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
I'm still believing that the film won't be delayed there are many things done behind the scenes that we aren't aware of that the media isn't reporting so let's not start jumping onto the delay bandwagon just yet
This is how Logan Lucky was distributed. Soderbergh had Amazon Prime on board immediately.
Not quite, Amazon basically has first run streaming rights for Soderbergh's future films, i.e. they'd be the first SVOD platform the film would hit following the DVD/Blu-ray release. I think the comparison you're looking for is Netflix which is to some extent attempting to have it both ways, in the UK in particular where they have an exclusive deal with Curzon Cinemas for the titles they finance and produce.
Various films have streamed on there during May 2018, Mar 2018, Oct 2017, Feb 2017, Nov 2016 and Oct 2016.
Could things be organised better? Probably. But are we aware of literally all the variables that factor in? I bet B&M are as eager as we are to see a new Bond film but for whatever reason, we're not getting any this month. Bugger. Some other time then.
In this thread, people have referred to the Marvel model of doing business, have suggested handing the rights over to someone else, and so on. I'm a little shocked by that. Have we truly become such product hungry consumers that any considerable hiatus drives us angry and worried? I'm kneedeep into the Marvel / Star Wars franchises as a fan but even I reckon there's something vulgar about rolling four films off the conveyor belt every year.
Excellent point there I do think it's great that Babs and Mike are staying traditional and keeping the bond films relevant but can they stay relevant and attract the younger disney and marvel fans? They should also take note of infinity war which did a brilliant job balancing humor and serious drama which I feel spectre failed to do
This, plus EoN simply took another Route.
While Marvel and Disney are selling toys and happy meals off of their property, Bond went the Prestige and Oscar bait Route.
You don't have to like it, but judging by all the awards and money that Barbara and Michael are currently swimming in, and all the talent they attract now, they won't be missing any of us if we leave.
I just want the franchise to be healthy and strong, either way is fine with me. Of course i would like more Bond films in less time, but i have my comics and continuation novels.
Actually i would love to have another Bond game much more than another movie (that will come sooner than later).
But this isn't accurate, because our expectations have remained the same. It's the rate of output that has slowed. It's not a case of us wanting a faster and faster product, with shorter patience in the modern world. The fact is they managed a film every 2 years for decades successfully, all most people ask for is a return to that.
I'm personally not bothered if there are sometimes 3 years between Bond films, if there is a good reason like casting a new a actor, but I think the rule should be 2 or 3 years, not 3 or 4 years like it appears to be going.
I think fans are just hoping for a return to the more regular output of the admittedly distant past. After all, these are the folks who invented the 'assembly line' approach and did it with aplomb for decades. Surely it's not too much to ask for them to do that again.
I'll be perfectly fine with a sale too (whether it be MGM to an acquirer, Bond rights to an acquirer, or just EON's share of Bond rights to an acquirer). Who makes these films doesn't bother me. Rather, it's the quality of the final product (which of course is in the eye of the beholder) that I am interested in. I have loyalty and love for the character first and foremost. Not the actor. Not the producer and not the director.
3 years should be tolerable, even if not perfect. 4 is too long in my view. 5? I don't even want to think about it, especially given my profound disappointment with the last film (from my perspective I haven't had my fill of Bond since 2012, and I realize for others it's been as long as 2008, or even 2002 for the Brozza fans).
Neither do I, not for a second, because this only started after QoS released in 2008. Ten years and two films later, here we are. They can absolutely get back to releasing installments once every other year.
Sounds like very reasonable words to me. +1
Ten years and two films. Lots of wasted time.
The Craig era is like a gallon of milk still sitting in the fridge just past it's expiration date, and sadly, only a few glasses have been consumed.
Just to think GOLDFINGER was 2 years and two films after DR NO.
Exactly, thank you! Just look at DAD and SP, they were released after two 3-year-gaps and are regarded by many as the worst movies of their actors' tenures.
And you had FRWL which is arguably Sean's best (and definitely among the series' best) to pass the time between the two of them.
I completely agree with the first para. Not with the second. For me, there’s no correlation between time and quality whatsoever.
And things are different now. Bond is not one of the few, he’s one of the many.
Exactly!
And then you have TSWLM after a (at that time unheard of) 3 year gap, GE after 6, CR after 4 and SF after 4. There is no correlation. Producing a Bond film every 2 years does not equate to quality, it equates to consistency.
Considering a subsection of Bond fans, perhaps. I’m not convinced that’s the view of the general public.
Thanks. It's going to be sitting in the fridge for awhile longer. Hopefully by B25 it doesn't completely go sour.
But we should ask ourselves--and I'm a Craig fan, mind: if we had gotten, say, three more Craig Bonds, for a total of 7 or 8, wouldn't many people (not me!) have lost interest in him? I could be mistaken of course.
Hard to say. One rarely hears of people complaining that Connery did 6 films (or 7 depending on if you count NSNA).
We do get some who feel OP should have been Roger's last, but personally I disagree in spite of him being older.
I'm glad we got as many Sean/Roger films as we did. More variety, and more to chose from when in the mood for one of their films. If I'm in the mood for Pierce, not much of a selection there. Same with George, Tim and Dan, so far.
I miss the days when it was possible the current Bond might stick around for 6 outings. Cubby most certainly preferred it that way.
It's not so much how many films but how many films within a certain timeframe imho. For me at least, the issue has been the wait between the films (especially after the relatively mediocre QoS and SP), and the fact that the actor in question has aged and changed between films (they all do mind you. It's inevitable, but more rapid output would have made the changes less apparent).
As an example, I don't think I would have been happy if Connery had done DN, FRWL, GF and DAF only. Or Moore LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO and AVTAK only. That's sort of what we have here with Craig.
Quite right.
I think one of the problems concerns money. Many people expect a lot of eye candy from the Bonds, expensive eye candy. In other words, anything below a production budget of 400 mil USD seems out of the question these days. Sad, but true. And if the film "only" makes 800 mil, it's not good. The pressure to cross that 1 billion USD line is so ridiculously high, I, as a producer, would be rather afraid when planning a new Bond film.
Sadly, this quest to generate bangs has resulted in some highly questionable CGI as well, which I'd rather not see again.
There are a few members here (including myself) who would much prefer a scaled back & grounded spy thriller for the next one. Given Boyle's stated preference for smaller budget films, perhaps there is hope that they will go in this direction. Even the Demange rumour suggested a lower budget entry.
If they kept them smaller and more manageable, then we could have faster output perhaps, due to less complexity.