5 replies to this topic

[AngusMcLean]

With the planned release of a new Bond movie every 3-4 years, there has been some chatter about what to do in the meantime.

 

3-4 years is a long time between drinks, and means each lead actor will have only a handful of films in his era. Daniel Craig is already coming up 49; surely we can't have another Bond over 50?

 

To my mind, a new movie would ideally come out every 2 years, keeping the momentum going and allowing an actor a decent crack at the title, 4-5 films being quite a reasonable expectation.

 

But 3-4 years? How do you, as a fan, fill in the time?

 

How about a TV series? A short series, maybe 6-8 episodes per season, with a couple of seasons between films.

 

Accomplished thriller writers such as Adrian Magson, Alex Berenson, Charles Cumming could write episodes, or maybe a season per writer. To differentiate the TV series from the movies, they could be period pieces set in Bond's war time, or in his early days with the service. That way it would complement the movie series, rather than compete with it.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

[SecretAgentFan]

Right now it would minimize the appeal of a Bond cinema blockbuster and hurt the brand, so it won´t happen.  

 

But if the films at some point would not work in the cinema anymore, a tv reboot would definitely be tried by whoever owns the rights then.

 

[Single-O-Seven]

Ten or 15 years ago, TV would have been a poor option. The quality of TV, as presented by networks like HBO, Netflix and the BBC, have made the idea far more palatable. Television now attracts major talent and production quality, which makes imagining Bond as a TV series easy to imagine. I agree with SAF that it won't happen right now. But should the film franchise stall, TV is the best option and I would love to see it happen. It would need to be a specialty channel - not a regular network, like ABC - and I also agree that a limited series would suit it best - say, no more than 8 episodes per season. I find shorter runs tend to be stronger, attracting higher quality and talent which Bond needs to maintain.

[David_M]

This is going to sound like heresy, but with 24 films already in the tank and constantly accessible via cable and streaming services, I'm not at all sure Bond is in dire need of more exposure; possibly just the opposite is true.  Already it seems to me a big part of perpetuating a 50+ year old franchise is the constant struggle to keep things interesting and novel, and IMHO it's not a struggle that's always won.  Trying to churn out multiple episodes of a TV show in between the theatrical releases could just compound the struggle, and make the train run out of steam even faster than it already is.

 

That said, from a purely selfish POV I'd love to see a faithful, "period piece" Bond series that did for 007 what the 80s Grenada series did for Sherlock Holmes.  But realistically, Eon has a vested interest in promoting one version of Bond at a time, and such a series would be counter-productive in that sense.

 

Back to Holmes for a moment, fans of the detective are in a great place right now with so many variant versions of the character available on TV and in movies, but that's because Holmes has fallen into the public domain.  That's probably what it would take to get more than one version of Bond out there, as well, and I don't think that's in the cards any time soon.

[Dustin]

I agree with David; I don't see a massive hunger for a Bond tv series. For the larger part of the audience such a show would only spark fresh interest if it was totally different from the films - and how to do this with Bond?

We have already had an experiment with the literary Bond in 'reimagining' 007. It didn't convince on a broader scale, nor is there an obvious lack of tv series with the Bond themes. To take Bond to this market would call for a massively innovative and intelligent product that's fit to compete with Homeland, House of Cards, countless Nordic Noir series, The Americans and a zillion shows from other genres.

Frankly, I don't see it. Especially not the faithful-to-Fleming miniseries adaptations. This just isn't going to win the vast audiences. And for a niche production Bond is just too big as a brand.

[David_M]

The other downside of a TV show is, what if people like it better than the movies?  Suppose they cast another Cumberbatch in the role, and he becomes the darling of millions of rabid fans.  Then when a Bond movie comes out with some other guy in the role, there's a backlash and resistance to whomever that is (especially if he's a newbie).  Warner Bros saw a version of this when they cast a movie Superman while they already had a popular guy playing the part on TV.  Now they're stupidly stumbling into the same trap with The Flash.

 

Think of all the free publicity EON gets out of the "Who's the next Bond?" speculation (even when they're not looking for new Bond!).  All that would take on a different tone, or just go away, if they had a "Bond of record" on TV.  Everyone would just say, "Let that guy do it."

 

Also, even if they did do a TV show, odds are it'd end up in the "Sherlock" mode and we'd have to wait 2-3 years for a new "season" anyway.  So if the object was to beat these long fallow periods, we'd be back to square one.