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
Absolutely true. But The Harry Potter franchise as an eg. had - 1 year, 2year, 1 year, 2 year, 2 year, 1 year, 1 year gaps
Star Wars - including spin offs will be 1 year, 1 year, 1 year, 1 year, 1 year gaps
And they haven't faced the same hurdles Bond has either, so I don't see the point you're trying to make, especially when he latter involves Disney, who run the world and don't have to wait on anyone...
MGM are in a comparative drought and their seemingly lack of urgency gives the impression that we're not going to see any Bond traction for quite some time.
Even after MGM had that restructuring they still financed a bunch of crappy films that flopped. Outside of the Hobbit films and Bond, there's only a been a few handful of films that were a success and the only other franchise they have iirc is hot tub time machine. That's not enough. They need a string of profitable movies and whenever Bond 25 does come out everyone needs to be on the same page RE: a lower budget.
The gap between SF and SP was EoN waiting on Mendes. What was the reason(s) for the gap in between TWINE and DAD?
Would you try not to talk sense on this thread. Only big, overblown pronouncements with no justifiable reasoning is allowed.
I also agree that the current EON team do not appear to have the same clarity of vision as their predecessors, and it does show in the somewhat haphazard nature of the product.
Having said all that, I think the Craig era has afforded some creative risk taking with the character. He was the right actor to try that with. This has been, to some extent, an experimental phase in the character's arc.
3 annual Marvel films starting in 2017. ;)
Only that it is possible to make films in that kind of timeframe. That and only that.
I don't think that is quite the case in fact I would argue every film post dr. No has been more reactive to trends rather then trying to do something Unique (though arguably Dr. no comes in light of Hitchcock) and to be fair and honest there were plenty of plans that changed due to things out of their control for example
Harry loved the almost bond novel Per fine ounce and wanted to to be the 5th bond film however IFP hated the story and there we go. Harry and Cubby wanted to do OHMSS in 64 after Goldfinger I believe (some early prints of the movie even had James Bond will return in On her Majesties secret service) before a deal was struck with Mclory to adapt thunderball. From Russia with love was only chosen as the second book to adapt due to Kennedy saying it was one of his favorite books. The entire Moore era really is reacting to the cinema at large
Blaxploitation - Live and let die
Kung fu - The man with the golden gun
Jaws - The Spy who loved me
Star Wars - Moonraker
? - for your eyes only (I am guessing films like the French connection but I honestly don't know)
Indiana jones and the raiders of the lost ark- Octopussy
? - A View to a Kill (like for your eyes only nothing is imeaditly jumping out at me)
As for the Dalton era his feels more original in the living daylights but Licence to kill feels influenced by Miami Vice and Leathel Weapon to be honest.
Like I said I feel sometimes we put Albert and Harry on some kind of pedal stool and say how bad Mike and Babs are (and how much worse Gregg and Babs will be) but I don't know I think each tenure has had strengths and weaknesses yes the Craig era is very similarly stealing from modern media like the Moore era but I dunno I feel it still has a good mix of Fleming and originality thrown in even Spectre... And I think they are somewhat learning from the mistakes of the Brosnan era (whose lack of a central villianious orgnization I think does hurt the era a bit like had Janus been given time to develop with Trevellyan maybe retiring in tomorrow never dies from being a 00 and going into business and being the villain of die another day could of had some interesting implications and added some much needed drama and stakes but I digress...
But yeah and before we play the number game if we are talking original stories from EON the numbers are not as bad as one thinks
60- 6 films
70's 5 films
80's 5 films
90's 3 films 2 original video games and an animated series
00's 3 films 4 original games ( 3 even have brosnan's look and 1 has his voice)
10's 2 films (and 1 game though how you would count reloaded and legends I don't know so I am not)
Not exactly horrible.
Quality over quantity is fine, but you have to deliver on quality. Modern day EON has made four terrible Brosnan era films. They've made one great film with CR. Some can argue SF is also great. I would say good. QoS and SP both have large script problems obviously. Yes, I know the writer's strike, blah, blah...
Regardless of outside circumstance, they are clearly not master story tellers/developers. They are leaning heavily on the directors and their writers. After the Brosnan era, they did up the level of talent which is appreciated (though required to keep the series alive). But they're not picking people who are quite right for the series either and they don't know when or how to say 'no' to some decision making or how to make up for what those people lack. And they also can't wait (even if it's been years), to start filming with a good, finished script in hand.
That's why most of us are waiting with bated breathe to hear who their new creative team is going to be.
These SP script problem complaints always perplex me. More confusing still is when those who criticize it post their own plot ideas for the movie, which give me hearty chuckles. Some seem to think filmmaking is easy as pie and they can do it all the better, what with all the plates to spin between writers, studio execs, distributors, the director, cast, crew, producers of all levels, and on and on and on, all with their own motivations, aims/agendas and ideas about payment. Totally easy, right? :-\"
I just don't play the blame game when it comes to this stuff, and I'm always in EON's corner because they very seldom ever give me reasons not to be. They've kept this series stable and in the family after Cubby's passing, don't let anyone toy with their vision, they consistently pull strong numbers at the box office assuring Bond continues healthily (with the past two films netting 2 billion alone), and they treat their collaborators with the utmost respect and freedom. Listening to some on here, you'd think they're a draconian film company that makes everyone on set wear bolted chains and tape over their mouths while they aren't shooting a scene. Have they made mistakes? Obviously, but name me a company in the film industry that doesn't. And yet you don't see them pulling the kind of things that are in vogue today, like making films only for selling products (though they could with the massive Bond license), they don't place their Bond actors in contracts that trap them (Dan's open contract for example), their films introduce audiences to other cultures and the people of those nations without stereotyping them or degrading them, and they don't let themselves be run by bean counters or people who have no business giving them suggestions on their franchise (again, Pascal and co.). We're lucky to have Bond in such uncompromising and talented hands, hands that truly care for Bond and his legacy as they try to mold each new film from the ground up in a very rough and labyrinthine industry.
If the Craig era marks a so-called period of decline in quality for the franchise, then I look forward to many more films of such "decline," because as far as I'm concerned we haven't had movies like this since the 60s that perfectly represent all that Bond should be.
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/james-bond-007/news/a801599/steven-spielberg-was-turned-down-as-a-bond-director-not-once-but-twice/
Slow news day, but interesting to hear from the great Steven Spielberg. I'd be more than happy with Idris getting the role. I have no agenda to see a black Bond, it just so happens that Idris is a perfect fit for the role regardless of his skin colour.
Did the writer's strike actually cause any delay? I thought they were on schedule, strike notwithstanding.
Filming started on QoS with script writes and rewrites going on.
The only script to cause a delay was Logan's. TSWLM went through several writers but I think the delay was more restructuring after Saltzman sold out. I'm not sure.
Hahaha, that's quite the overreaction.
I was citing the strike as an example of EON facing pressures that they were later criticized for (QoS as a whole), that's all. It is confusing the way I worded it, and I probably should have put it in the newest post I made in this thread. Once again though, I feel the script issue is another area where EON and co. came through, as I love QoS's story.
Wouldn't mind Idris Elba in B25 if he was in a role like this
Craig as 009 of course.
Evidently ;)
Of course, in the 60s-80s they had all the Fleming novels and short stories to instantly adapt. Naturally, the production slows down when they don't have that advantage and have to create new stories from scratch, and up the ante in action to compete with other blockbusters, whereas in the 60s Bond was the only game in town.
Anyway, the comparisons to Star Wars and Marvel are silly - the yearly movies are about different characters. James Bond is one person, and the production schedule is on par with every other solo action character out there - Batman, Bourne, Mission Impossible etc.
That is.... great idea :)>-
Thank Christ Babs was there to put her foot down so we didn't get 'loony ideas' such as the invisible car, CGI parasurfing atrocity and Blofeld as stepbrother fiasco getting the green light. Phew.
That's a very good point. I can remember around the time of TLD, pretty much assuming all the Dalton films would be based on the remaining short stories, and figuring his successor would most likely be starring in adaptations of the John Gardner novels.
When the Brosnan era actually happened, it was blatantly clear future Bond films would be made up stories from scratch. Hence more thought going into coming up with a plot, caper, etc
Perhaps if Eon were more interested in adapting some of the continuation novels, or even a few of the comics like Serpent's Tooth, Quasimodo Gambit, etc, we might more films out frequently.