status of being a fan all that much. I've long since ceased to go totally stark raving bonkers about the films. I enjoy them - some more, some less - and I'm intrigued by news about them. But in the end I know my personal enjoyment or my feelings about them are as inconsequential as the show itself. The revelations about life don't come after a gunbarrel snippet. Or before or in between.

[Harmsway]

I, for one, like the relative scarcity of Bond films.

[Tiin007]

I, for one, like the relative scarcity of Bond films.

 

Why? (just wondering)

[SecretAgentFan]

Next year I will be a Bond fan for 40 years. In that time I've seen, heard and suffered through lots of things, from Bond films being THE summer blockbusters of their year to them being 'just one more' - and back again. When I was a young man and there failed to show up a new film three years in a row I was fairly sure they were already done - and I knew nothing then of the tricky behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

Today, we are much better informed, but also much less patient about getting news. Or downright mad when the news we get doesn't agree with us. I can understand this, but nonetheless it's still not even a year after SPECTRE. And while the overall situation may not be ideal to say the least, it's fairly sure that the series WILL commence. That was not the case after '89.

These longer gaps, while certainly annoying, do not really influence my status of being a fan all that much. I've long since ceased to go totally stark raving bonkers about the films. I enjoy them - some more, some less - and I'm intrigued by news about them. But in the end I know my personal enjoyment or my feelings about them are as inconsequential as the show itself. The revelations about life don't come after a gunbarrel snippet. Or before or in between.

 

Quite the same with me.

 

After ´89, for example, I was very disappointed by LTK then, and every other action film seemed to be so much more fun.  I remember all the reviews that pointed out how old-fashioned and tired the formula had become.  LETHAL WEAPON 3 and INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE fired me up so much more, and I frankly did not care whether there would be another Bond film.  

 

Yep, I was young and ignorant.  Now I´m older.

 

Right now, the Bond films are practically guaranteed to go on for many more years.  It´s just that Craig´s openly publicized reluctance to go on which puts a dent into the whole enterprise.  And the internet enables us to vent our frustrations since we are conditioned now for instant gratification.

 

Oh, yes.  It´s Monday...

[Dustin]

Exactly. Younger fans may be extremely disappointed about the current state of affairs - but other than WWIII or an asteroid of the global killer class there is no reason why the series should not still be running 30, 40 or even 50 years from now. And one more gap of two or three years will look relatively banal in the greater picture. Some here may be around in 2062 and beyond - and by then it will no doubt look fairly ludicrous how we cared about an actor not willing to commit himself or whether his replacement dates one of the current crowd of Internet celebrities. Life will go on - and so will Bond.

[S K Y F A L L]

I definitely am part of that generation that suffers from wanting instant gratification. I can live with 3 years but 4 worries me. I'd rather see 4 years between Bond actors but would like the ball rolling when they start up again. Currently it feels like the franchise is at a stand still with this disruption deal in the works, hopefully they can make a long term commitment that wont see this issue again for a while. I guess I just figure Craig will be back in 2019 and 2023 we'll see Bond 7 but after that I'd love 2/3 year cycle again. But anyones guess is as good as mine if not better. We'll have to wait and see clearly. I just love watching the series in order, its like fast forwarding from 1962 to the present. The Craig films seem I want to say timeless, and can get away with these gaps, I just wonder if it could loss its momentum.

[DavidJones]

Whether or not we're a generation that demands instant gratification is a moot point. Three years is way too long. I know people who have lost interest in the franchise because of it and only see the film when I lend them the DVD.

[SecretAgentFan]

Too bad.

[Orion]

Given the first Bond film I could legally see in the cinema was Die Another Day, to me Bond films always have longer gaps than other franchises. In fact I found I enjoyed the hype and build up to QOS less than I did the other Bond films I saw in the cinema principally because it hadn't been that long since Casino Royale before the whole Bond machine had started up again, I didn't have time to miss it.

[plankattack]

Not looking to start trouble but if having to wait a while for the next installment is going to affect your "fandom-level" then I would offer that one isn't that much of a fan to start off with.

 

Bond on-screen went away for six years in '89, in a different time with a different media, and most of us had no idea whether or not the series would return. Were we worried/disappointed? Sure. But the uncertain future didn't change how we felt about the past that had made us fans.

 

If not being force-fed another episode is going to dull your interest, try Marvel. They've got stuff coming out by the minute......

[DavidJones]

Not looking to start trouble but if having to wait a while for the next installment is going to affect your "fandom-level" then I would offer that one isn't that much of a fan to start off with.

 

Bond on-screen went away for six years in '89, in a different time with a different media, and most of us had no idea whether or not the series would return. Were we worried/disappointed? Sure. But the uncertain future didn't change how we felt about the past that had made us fans.

 

If not being force-fed another episode is going to dull your interest, try Marvel. They've got stuff coming out by the minute......

 

I'll always be interested to a point. (I'm on a Bond forum now, after all) but I'm not chomping at the bit anymore. If Eon want to stay relevant, they will have to be quicker off the mark in future.

[Harmsway]

I, for one, like the relative scarcity of Bond films.

Why? (just wondering)

Because you need to be away from something to miss it, and I like that Bond films feel like proper events in a landscape crowded with franchises.

There are usually other items to fill in the gaps. The current comic book run, for instance, is fantastic.

[Dustin]

Not looking to start trouble but if having to wait a while for the next installment is going to affect your "fandom-level" then I would offer that one isn't that much of a fan to start off with.

Bond on-screen went away for six years in '89, in a different time with a different media, and most of us had no idea whether or not the series would return. Were we worried/disappointed? Sure. But the uncertain future didn't change how we felt about the past that had made us fans.

If not being force-fed another episode is going to dull your interest, try Marvel. They've got stuff coming out by the minute......

I'll always be interested to a point. (I'm on a Bond forum now, after all) but I'm not chomping at the bit anymore. If Eon want to stay relevant, they will have to be quicker off the mark in future.

I think that may be looking at it from the wrong direction. Eon - or so I suppose - are no longer concerned with being relevant so much. The past has given proof that there is an interest in Bond, and a need for new material with Bond, even after long gaps. And even in times when the political climate seemed to make a secret agent hero obsolete, something nobody here is going to experience again in our lifetimes. Bond is a proven asset and done right can in any given year play the Champions League.

It's true that other franchises currently are much more present on the public mind. But Eon don't exactly bother to compare themselves with Marvel or whatever is the current fad. They do their thing, they collect their money - and that's it for a time. They will be back, but only in their own time, they are not to be hassled.

As for the superhero competition, none of them are really in the same situation the 007 brand is. Their series generally look back on decades of stories with a vast assortment of characters. The film rights are largely in undisputed hands with a solid financial basis. Neither DC nor Marvel have to squeeze three parties into their vehicle, one of them chronically ill, another subject to change as the whimsy of the ill passenger dictates. And a look at Bourne, a series closer to Bond, suggests that the steam and originality has largely left the building.

Bond on the other hand has been through everything from the biggest hype to the depths of self-parody. But nothing has ever damaged the series beyond repair. The best indicator is the bookie campaign of the last few months and the Waltz interview that made the rounds so quickly. As soon as there is a new announcement by MGM/Eon regarding the upcoming production of BOND 25 the media is going to arrive in droves to cover the news.

Strikes me as relevant enough.

[Simon]

Whether or not we're a generation that demands instant gratification is a moot point. Three years is way too long. I know people who have lost interest in the franchise because of it and only see the film when I lend them the DVD.

 

A point so ably proven by Sjyfall's comparative lack of success...  I am sure Eon are aware of the above problem.

[DavidJones]

 

Whether or not we're a generation that demands instant gratification is a moot point. Three years is way too long. I know people who have lost interest in the franchise because of it and only see the film when I lend them the DVD.

 

A point so ably proven by Sjyfall's comparative lack of success...  I am sure Eon are aware of the above problem.

 

 

I love internet sarcasm. Even witless internet sarcasm.

[Tiin007]

While I agree with many of the recent comments that the consistency of output by EON will not make or break my personal position as a fan, and that it will likely not have much effect on the box office, I nevertheless think that the longer gaps do dilute our beloved series. 

 

When Bond films were being released every other year, there was a stronger sense of cohesion among the various entries. Indeed, while Roger Moore's seven outings varied widely in terms of quality (I rank some of his at the top of my list, and others at the bottom), I never had a hard time imagining them all as puzzle pieces which, when put together, created a beautiful whole known as "Bond, James Bond." They each seemed to be just a small piece of a larger whole.
 

Compare this to the Craig era. The only thing that really unites his films is the personal angle (if not the SP retcon). His development as a character in general and an agent in particular is all over the place. Whereas QoS did in many ways feel like a natural outgrowth of CR, the two Mendes entries are almost acting in a different universe. Bond goes from a rookie agent / "I never left" at the end of QoS to past-his-prime / going off the grid at the beginning of SF. Then when it seems like he is "ready to get back to work" at the end of SF, he once again goes rogue and eventually retires from MI6 in the very next film. And then there is the DB5's literal and symbolic destruction in SF, which is undone completely in the very next entry. Q assures Bond in SF that "we don't really go in for that anymore" (exploding pen) to providing Bond with an exploding watch and gadget-laden car in SP. And then there's the regurgitation of the tracker inserted in Bond's arm in CR-- Q injects the smart blood into Bond's arm in pretty much exactly the same fashion, as if we are meant to be impressed. 

 

(The only logical development plot wise is the merger of MI5 and  MI6 and the transition away from human intelligence after the events of SF. This actually made perfect sense in the overall narrative, and should have been stressed more.)

 

And that's only in the realm of plot points. When it comes to tone / style, the Craig era is likewise all over the place. 

 

Others here may disagree, but I think the longer gaps between films is partially responsible for much of this disjointed nature. No other actor's tenure has felt this disjointed.

 

Maybe another important factor here is the freedom granted to Forster / Mendes in comparison to their predecessors, but I think the gaps are really a large part of this. 

[Walecs]

100% agreed with Tiin007.