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
What a headache. I don't envy her position.
CR & SF were exceptionally well crafted films, on par with the legendary output from the 60's and with equally excellent supporting performances.
agreed
The main problem is the current tired & worn creative team, led by Barbara Broccoli. I have said it before but I will repeat myself – Babs does not have the judgment or creative nous needed to further add quality to the series. Apart from insisting on DC in 2005 I fail to see where her input has truly added value to the series. She consistently makes poor calls on the creative side of things and does not hire writers with sufficient quality.
Babs should just run the BUSINESS side of things, which I’m certain she is very good at, and leave the creative decisions to others.
So l assume that you not wanting Craig back for a fifth has nothing to do with your unhealthy obsession with Aidan Turner right?
BB and her team have to assess the market: what the competitors are doing that works or doesn't; what are the unique attributes of 007 that have always been and still work in the modern context; what has the franchise done in the past that was "gold", but now it quite dated when held to the light of the modern world (cheesy one-liners that seemingly were invented by Bond, I think, should have died a quiet death by Dalton's tenure).
In film, commerce and art are linked (sometimes in an out of balance way, but nonetheless...)
"That's a 'Bingo!'"
Good point. Forster & Mendes have both had a massive influence on the creative direction of the last three films, and while that may seem obvious (that’s why they’re called ‘directors’…), the Bond franchise is known for its workman like directors who follow the tone & vision of the producers.
Martin Campbell. He has an instinct when it comes to suspense, action and pacing not seen in Bond since the sixties. His Bond films are always expertly measured and balanced, nailing the formula while doing more than just retread the old tropes. They always feel fresh, vibrant and modern whilst fully respectful to the franchises history and adding to the legacy. Plus they are always perfectly pitched when it comes to the tone.
But @acehole, didn't you jut suggest you wanted less producer (BB) interference, and new creatives?
I'm not sure the model for the 007 franchise can replicate what went before it in the 60-80s. Film is a directors medium, even moreso now.
There are the outliers like Disney/Marvel (and that's why, in the recent past, some directors who were hired for projects within these franchises bailed), but most directors do want to put their stamp on something that has their name attached to it. Yes, the producers play a role, but it's the director that should execute. I think, to varying degrees, this has worked for the past three films.
I think the target should be hiring the right writers to execute a great blue print for a director to launch from.
Do you know anyone who works for EoN? Have they discussed the machinations behind the scheme of ruining the Craig era because of the long gaps?
If Bond isn't BB's primary interest, I'm just wondering if you could tell me how many other projects, outside of Bond, that she's produced, in the past ten years. Also, as a film producer, are you saying that she's not allowed to be involved in other projects?
Personally I don't trust her completely anymore. No matter if I find SP to be a perfect movie experience, there have been too many issues since 2006, that would have never occurred had Cubby lived on.
The Craig era would have looked very different with Cubby at the helm. Way better to be clear.
Sure, BB can do whatever she wants, but if she is not able or willing anymore to produce Bond films on a regular basis and is waiting for directors or actors and let's directors do whatever they want then she should just let it go.
I'm sure there are more than a few capable producers out there that would continue Cubby's legacy in a proper manner.
But I agree or respect EoN for pursuing other non Bond projects. I do want Bond films to keep going on at least a three year cycle not some crazy Indiana Jones timetable but right now the whole studio thing isn't helping. Remember from MGW and Gregg they both have the impression they were ready to get back in there. It wasn't until the distribution options started cooling off I guess that we started hearing nothing.
I'm not sure if BB was responsible for the gap between QoS and SF, and the three year gap leading to SP seems to be the normal wait time for most films today (outside of FF, and; Marvel is a huge operation that has a team of writers working on different projects simultaneously). BB wanted to wait for her director that delivered her a billion dollar grossing film. I think most people, in her shoes, would have wanted to attempt to capture lighting in a bottle again. She took in a risk in waiting for Mendes, to mixed results.
But I'm interested, outside of these aggravations, where else has she put her foot into it, over the past ten years? And why does she suffer the brunt of criticism, and not Wilson?
I watched SP last night, and I still don't like the Blofeld-Oberhauser-step-brother thing, because I think it is unnecessary and awkward. But they did it, and now we have to live with it. Oh yeah, in a German Bond forum people wrote, that Danjaq had registered SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED. I hope, this is a hoax, and we don't get this as the next movie's title...
Not at all. Just that if she's unwilling to give bond the treatment it deserves, that the rights should be handed off. Granted I don't know many details about the films development or how the industry has changed since cubby left, nor do I claim to know. What I do know is that during cubby's era the films were released consistently. To a large extent, the buck stops at the producers. I think that, for the benefit of the series, fans should hold barbara accountable for the current standstill.
[/quote]
Agreed, the problems is they've given the directors too much freedom, which is why a Mendes personal art project with SF instead of a Bond movie. That said, the formula should remain flexible. Every Bond should not be cookie-cutter, of course.
I don't know how any of us can assess BB's commitment to the franchise, or lack thereof, when we're not in the centre of the making of these films.
I think BB is like 100% of producers out there: she sets out to make the best film that she can, with her team. Like others before her (including her father), or other producers after her, she's had successes and had some misfires. But to question her integrity or that she's not treating the franchise with the respect it deserves is being quite presumptuous.
Agreed, which is not to say that truly witty and ironic one-liners should ever go away. Craig's "considerably" one-liner opening CR was brilliant.
The one-liners should evolve away though, from the cheese, the school-boy sexual innuendo & the crass disregard for a life following a human death, a la "bon apetite" in YOLT.
Actually, those kind of one-lines should have been allowed to die with the Moore era, where they were the best fit. Dalton, as much as I loved him in the role, couldn't deliver those kind of one-liners. He shouldn't have been forced to do them. His witty dialogue showed better in the more intense scenes, such as his initial interrogation by Sanchez. That kind of wit suit the tone of the movie better anyway.