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 figure they won't want to go through the distribution headache all over again so I too could see them tackling more installments in the future. Definitely going to be weird seeing that Universal logo kick things off!
Celebrate the 60th anniversary with a new actor starting or celebrate it with Daniel Craig ending his run as Bond.
Where is the connection? Why not leave the anniversary for the 7th actor in the role.
I definitely hope so.
I'm a little confused, though. Is the Universal logo appearing only outside the U.S.? I imagine we here in the States will just be getting the MGM logo.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/25/media/solo-star-wars-movie-analysis/index.html
Now, I would agree that four years is too long. Two years apart may be too short.
The fundamental difference though is we're discussing a two year turnaround versus three or more with one single Bond film, versus several (or at least one, plus a bunch of confirmations of upcoming other titles) spin-offs, sequels and prequels a year from the Star Wars franchise. The latter already has me so burnt out that I doubt I check out just about any of those movies for the foreseeable future, which is a shame. I hope Bond never falls victim to the same distribution model. 2-3 years max per installment for Bond is absolutely viable.
They only missed the 30th because it fell in that deadzone between 89 and 95. They hit the 25th with TLD.
Exactly.
I don't think there would have been a 30th anniversary film regardless. They were aiming for a 1991 release date until it got pushed back. Tim's 4th outing would have been aimed for 1993.
It's interesting that they already announced on which day exactly filming will begin. I don't think they have ever done that this far in advance before.
True, it isn’t an apples-apples comparison. But EON still has to be mindful of saturation, even with a single character.
He makes a reasonable point, though. I’m not sure M:I is a great barometer - the gaps between those specific films are, 4 yrs, 6yrs, 5yrs, 4yrs, 3yrs. I don’t see them squeezing the schedules down to two years other than potentially capitalising on a debut. Three years seems like a solid and fair turnaround, but of course there are always mitigating factors.
It’s my opinion that the model going forward should be hiring a distinctive director (such as Boyle) and it’s one and gone. The focus is on delivering a one-off. Repeat. That way you keep it fresh and interesting and can go where you like. Two years to turn that around doesn’t seem viable in this oversaturated market.
Bond can act as an antidote to the proliferation of the vast interconnected narratives of Lucasfilm and Marvel.
I don’t think the issue is ‘Bond over saturation’, the issue is, how and where Bond slots into an oversaturated market.
Back in the day Bond was one of the few big brands, today that’s not the case. Finding an audience is much, much tougher.
Of course, the counter argument is that by delaying your brand or product so that your product is the best it can possibly be doesn't necessarily work either. Ironically, both Hodge and Boyle have been given very little time to both write the story and get it into production, which kind of negates the whole extended gap exercise, especially if it's still going to be a bollock-ball-scramble scenario.
http://www.slashfilm.com/solo-prequel-comic-tobias-beckett/
A comic book prequel to Solo, which is already a prequel to the original trilogy. Oof.
me too
I hope he chooses to spend quality time with his child and leave Bond for someone new, even if Babs begs him to return one more time.
I'm with you. There is no evidence that the market cannot handle a Bond film every two years. The last time they tried it for QoS the film blasted out of the gates at the box office in most markets. In the end it did almost as well as CR. It just wasn't a product that the market liked as much as what preceded it. There were a number of reasons for that, but the 2 year release schedule wasn't one of them.
James Bond is quite a unique entity and always has been. Most of the other spy entries (save perhaps for MI) don't directly compete with it. This is quite different from the superhero genre, where both DC and Marvel churn out multiple films per year.
If someone went back and checked the overall profitability of these films over a 2 or 3/4 year period, they may find that a more regular release schedule results in better (or at least more consistent) financial results overall. As an example, MGM probably did very well over the 2006-2008 period on account of CR/QoS, even though neither was as big a hit globally as SF.
Apart from the long wait between SF and SP there have been other factors for them taking a while to get these out. Once a new man is installed in the lead chair perhaps they will decide to entertain a more rapid release schedule. It will be dependent on MGM (or whoever owns it by the time B26/B27 is being formulated) too of course.