It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Craig did recently say Bond was up next for him, so I doubt we're looking at a delay.
When you say "many seem quite tired of Bond", who are the "many"? I mean, apart from a vocal minority on this site?
Bond has, and will always have a (mainly) different audience than Marvel.
Apart from this site-- which seems to have a small group suffering the same, collective sickness-- where is the excitement for Bond dying down?
In fact, in the last 40 years, when has Bond risen to a fever-pitch in between films???
When B25 is released, there will be a healthy excitement in the general audiences again (they won't remember SP. Only we here obsess over the failures of that film; the general audience won't remember squat, other than it being a Bond film).
SP went for something and didn't quite make it. But it still made over $800 million.
And when 25 is released, most of those same groups will see this new film too.
As for Bond being less of a big deal, where have we heard this before? In the 70s, where 007 wouldn't get out alive? Or the 90s where he was no longer relevant (oh, wait...)
Bond survived major blows.
SP was a hiccup in comparison.
Everything is fine, and when 25 is released, everyone on this site who may be ringing hands or are overly critical will STILL line up to watch it five or six times in the theatre-- along with the general audience who will always watch a new Bond film (coz it's embedded and passed down from generation to generation unlike any other franchise (that isn't named Star Wars... and even then...))
The idea that an "audience will always watch a new Bond film" is exactly the type of arrogance that competitors will lap up. If Bond is to survive, it has to grab the imagination and engage young fans.
Well said. Engage young fans, yet not alienate the older fans as well. When the films are released on a regular schedule, they can gradually, and more naturally achieve that.
EoN historically always seems to learn from their mistakes.
I have faith that the professionals on this job will deliver 25 as something better than you, me, and everyone on this site could ever deliver.
But again, that's just a guess on my part..
https://avrovulcan.com/events/secret-cinema-at-the-vulcan
Talk about the Disney-fication of 007. Wow, just wow... No... 007 has been passed down generationally (I've seen Bond films in different cities: young, old, male and female are always comfortably present).
Bond doesn't need to chase youth outside of how it's been done since the beginning... Telling great stories of escapism...
https://spycommandfeatures.wordpress.com/the-family-model-eon-vs-the-corporate-model-marvel/
And:
Marvel Studios and the Cubby Broccoli playbook.
https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/marvel-studios-and-the-cubby-broccoli-playbook/
People will go and see a Bond film because it's a 'Bond film'
Maybe the longer delays between films is to help make the next film more of an event.
Agreed. Plus today's current events don't really leave much to desire in terms of a good Bond story. Craig's era has tried to cover relevant current events but didn't really do anything with them. Quantum wants Bolivia's water? Oh killing Greene will stop that! Or not? We never really find out.
Oh no Spectre wants to watch over the world. Blowing up the base in Morocco and hacking Denbighs computer stopped that! Or not? We never really find out.
Very well said.
Consumers today have a short attention span and we live in a culture that moves fast with the online media having an appetite for constant titbits to keep the momentum going. This applies not only to movies but other products and brands.
I think any brand is making things really hard for themselves: to effective drop off of the radar and then have to rebuild the interest every 4 or 5 years. Compared to an alternative business model where you never actual leave the media arena.
When you consider that Iron Man came out in 2008 and, in ten years, they have done a superb job of building the brand to the point where it now outguns Star Wars in terms of opening weekend.
Put it another way: If you had a brand new movie series to launch and manage, which team would you rather handle your product? The team at Marvel or EON?
Still the fact remains that no era featured less escapism then this one. Not to mention the quality of the last two scripts. Not to mention a star who looks to many youngsters like their grandfather.
The studios have made ‘Brand’ and $$$ so central to their M.O. that they’ve (very cleverly) fooled fans into becoming brand prophets, who don’t only tow the party line, but actively spread the word. You’re a good example. The argument between fans now is about social media ‘buzz’, opening weekends, brand diversification, spin offs, crossovers...
This used to be the domain of brand managers, but they’ve now brainwashed people like yourself into doing it for them. For some fans it’s now less and less about the personal experience and more about the shared, (perceived) success. Targets have been hit, the $$$ are rolling in, everything has been wrapped up in a nice little bow and we can all celebrate a mediocre film cleverly masquerading as a great film, because there’s so much going on to divert attention.
Yes, building up excitement for "event movies" does work and thats why they keep doing it. But, I also think that there needs to be substance to keep the momentum going. Kermode writes about this in one of his books. There is not reason why event movies cant also be great movies. They are not mutually exclusive.
TLJ was a good example of a massive event movie but, eventually, people realised that the content did not live up to expectations (same with SP). I was the exact opposite of a brand profit for TLJ, my anger is still strong. Thats the danger when you create a strong brand. The fans become so emotionally invested that, if you make a mistake (or a perceived one), its blows up in your face (Coke recipe change for example)
Hard cold cash is not perceived success. It is success. Obviously, we all have our opinons re the artistic merit of a movie. That is where the perception comes in.
I know many hate the hype and marketing around movies but, it works. But, in the long term, the hype dies away and a movie either stands or falls on it's own merits. This applies to all movies IMHO.
Quality of a film is a different thing entirely, and that of course is in the eye of the beholder. It's not so much an objective assessment, although even there one can use certain metrics (e.g. RT aggregate data) to assess if a film has hit a spot with critics and even viewers. Word of mouth and recommendations after the fact (and after the hype has died down) is another way to determine quality. There are some films which viewers here think highly of and even today comment positively on. The Dirty Harry films are a perfect example, and have their own thread. There are other examples of course.
Regarding Marvel, I can only speak for myself: I'm not all that concerned about how much money those films make. It's a useful statistic. That's all. I like numbers, so I'm interested in how they perform at a cursory level. I'm not an MCU fanatic and I don't have the same passion for the franchise as I do for Bond. Not by a long shot. However, I am very impressed with the creativity that they have shown. They are succeeding for me (despite my increasingly high expectations) because they are delivering a quality product - a product which brings to life the characters from the comics, and focuses on developing those characters in an authentic fashion which resonates with me. So while I wasn't entirely enthused with their roster before they started, I have increasingly become so. That is a sign of a team that knows what it's doing, because I can be quite critical of rubbish. Am I a fan of everything they do? Not really. I thought BP was alright but a part of me can't understand the success it's received. Having said that, I can't fault it as a film. It just wasn't entirely for me.
I am not as enthused for the upcoming Bond film based on what I know at present. Of course I'll still go and see it. I've been a life long fan since I was about 8 & he's my favourite character and franchise. However, I am more looking forward to what comes after the next one. Why? Well, I just think it's time. This continuity infested iteration has run its course in my view. It's played out imho. I can appreciate that his fans disagree, and that's fine. To each their own. For me it's not just a question of recasting, although that's a large part of it. Rather, it's a matter or reimagining. 'Soft rebooting' if you will. I think that is essential to Bond's continued appeal and success. Discarding the old and bringing in the new. That, more than anything, is what they do better than anyone else. Better than Marvel too (to date at least). After all, who here thinks that they will be able to find a Stark to replace RDJ or a Cap to replace Evans? I'm not confident of that because there is no history of them having done it successfully yet. Solo? Please. I have no such concerns with James Bond. One day he will return, and my enthusiasm will be restored.
Where are the strong influences of Indiana Jones in Octopussy?
Note I said Brand ‘prophet’, not representative. I’m talking of those with an unshakeable faith in a system. A system that doesn’t necessarily work for all.
Also you miss my point about ‘perceived’ success. I’m talking about those for whom the value of box office, buzz, likes, shares etc... can outweigh (or mask) the merits of the film itself. The thrill is about the ‘product’ and the shared experience. It’s about a bigger canvas.
A lot of Marvel hits this sweet spot - and good for them - but it’s not a long term strategy that would work for Bond Imo.