24 replies to this topic

[AngusMcLean]

How to keep a long running series alive and kicking?

 

Bond has been through various phases over the years, usually dictated by who was playing the lead role at the time, or the prevalent societal pressures of the era. The Cold War has been and gone, the comedy of Moore's era is gone, Craig did the full reboot that was started by Dalton. So what next?

 

When Craig retires from the role, how will Mike and Barb keep the machine moving? There's a lot of competition out there with the likes of Mission Impossible and Bourne, so do they keep going in the same vein? Bigger and better stunts and more indepth character exploration?

 

Or do they flip it around a bit and make it lighter, more of a Moore-type era?

 

The War on Terror hasn't been properly looked at yet in the Bond series, yet it makes a natural background for an action-based spy series. Maybe Bond will be reborn with more of a militaristic flavour, maybe hunting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Africa, the Middle East, Asia-all good hunting grounds for counter-terrorist agents.

 

My bet is on this more so than the comedy or going even darker. I'd like to see maybe a younger Bond, a 30 year old not long out of the forces, But that's been done with Craig in Casino Royale, so maybe they will need a buffer between the two eras, as Brosnan was between Dalton and Craig.

 

What d'you think?

 

[SecretAgentFan]

Actually, there is not too much competition out there.  Bourne - done and overdone.  Mission Impossible - still fun, but how long can Cruise actually carry this further?  Kingsmen - no competition at all, rather a spoof.

 

 

But when I look into my crystal ball I see this:

 

- The introspective darkness of the Craig era is over.

 

- The next Bond will be lighter, more fun, returning to the more adventurous aspects of the series.  Why?  Because people are already deep in a funk right now and crave for something uplifting.  This is why WONDER WOMAN worked so well, and EON will take this idea and run with it.

[AngusMcLean]

Hmmm, good thoughts, SecretAgentFan...I wouldn't be surprised if another classic was resurrected.

 

MI has the ability to change to a new agent (risky, given Cruise's star appeal, but potentially doable) whereas Bourne tried that and it didn't take. The Man from UNCLE was tried with mixed results (personally I enjoyed it, you just needed to take it at face value as pure entertainment) and could potentially be revisited. The Avengers came back years ago, which I thought was abysmal, but it could be resurrected with a new crew. Hopefully the entertainment world has more to offer than superheroes, hobbits and CGI-everythings.

[MISALA1994]

[quote name="AngusMcLean" post="1340715"
Or do they flip it around a bit and make it lighter, more of a Moore-type era?
[/quote]This is why SP works for me (second behind CR).

[Mr_Wint]

My bet is that Skyfall will have a huge impact on future films. It was a huge boxoffice success and EON will not move too far away from this formula/style.

[Odd Jobbies]

My bet is that Skyfall will have a huge impact on future films. It was a huge boxoffice success and EON will not move too far away from this formula/style.

If that formula includes splashing the cash on writers/directors/cinematographers and cast from the upper tier, then i certainly hope they follow it.

[sharpshooter]

SPECTRE wasn't to everyone's tastes, but I'm guessing that's more or less what they'll keep doing now. Still somewhat grounded films but with more humour and gadgets implemented. 

[Dustin]

I would hope that the next phase of Bond - above and prior to anything else - sees a consolidation of the series: a business plan with a working schedule and a rough chart of where to go and how to proceed there, both in front of the camera and on the side of the property holders.

Styles like OTT superspy or action thriller can - and probably will - change with each new entry just as directors and producers see fit. But to retain its position as a landmark series of pop culture a reliable regimen of productions will be needed in the future. I've long been averse to the idea of a studio takeover of the series. But recently it looks as if the series needed such a move for its own continued survival.

If it came to that I suppose the series might once again set out to define its own niche, possibly again further away from 'realistic' storylines (that never were Bond's core narrative anyway).

[SecretAgentFan]

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

And the crazy thing is: when the reboot with CR was decided on, I thought EON would now inject the series with exactly that kind of forward thinking.  Then, after SKYFALL seemed to cement this status, it fell apart again with the 3 year break and Craig´s infamous interview indicating that his love for Bond has to be rebooted every time before it ends up spent and exhausted.

 

To survive in an era of built universes and mega franchises EON really has to give Bond much more attention and drive than they did during the last five years.  Otherwise it will become something like, well, "Sherlock Holmes" which lays dormant for a while before someone takes it on and gives it a new spin.

[Mr. Somerset]

I'm feeling the next phase isn't being planned or even in the cards. It's been months and still no distribution deal.... which is only for offered one film. A final for Craig?  A new actor usually gets offered a three picture contract.

At this pace, the next phase and Craig's follow up could be a whole generation from now. By the time B25 is released and the excitement from that dies down, they'll need another break from either exhaustion, another MGM situation, plotting a new course for the future. Another 4 year break? Considering not much is happening on the B25 front, I'd say we're looking at 7-8 years from now before a new Bond actor has their first outing released.

Initially it did seem a reboot could re-energize the series, but instead seems to have burned the filmmakers out.

[Tiin007]

I think the reboot and redefinition of Bond films during Craig's tenure has (somewhat counter-intuitively) caused long term creative issues for EON. Now it seems like they need to find some type of special hook, in an effort to appear innovative. 

 

Rookie agent gets his heart broken and becomes the Bond we all know and love. (He even resigns from MI6 in the middle.)

Out for vengeance, Bond attempts to uncover the truth behind Vesper's betrayal. (He is stripped of his 00-licence and goes rogue.) 

Feeling burnt by MI6, Bond leaves and returns for the monumental death of his beloved M. (He goes off the grid, apparently having been killed.) 

The head of SPECTRE is Bond's long-presumed-dead stepbrother. (He resigns once more.) 

 

Maybe instead of trying to wow audiences with some deep, existential crisis for Bond, EON would be better served crafting a strong and compelling story, even if it has no pomp or fanfare. 

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I miss the John Glen era. 

[Professor Pi]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I miss the John Glen era. 

 

Me too.

[Trevelyan 006]

I wish the franchise would be able to move into decade themed films without being campy. Or perhaps I need to stop living in the past...

 

My dream of a Bond film set in the late fifties according to the novels is only that. A dream.

[MichaelBrown]

I don't post often in these forums but this thread intrigued me.

 

It depends on whether Craig returns for one more on not. I agree with Tiin007 that the Craig era has caused creativity issues for EON. After Spectre, which seemed to me a half hearted attempt to wrap up the Craig era which they then backed out of, they have written themselves into a difficult corner. As I left the cinema with causal Bond fans there was confusion as to weather that was the last craig film and there wasn't much excitement for the next film. I personally am not excited by the possibility of them carrying on the Madeline or Blofeld storylines but that seems to be the only option. If Craig returns for one more they will have to commit to tying up his tenure in a way they didn't with Spectre. This should be character driven (because Craig's Bond has been and it is consistent) and one interesting angle they could explore is Madeline possibly finding herself in a compromised position like Vesper. Whereas before Bond was unable to convince Vesper that he could forgive her (hence she chooses suicide), this time Madeline who finds herself in a similar situation trusts that he can, and they walk off into the sunset together with Blofeld or whoever being dealt with along the way. This is probably too character heavy for a Bond film but for Craig, I think it fits and would be a way to tie up the Craig era.

 

I think there are two obvious directions moving forward creatively. One is that they return to the flat character of the early Bonds and focus on plot to drive the story. The second is that they continue to delve into the character further and use that as a means to drive the plot. 

 

I think the audiences of today expect and crave some internal conflict within the main character. Stories are about change and the main character is usually a vehicle of that change. I think audiences would struggle if they reverted back to the flat Bond who has no internal conflict. But I also agree it becomes increasingly difficult to watch a Bond who is always at odds with himself and constantly resigning. As often in life, I think there is a middle ground which is a better option than these two alternatives. 

 

I wrote a screenplay for a new Bond which I think (obviously!) manages to walk the line between these two pitfalls. It is a soft reboot for a new actor and uses Kenya as a location (unexplored territory with strong ties to Britain's colonial past) and delicately explores the issue of Islamic terrorism. Its in the Fan Fiction forum of this site if you are interested: The Death Collector.

[Mr_Wint]

I think the reboot and redefinition of Bond films during Craig's tenure has (somewhat counter-intuitively) caused long term creative issues for EON. Now it seems like they need to find some type of special hook, in an effort to appear innovative. 

 

Rookie agent gets his heart broken and becomes the Bond we all know and love. (He even resigns from MI6 in the middle.)

Out for vengeance, Bond attempts to uncover the truth behind Vesper's betrayal. (He is stripped of his 00-licence and goes rogue.) 

Feeling burnt by MI6, Bond leaves and returns for the monumental death of his beloved M. (He goes off the grid, apparently having been killed.) 

The head of SPECTRE is Bond's long-presumed-dead stepbrother. (He resigns once more.) 

 

Maybe instead of trying to wow audiences with some deep, existential crisis for Bond, EON would be better served crafting a strong and compelling story, even if it has no pomp or fanfare. 

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I miss the John Glen era. 

 

I think there has always been some kind of "hook" that drives them. Right now it is Bond's character and what he has to go through. During Guy Hamiltons days they focused a lot on the women. During the John Glen era, it was the stunt work that was the special hook. God knows what it will be in 20 years.

 

One thing I have really missed in recent films is a genious caper for the villain. There's nothing at stake these days.

[Tiin007]

 

I think the reboot and redefinition of Bond films during Craig's tenure has (somewhat counter-intuitively) caused long term creative issues for EON. Now it seems like they need to find some type of special hook, in an effort to appear innovative. 

 

Rookie agent gets his heart broken and becomes the Bond we all know and love. (He even resigns from MI6 in the middle.)

Out for vengeance, Bond attempts to uncover the truth behind Vesper's betrayal. (He is stripped of his 00-licence and goes rogue.) 

Feeling burnt by MI6, Bond leaves and returns for the monumental death of his beloved M. (He goes off the grid, apparently having been killed.) 

The head of SPECTRE is Bond's long-presumed-dead stepbrother. (He resigns once more.) 

 

Maybe instead of trying to wow audiences with some deep, existential crisis for Bond, EON would be better served crafting a strong and compelling story, even if it has no pomp or fanfare. 

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I miss the John Glen era. 

 

I think there has always been some kind of "hook" that drives them. Right now it is Bond's character and what he has to go through. During Guy Hamiltons days they focused a lot on the women. During the John Glen era, it was the stunt work that was the special hook. God knows what it will be in 20 years.

 

 

But in past times, the hook never felt quite so redundant. Yes, MR was basically a repeat of TSWLM, but other than that, it never felt like we were retreading past adventures (and I say this knowing full well that Zorin's plot strongly resembled Goldfinger's, and the ATAC machine was the 1980s equivalent of the Lektor decoder McGuffin). Having different stunt work (your example) in each Glen entry didn't feel like EON was simply rehashing everything that had come before. (And I'm not sure "women" qualify as the hook of the Hamilton entries.) 

 

My point is: a strong plot is more important on a regular basis than the melodrama of the Craig era. Yes, every few films we can have some melodrama, but when we do it in each entry, it becomes stale very fast. (I'd make the same point regarding questioning Bond's loyalty, usefulness, or relevance.) 

[Gobi-1]

I think what they should do for the next Bond actor, after Craig, is a soft reboot and set up a writer's room/story group to help plot out some sort of road map as they move forward. As they develop their new (or old) approach to Bond, the best ideas can float to the top and help form the universe and films they're developing. This wasn't necessary back in the 60s and 70s because the universe was already set up in Fleming's novel. You could adapt them them one by one. With no books to adapt more ideas will have to be created from scratch.

 

I say a good approach would be to take the novels and mine them for unused material, add elements/tropes of the classic films, plus the stronger emphasis on characters from the Craig era, and hire filmmakers to work with the writers/story group to develop/prep the next film while the current one is in production. I also think they should reduce the budgets for the films. Instead of spending 250+ million for a film every three to four years why not spend 125 million for a film every other year? Reduced budgets would put more emphasis on story, character, and suspense. It would also reduce the dizzying globe trotting of recent films. I'd much rather see one or two countries shown off in great detail, allowing a sense of the country's  culture to permeate the film then the brief layovers we've been getting lately.

 

This model is very much based on how Marvel and Lucasfilm run their film slate and regardless of how you feel about those films they get them produced and released in a timely and consistent manner. I for one would love to see Bond return to a regular, consistent schedule, instead of the feasts and famines of the last twenty years.

 

Also lets bring back the title of the next film at the end of the one you just watched. Marvel has their post credit scenes and I for one would wait till the end of Bond credits to find out the name of the film he will return in. It was a thrill to see the "James Bond will return in "For Your Eyes Only" tag up on the big screen from the recent Roger Moore double feature. Adding that to the new films would immediately build anticipation for the next. I would love to see that tradition return.

[Tiin007]

I fully agree with everything you just wrote, Gobi-1. Reduce the budgets and locations, focus on story, plot out the next film while the current one is finishing up. This would make a return to an every-other-year schedule very feasible. 

[mattjoes]

Also lets bring back the title of the next film at the end of the one you just watched. Marvel has their post credit scenes and I for one would wait till the end of Bond credits to find out the name of the film he will return in. It was a thrill to see the "James Bond will return in "For Your Eyes Only" tag up on the big screen from the recent Roger Moore double feature. Adding that to the new films would immediately build anticipation for the next. I would love to see that tradition return.

Agree with everything you said, but especially this!

[Dustin]

Also lets bring back the title of the next film at the end of the one you just watched. Marvel has their post credit scenes and I for one would wait till the end of Bond credits to find out the name of the film he will return in. It was a thrill to see the "James Bond will return in "For Your Eyes Only" tag up on the big screen from the recent Roger Moore double feature. Adding that to the new films would immediately build anticipation for the next. I would love to see that tradition return.

Agree with everything you said, but especially this!

This is quite a splendid idea that would generate some continuous buzz with only the barest minimum of effort. After all, they need a title anyway.

Downside is of course they would need again a rough idea of their direction.

[Gobi-1]

 

 

Also lets bring back the title of the next film at the end of the one you just watched. Marvel has their post credit scenes and I for one would wait till the end of Bond credits to find out the name of the film he will return in. It was a thrill to see the "James Bond will return in "For Your Eyes Only" tag up on the big screen from the recent Roger Moore double feature. Adding that to the new films would immediately build anticipation for the next. I would love to see that tradition return.

Agree with everything you said, but especially this!

This is quite a splendid idea that would generate some continuous buzz with only the barest minimum of effort. After all, they need a title anyway.

Downside is of course they would need again a rough idea of their direction.

 

Indeed. But hey it's Bond. They could call it "PhoneBook" or "Letter Head" and I would be excited.

 

Plus they wouldn't be jumping on a post credit bandwagon so much as returning to something they were doing long before any other film studio or film series. The end of a Bond movie was always a tease for the next.

 

James Bond Will Return in...insert name of movie, is far more exciting then simply stated "James Bond Will Return", because we never know how long the wait will be. At least with a title we have something to cling too.

[Mr_Wint]

 

 

I think the reboot and redefinition of Bond films during Craig's tenure has (somewhat counter-intuitively) caused long term creative issues for EON. Now it seems like they need to find some type of special hook, in an effort to appear innovative. 

 

Rookie agent gets his heart broken and becomes the Bond we all know and love. (He even resigns from MI6 in the middle.)

Out for vengeance, Bond attempts to uncover the truth behind Vesper's betrayal. (He is stripped of his 00-licence and goes rogue.) 

Feeling burnt by MI6, Bond leaves and returns for the monumental death of his beloved M. (He goes off the grid, apparently having been killed.) 

The head of SPECTRE is Bond's long-presumed-dead stepbrother. (He resigns once more.) 

 

Maybe instead of trying to wow audiences with some deep, existential crisis for Bond, EON would be better served crafting a strong and compelling story, even if it has no pomp or fanfare. 

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I miss the John Glen era. 

 

I think there has always been some kind of "hook" that drives them. Right now it is Bond's character and what he has to go through. During Guy Hamiltons days they focused a lot on the women. During the John Glen era, it was the stunt work that was the special hook. God knows what it will be in 20 years.

 

 

But in past times, the hook never felt quite so redundant. Yes, MR was basically a repeat of TSWLM, but other than that, it never felt like we were retreading past adventures (and I say this knowing full well that Zorin's plot strongly resembled Goldfinger's, and the ATAC machine was the 1980s equivalent of the Lektor decoder McGuffin). Having different stunt work (your example) in each Glen entry didn't feel like EON was simply rehashing everything that had come before. (And I'm not sure "women" qualify as the hook of the Hamilton entries.) 

 

My point is: a strong plot is more important on a regular basis than the melodrama of the Craig era. Yes, every few films we can have some melodrama, but when we do it in each entry, it becomes stale very fast. (I'd make the same point regarding questioning Bond's loyalty, usefulness, or relevance.) 

 

 

No, I disagree. There is a striking similarity. In the middle of the 80s, it was unthinkable to produce a new Bond film without a few innovative action set-pieces that would push the stunt team to new limits. Of course they worked with story/characters as well. But that wasn't the main hook that would sell the movie.

 

We are in a similar situation today, only now the emphasis is more on Bond’s character. Each new film has to put Bond in a new territory. Action & stunt is still important, but it is not the main hook that EON build the rest of the movie around. Whatever they focus on will change over time, but don't expect a drastic change right now.

[Vanya86]

In it's broadest terms today's big films are defined by brand recognition, it's all about known properties. So on that front Bond already has it covered. But while nostalgia plays a big part we're also witnessing a move away from the gritty and grounded and audiences are re-embracing more fantastical films as well as a lighter touch. Taking these trends into account maybe the time has come for the Bond producers to take a little more inspiration from their own back catalogue. I think the time has come to make a more self consciously nostalgic Bond film, looking the the film like Goldfinger or You Only Live Twice for inspiration. Maybe bring back the elaborate sets, larger than life villains and elaborate schemes?

[__7]

I think the reboot and redefinition of Bond films during Craig's tenure has (somewhat counter-intuitively) caused long term creative issues for EON. Now it seems like they need to find some type of special hook, in an effort to appear innovative. 

 

Rookie agent gets his heart broken and becomes the Bond we all know and love. (He even resigns from MI6 in the middle.)

Out for vengeance, Bond attempts to uncover the truth behind Vesper's betrayal. (He is stripped of his 00-licence and goes rogue.) 

Feeling burnt by MI6, Bond leaves and returns for the monumental death of his beloved M. (He goes off the grid, apparently having been killed.) 

The head of SPECTRE is Bond's long-presumed-dead stepbrother. (He resigns once more.) 

 

Maybe instead of trying to wow audiences with some deep, existential crisis for Bond, EON would be better served crafting a strong and compelling story, even if it has no pomp or fanfare. 

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I miss the John Glen era. 

This is it exactly.  Instead of a story that deals with an existential crisis for Bond.  Why not an existential crisis for the world? Explore in an interesting way how Craig's Bond, with his personality, goes all-in to solve the problem when not worried about some internal thing he has to deal with.    

[__7]

I fully agree with everything you just wrote, Gobi-1. Reduce the budgets and locations, focus on story, plot out the next film while the current one is finishing up. This would make a return to an every-other-year schedule very feasible. 

 

This is why I liked QoS.  I thought the art-house, film noir Bond idea was abandoned too quickly.  Tighten up the stories, plots, and locations, but you can still have some eye-popping (yet old fashioned spy, noir-like) scenes as the China scenes in SF and the Tosca scene in QoS.