1017 replies to this topic

[Dustin]

Oh, I wouldn't say Bond is no longer current. Marvel and Bond are two very different players who only happen to work overlapping fields. And Marvel's success is also largely due to a multitude of characters and storylines, many of which date back forty years and more. There is a vast pool of potential material to be adapted for the screen with several different 'generations' of heroes to pick for the job.

Bond is - in spite of recent developments - still a single player fighting his way through events. Naturally there have to be other aspects Eon have to consider, and also a different frequency for their productions. But if anything the last decade has shown public interest in Bond remains strong even with longer gaps. If Marvel did just one production every three to four years they'd have stopped after IRON MAN III

[Tiin007]

I agree with everything you say, Dustin, AND I think that producing Bond films on a more regular cycle would be the most beneficial way to proceed in the long run. I'm okay with a slightly larger gap between Bond actors, but between films with the same actor I'd rather return to a two year cycle. The series needs that kind of stability. I'd even be okay with alternating between two and three year gaps. But EON can't keep playing it by ear. They need to establish a new loyal fan base rather than rely on the brand recognition and the old fans. 

[Dustin]

At the beginning Eon did everything to establish the Bond brand by regular releases of fresh material - for a given value of 'fresh' after YOLT - and today it looks as if they had a couple or writers working on two or three projects simultaneously up until TMWTGG or so. I'd say if they want to go back to the every-other-year schedule they would have to do just that, keep a pool of writers constantly on the case, keep the production staff nearby with pre-production starting soon after a premiere. It should be possible from a purely technical point-of-view. Provided, that is, you want to do it this way. Back in the 60s Eon made their own product scarce to set it off from the competition. That basic approach shaped their culture until today; and not without reason. It remains to be seen whether this will change in the future.

[Mr. Somerset]

Every Bond film since TWINE has been delayed at least an extra year or two with the exception of Quantum of Solace. That's 17 years of Bond in limbo with only a handful of films released during this time. If one were to compare the 17 years between 1962-1979- 11 films and only 5 made after TWINE that is a huge reduction.

Now we're told Bond 25 is late 2018 at the earliest, which IMO pretty much means 2019. I do feel after 54 years Eon has become burnt out and it becomes a serious risk of the next film potentially being the last.

[Tiin007]

Every Bond film since TWINE has been delayed at least an extra year or two with the exception of Quantum of Solace. 

 

Quantum of Solace was also delayed. Soon after Casino Royale was released, EON revealed their plan to release the follow-up in the summer of 2008 (just a year and a half later). Eventually, they realized that such a quick turn around would be too burdensome, so they delayed it until November 2008. 

[DavidJones]

I concur with all this. Bond needs serious help. I think Eon lack a work ethic and enjoy resting on their laurels.

[S K Y F A L L]

lol been saying this for years

[Mr. Somerset]

 

Every Bond film since TWINE has been delayed at least an extra year or two with the exception of Quantum of Solace. 

 

Quantum of Solace was also delayed. Soon after Casino Royale was released, EON revealed their plan to release the follow-up in the summer of 2008 (just a year and a half later). Eventually, they realized that such a quick turn around would be too burdensome, so they delayed it until November 2008. 

 

That's right! I forgot about that. The "next Bond film delayed" headline got old in 2003, yet the trend continues...........

[S K Y F A L L]

Since

 

1989: 8 Bond films / 8 Batman films counting BVS (Plus a solo film in 2019*)

 

1999: 6 Bond films / 6 Star Wars (Rouge One coming soon, plus one every year after TFA)

 

2000: 5 Bond films / 9 X-Men films (plus next years Wolverine film)

 

2001: 5 Bond films / 8 Fast and Furious films (8th coming soon)

 

2002: 5 Bond films / 5 Bourne films (5th coming soon)

 

2002: 5 Bond films / 5 Spiderman film (not counting CACW)

 

2007: 3 Bond films / 4 Transformers films (plus one in the making)

 

2009: 3 Bond films / 3 Star Trek films (plans for a 4 film underway)

 

2010: 3 Bond films / 3 Expendables films (one more in 2017)

 

and these are just film series'es....* I'm aware off.

[Dustin]

I get what you want to say with this. But actually when I look at it this way Bond is still doing pretty good compared to the competition. Only Transformers, FF and X-Men have more entries and neither of those is really dependent on a single character or a story in the way Bond is. I am of course not completely sure but guardedly confident the demand for new entries in these franchises will most likely not be overwhelming 50 years from now. While I still can imagine Bond might be around in 2066 in some form, if probably not with all that many sequels.

[DavidJones]

I hate to say it, but I don't consider Bond an active franchise anymore. Here's a curiously different analogy: other franchises mentioned are always awake while the Bond series is asleep most of the time but stirs itself awake occasionally.

[stamper]

Two year gap is impossible.

 

Writing / financing / pre-production takes one year

Shooting/editing/mixing takes over one year

Promotion / holidays takes one year

 

They should be on a three years cycle minimum but in reality they need four. On two years, they would burn themselves out and issue crap films badly written. On three the next script needs to be already done by the time the precedent movie is released worldwide which is impossible because every bond is a reaction to the criticism for the one before.

 

So it's gotta be four years. It's not like in the sixties where anarchy reigned and they could do whatever they wanted and release one every year. These are huge machines, which can't be moved along. Unless you scale them back, and ends up with disappointed audiences if the visuals aren't as competitive as any super-hero or sci-fi film out there.

[Mr. Somerset]

I hate to say it, but I don't consider Bond an active franchise anymore. Here's a curiously different analogy: other franchises mentioned are always awake while the Bond series is asleep most of the time but stirs itself awake occasionally.

Excellent point. Bond is no longer an ongoing series, but an occasional event, which I hate to say will probably be "soon to be made extinct".

[sharpshooter]

I agree with the point that Bond movies are now an occasional event, but I don't think the brand will become extinct. The surrounding franchise media of comics, novels and sometimes games keeps the train chugging along. The films no doubt give everything a boost though. Even if one film came out every decade the interest would be there.

[Mr_Wint]

Given the financial success they just had with SF and SP, I think it is safe to say that it is an "active franchise".

[DavidJones]

Two year gap is impossible.
 
Writing / financing / pre-production takes one year
Shooting/editing/mixing takes over one year
Promotion / holidays takes one year
 
They should be on a three years cycle minimum but in reality they need four. On two years, they would burn themselves out and issue crap films badly written. On three the next script needs to be already done by the time the precedent movie is released worldwide which is impossible because every bond is a reaction to the criticism for the one before.
 
So it's gotta be four years. It's not like in the sixties where anarchy reigned and they could do whatever they wanted and release one every year. These are huge machines, which can't be moved along. Unless you scale them back, and ends up with disappointed audiences if the visuals aren't as competitive as any super-hero or sci-fi film out there.

I respectfully disagree. They delivered a film every two tears in the '90s and can do so again. If they have a script which is being written in the background. It's entirely possible and this has been proved by four decades if it happening that way.

[Dustin]

A very time-consuming part is the script. And here not simply the writing but the rewriting part: including scenes the promotional partners insist on, including scenes the actors want, changing scenes they don't want, minding the director's wishes, those of the producers, changing dialogue, including what the stunt work leaves to be included andandandand... And none of these customers is going to tune back on his or her influence. The actual writing part is perhaps not even half of the job. And at times even lauded writers deliver only half a job. That's why a proven team is called back time and again - because they get the job done.

[SecretAgentFan]

Precisely.

 

And it´s that time again in which the Bond films are caught in a sea of difficulties which prevents EON from making surefire plans.

 

Although I do get the feeling that an actor who would be keen on making Bond films would render everything else much, much easier.

 

I understand many big budget productions will be filmed in Great Britain in the next year, and so far no studio has put plans on hold because of the Brexit.  So that does not seem to be, at this moment, the real impediment.

 

And if there were a clear idea about Craig returning or not MGM would settle the distribution deal quickly because - well, they need the money from a Bond film.

 

EON, I believe, would not delay a Bond film, especially if the iron is still hot - and SPECTRE´s earnings were proof for that, no matter its shortcomings.

 

Which leads me to only this conclusion: the deciding factor is Craig.  He does not seem to want to star as Bond again in the next two to three years.  But he obviously has not ruled out returning.  He milks the situation like any actor in his position would - but for EON and MGM it´s creating an impasse.  As long as nobody stands up and risks a failure asking for a new Bond actor, nothing will move forward.

 

The sensible decision for Craig would be to wait how his work in "Purity" will be received.  If critics rave about him getting back to character roles he might decide that he does not need Bond anymore.  If not he can still say: hey, guys, I changed my mind and will come back. 

[S K Y F A L L]

4 years = generic, commercial, over use of locations and NO new chance of trend setting. 

 

DN is one of the best Bond films IMO and it was basically set in one location. Simple can be good. 

[Pierceuhhh]

EON should move on without Craig. Bond is bigger than any one actor.

And I'm no expert but two years seems easily achievable. They didn't have SPECTRE's script until December 2014, and managed to pull that pretty big movie together in under a year. Remarkable. Thomas Newman is the only person whose work seemed to suffer under a tight deadline, but maybe he was just being lazy in recycling so much material - we'll never know.

On the other hand, the script - particularly THAT diabolically stupid script - taking two years to pull together is unforgivable. Poor management from the Broccolis combined with poor work from Logan? Either way, you'd be able to find five or so people on these forums alone who could've fixed SPECTRE's script in a weekend of brainstorming, and a production company with access to the cream of Hollywood's writers should be able to do even better. Bizarre!

Other nitpicks with the movie don't need a big lead-in time to fix next time around. Van Hoytema doesn't need three years to turn off the ugly yellow filter. Broccoli doesn't need three years to think to herself, "You know, maybe this whole Sam Smith thing isn't a great idea!"

[Tiin007]

On the other hand, the script - particularly THAT diabolically stupid script - taking two years to pull together is unforgivable. Poor management from the Broccolis combined with poor work from Logan? Either way, you'd be able to find five or so people on these forums alone who could've fixed SPECTRE's script in a weekend of brainstorming, and a production company with access to the cream of Hollywood's writers should be able to do even better. Bizarre!

 

I'm usually in the camp that is thankful the fans don't have control of the franchise, as I think that sometimes we get carried away with unfeasible desires. But in this case, I actually agree with you. Some of the mistakes on SPECTRE seem so easily fixable. 

 

I'd argue that the following three BASIC changes would vastly improve SPECTRE:

1) Get rid of the DB5. It was destroyed in Skyfall. I no longer want to see it again.

2) Get rid of Bond and Blofeld as childhood acquaintances. This could be done in one of two ways-- either make Blofeld behind the events of the past three films without tying it to Bond's childhood (i.e. no Oberhauser); or simply keep everything as is (including the stepbrother stuff), but let the character stay as Oberhauser (i.e. no Blofeld). 

3) Get rid of the "love story" between Bond and Madeline. It was both forced and too soon since Vesper. 

 

Mark my words: those three relatively minor changes would have produced a vastly superior film. And even if certain fans would still be dissatisfied with the final product, at least they could go to sleep easy knowing that the movie's missteps won't need to have any bearing on Bond 25. 

 

And I am saying all of this as someone who genuinely enjoyed SPECTRE.

[SecretAgentFan]

I think that the Bond films should cut back on their budget, get back to more down-to-earth spy stories, not compete with the already stale action blockbusters and thereby lose this chip on their shoulder to constantly top themselves.

 

"Casino Royale" actually worked so well because it did not strain itself so much to outdo any Michael Bay-style blockbuster.

 

In a way, I think that cutting the budget way down would help the franchise enormously, like it did on the STAR TREK movies when Harve Bennett, an experienced TV producer was entrusted with it, getting the production on time and on its scaled down budget in the can - the result: THE WRATH OF KHAN, a tight, in every way successful movie that gave the franchise new life.

 

Turning the Bond films into lean spy thrillers again in which action sequences don´t have to be over the top anymore, concentrating on the great central character and the way he thwarts a compelling villain´s plan - that would be the way to go and a better chance at getting more films out of one actor.

[sharpshooter]

EON should move on without Craig. Bond is bigger than any one actor.

I agree with this in theory. But if they're waiting anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with Craig doing one more. 

[RMc2]

I think that the Bond films should cut back on their budget, get back to more down-to-earth spy stories, not compete with the already stale action blockbusters and thereby lose this chip on their shoulder to constantly top themselves.

 

"Casino Royale" actually worked so well because it did not strain itself so much to outdo any Michael Bay-style blockbuster.

 

In a way, I think that cutting the budget way down would help the franchise enormously, like it did on the STAR TREK movies when Harve Bennett, an experienced TV producer was entrusted with it, getting the production on time and on its scaled down budget in the can - the result: THE WRATH OF KHAN, a tight, in every way successful movie that gave the franchise new life.

 

Turning the Bond films into lean spy thrillers again in which action sequences don´t have to be over the top anymore, concentrating on the great central character and the way he thwarts a compelling villain´s plan - that would be the way to go and a better chance at getting more films out of one actor.

 

Hear, hear!

 

I long for a sequence in a Bond movie similar to Lazenby breaking into Gumbold's office in OHMSS. Simple, classic tension and espionage. No violence, just the threat of discovery and the anticipation of revelatory clues.

 

CR gave us something similar when Bond checks the surveillance tapes in the hotel. But that obviously wasn't used for tension, just intrigue.

[Major Tallon]

Amen, SecretAgemtFan.  Well said.

[Matt_13]

EON should move on without Craig. Bond is bigger than any one actor.

I agree with this in theory. But if they're waiting anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with Craig doing one more.

That's where I'm at too.

[Surrie]

 

 

EON should move on without Craig. Bond is bigger than any one actor.

I agree with this in theory. But if they're waiting anyway, I wouldn't have a problem with Craig doing one more.

That's where I'm at too.

 

 

Ditto. If they are going to work on other projects in the mean time, and then when they come back to Bond Craig is still interested then fine. 

[SecretAgentFan]

I would prefer Craig to say right now: guys, I need this amount of time and then I will definitely come back.

 

I would hate it if Craig said: gee, I don´t know, ask me in three years - and then deciding: naw, don´t feel like it.

 

But who knows, maybe Craig and EON already have had that conversation - and that´s why they are waiting.

[Surrie]

I would prefer Craig to say right now: guys, I need this amount of time and then I will definitely come back.

 

I would hate it if Craig said: gee, I don´t know, ask me in three years - and then deciding: naw, don´t feel like it.

 

But who knows, maybe Craig and EON already have had that conversation - and that´s why they are waiting.

 

I think this could have already happened. I don't think BB is so infatuated she would not put her business mind to good use. 

[sharpshooter]

But who knows, maybe Craig and EON already have had that conversation - and that´s why they are waiting.

Yeah, it's possible. Craig's current timetable doesn't rule him out from returning again if the film isn't until 2018.