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
Critical acclaim is on Eon’s radar far more than financial success, and the last three Mission movies have been over 90% on RT, a streak Bond hasn’t achieved since the first three films in the franchise. Say what you will, but I doubt Babs views the M:I franchise as casually as you do.
It's unfair to point it out like this when it comes to mi series they don't have much of a story telling like bond do, it's mostly action pieces which are also mostly stripped from other Film's lacks creativity in terms of action as well .If you look at RT reviews tom cruise has 3 out of 6 above 90% just as Daniel as bond have 2 out of 4 and there is still 1 more to go.
This.
I wonder if the fans who were around in the pre internet era, when news on a Bond film in production amounted to zero, find all this current situation easier to handle.
I respectfully disagree. Eon is all about making money...blockbusters, really.
What I think they are trying to do is to shake up the formula and keep the series fresh: Bond's first mission, Bond's first direct sequel, M being the Bond girl, and whatever they were trying to do in SP (Blofeld as Bond's foster brother?).
This is what has led them to more daring, or at least thinking-outside-of-the-box directors (Forster, Mendes, Boyle). This is a general trend in the industry as well. 2010s Spielberg directing a franchise film would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
I would've found it much easier given there was a new Bond film released every 2 years back then.
I guess there was more if you got Variety or The Hollywood Reporter there may have been a little more, but not a lot. With OP onward they seemed to have more advance stories, but still not a whole lot. I think with the Internet we are all used to getting and wanting the info faster, so yes and no on finding the situation easier to handle.
What gets old for me, personally, is the useless speculation over who will sing the title or every little scrap from somebody like CashleyPersia, who from the beginning sounded like a type of carpet or an exotic dancer. It just makes the game that much messier.
Speculation is fine, especially on a forum like this as it's he proper outlet. But at the same time, how many times do we need to read somebody thinking an official announcement will be coming (fill in date), that Eon is evil/incompetent/needs fresh blood or that a certain director will change everything.
Same. If you didn't like a Bond film you knew you'd see another one in 2 years. It's been 3 years since SPECTRE and we don't even know whether the next one will indeed come out next year, and we have no idea what's happening next.
That doesn’t jive with hiring directors like Sam Mendes and Danny Boyle. It’s pretty obvious they want Oscars.
Pecunia non sufficit seems to be the order of the day.
Bond will never win a best picture nomination/Oscar the way the Academy is run at the present. The producers know this more than anyone else.
Most of his work has a bit of a sci-fi bent but I don't doubt he could do a bang-up job with Bond.
Look at the 80s. Eight years, five films (some might argue six), and not one of them an exact duplicate of another. And yet, cast and crew stayed on board most of the time. Audience's lack of interest in the Daltons had nothing to do with the films being either too unique or too copycat and besides, the Daltons have gained a lot of fan enthusiasm since then too, meaning these films continue to make money, just like GF and SF. There's nothing to worry about: formulaic Bond film get the job done.
What's more is that audiences nowadays don't even need a unique or different film; in fact, uniqueness scares a lot of people away it seems. People crave proven brands, formula, assurances, more-of-the-same. If Jurassic World 2 can make well over a billion dollars while being terrifyingly similar to at least two of its predecessors, and if F&F only has to deliver more of the same but with even more octane and more daring reliefs in order to scoop up a small fortune, why should the Bond films have to worry about anything? People want a good, enjoyable, recognisable Bond film, not arthouse experiments.
I will admit that CR, obviously a "different" Bond film, is in my top 3. The tonal shift presented in 2006 was a necessity for other reasons, the most striking one being that DAD had given a lot of people headaches at the time and some aspirin was much needed. QOS followed CR's trends but bent a few and dropped a few and introduced a few others, making sure it would be a bonafide follow-up film but not an exact copy. Then SF came, and suddenly it felt like Bond had been delivered in the hands of "the elite", the artsie-fartsie folks. A very good Bond film for sure, but also a costly and hard laboured one. In my opinion, the time and energy spent on that film is never fully reflected in the final result.
Maybe certain folks ought to sit down and reassess what constitutes a good Bond film. I'm sure that afterwards they'll be able to see what many of us can see: two Bond films can be made for the price of one SP, twice as fast and possibly with a bigger BO result.
Perfectly said.
Dude ur way off target. It’s not about money, the bond films will always make money, it’s about critical reception so the film can make even more money. DAD was crap so they used Bourne with the next one. SP was crap so they are going to use MI6 as the foundation for the next one. I believe that the reason Boyle was kicked was because after watching MI6, BAB and MG were scared BOND25 doesn’t have enough action and demanded more from Boyle who said eh a little more maybe but not three times as much
FYEO: 54 million
OP: 67 million (thanks to the battle of the Bonds-- and it's a damn fine entry)
AVTAK: 50 million
TLD: 51 milllion (even with a new actor, that's a stagnant number)
LTK: 34 million
This was a series, more or less, in decline during the 80s. They had a bump with OP, and that's about it.
I'm a big fan of the 80s era, and in retrospect love watching them as putting me back in a simpler time (both in my life and a way these films, and others were made),
But what happens when one starts to copy oneself is boredom (I didn't see the last JP, but, from what I've heard, en masse, is they need to switch it up-- and this after only two films of the "re-booted" series).
And in the 80s, films started to evolve with Indy, and Lethal Weapon, Die Hard and, of course, Batman. New and exciting heroes.
And James Bond was (with the exception of LTK), the same. And he was bleeding.
LTK, a film I quite like, shouldn't have tried to copy these new films. That was its box-office failure. He should have tried to tell his own story, unique and new, on the eve of a new decade.
With the amount of saturation at the box office today, Bond, more than ever, has to be unique. Some fans may not like the direction in any given era, and that's to be expected. But, as has been historically the case, 007 always has had to re-imagine himself and make adjustments accordingly.
This is the end of the Craig era.
The next person will come along and the producers will have to evaluate where Bond fits into the world at that point. And it won't be a copy of the Craig era, or hopefully any other era. It will be what's happening in our history-- a snapshot of (light) politics, pop-culture and so on (as we all mainly agree, James Bond is, and will always be, a representation of the present, a man of the day). It will also be what the new man will bring to the tuxedo.
James Bond himself says his hobby is resurrection (and re-invention, ever since Connery stepped away from the role the first time)...
Lol Mi series used bond as a foundation in 1996 not bond.They used Bourne as a foundation for QOS not CR/SF/SP and that was because Bourne completely changed action genre in early 2000s.
While I agree with the spirit of your post, P&W are not tried and tested. They've been extremely hit or miss. Peter Hunt was an editor but still had a major hand in greatest Bond films of all time like DN, FRWL, and GF. Richard Maibaum arguably only had one bad film under his belt, which was YOLT. And if you have a great script, you need a really bad director to mess it up.
Also back then, those were valid concerns. But nowadays, we have exceptions to that rule. Like OHMSS; Like Goldeneye; Like Casino Royale. So really changing things up has proven to be tested, and sticking to the same people over and over has proven time again to make things extremely stale (YOLT? DAF? AVTAK? SP?).
The conclusion?
*shrugs*
P&W first written Draft for TWINE one can always tell the difference with the film. I don't think they are hit and miss because it always goes down to director/producer. For DAD lee tamahori was as responsible as others.
Maibaum didn't work on YOLT. Harold Jack Bloom was the first writer, Roald Dahl the second. Dahl got the screenplay credit, Bloom "additional story material."
And it wasn't a bad film. Flawed, yes, but definitely worthy.
Sorry Barbara!
Because it was six years ago. EON want to know what works NOW.
Which is why multiple reviews said "Move over, James Bond" and "the best action film since Fury Road".
I may have some breaking news for you, Panchito: Most Bond films aren't interconnected. Skyfall is over. It's time to move on.
But it found new life in 2018 with Fallout. One could argue the frantic action chereography of the Bourne films was present in cinema before, such as OHMSS. It's just present in a new package.
Watch it, pal.
Oh, I see what you did there.
I don’t think that it’s “crap”, I think it’s bad overall though. I also did noy intend to be demeaning in any way. I only referred to JamesBondKenya’s above comment.