I wonder why this actually has happened.
With CR it seemed that EON had a clear grasp on what they wanted to do with Bond. Purvis & Wade even conceived the story with a sequel. And judging from their plans (laid out in The Bond Archives) it would have made absolute sense and brought closure to that story.
Instead, it appears to me that EON caught the bug of "we can be legitmate now". Haggis was, again, brought in because he was Oscar´s darling at that time. And to add to that they decided that an arthouse director like Marc Forster should helm and therefore shape the whole thing.
Granted, it was bad timing with the writer´s strike leading to the "lego bricks"-method (great image, Dustin!) for the first time. But still, it seems that EON began to think about not just getting a great Bond film but delivering something that would garner them critical acclaim and respect.
That did not really happen, however, and instead Daniel Craig was reportedly the first one to bring in Sam Mendes. That must have appealed to EON´s new "prestige thinking". So he was given much more freedom - and with SKYFALL it seemed that this is the way to go. Less EON influence, more acclaimed Oscar-director-creation.
With SPECTRE, it seems that EON stepped back even more so, desperately waiting for Mendes to return and letting him decide, obviously, on how things should turn out.
It looks to me that they have moved themselves into a corner here.
The current other franchises only seem to be able to move forward because there is a firm producing hand that actually decides, plans, maps out and keeps the director in check.
Reminds me of the "old" EON.
But is EON still willing to do that? Or does MGW rather step back and retire and does BB rather concentrate on other films that might add to her legacy as "not just" the producer of Bond films but of prize-worthy endeavours?
