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
If Baz’s recent-ish article is accurate, we’re getting more connected adventures again. I’d much prefer standalone pieces but if it’s another arc they pursue, I just hope it’s well thought out and well executed.
+1 this
I enjoyed the connected story arc but I just wish they had mapped it out more from the start
Can't divine now which would have a better result.
And it might be the
I agree, keep the same directors and writers down for the projects, or people who have similar styles and ideas. Don’t necessarily make the next movie at the same time, but don’t cramp it all together, EON.
Also, in the '60s and '70s no one ever imagined that any consumer could ever actually possess a copy of the film, to rewatch and study at leisure. The thought was, "That was a year or two ago, who's going to remember anything?" ABC didn't begin airing the films until 1972, and even then you needed to wait at least a year for each film to come up again in the rotation. And you couldn't record it. VCRs weren't common until the '80s.
Regardless, give me that team of producers over the current ones anytime.
The earlier films came out better in large part because they followed the books more tightly until YOLT, when they went OFF. THE. RAILS.
The other significant key was casting Connery. However, they did not respect his valid concerns for briefer production schedules, or want to pay him, until, with DAF, they had to do both to keep the series alive. They cut corners and just wanted to crank them out, without the same over-riding concern for quality that is evident in more recent times. (When I say "in more recent times" I do NOT mean only the Craig films.)
I get that the producers knew they should strike while the iron was hot - the Bond films were exceedingly popular and they wanted to get the next one out without much delay. As for some recent films having being subject to criticism for script holes, and/or for things which could have been improved upon with a few script tweaks, yes, that has happened, but the concern for quality still is evident and highly significant to the producers these days.
The Iron Man/Tony Stark character arc is probably the longest so far going from 2008 to 2019. But he was also in 9 films in those 11 years and not always the lead. So I don't really think you could compare that to a franchise that only works off of one character who is in almost every shot of every film and has to do a lot of physical work.
It's just a totally different way of telling stories in multiple ways.
I think it's going to be more like Mission Impossible since MI:III. Those are also clearly connected with things that happened in previous films being referenced and impacting the ongoing story, but the films work pretty well on their own I would say and they also don't do spin-offs. I don't rewatch them all the time, but I never feel like Rogue Nation is cheapened by Soloman Lane reappearing in Fallout, or the threat to Hunt's wife being less impactful in III knowing that they seperate later on.
And returning to the gap between films: The current MI film series is now going since 1996, producing 6 films in 22 years (and if they finally get 7 and 8 out the door at their current dates, 8 in 28). That's roughly 3,5 years per film although they have lately picked up the pace significantly. I think that is a good model for Bond as well. Enough time for the lead to recover and do other projects and for enough planing to go into the next film, I would say.
Directly to the graveyard, I must say.
Don’t know if it deserves its own thread but still it’s a weird idea
Batman and Gordon’s relationship: THIS is how Bond and M’s relationship needs to be done! No more personal emotional baggage. No more Bond resigning over an argument with M. No more of M’s past catching up with them. Just a trusted worker relationship.
Batman and Selina’s relationship: this could be how a Bond Woman relationship works. Similar goals, but different viewpoints.
Yeah I never really understood the “people will be confused” argument against Bond’s death/the upcoming reboot. Even people who don’t come on websites like this, and couldn’t tell you what a reboot was, will still understand that the next one is a fresh start and that the old ones don’t “count” anymore. They’ve seen it happen plenty of times before.
Those actors were all portraying the same fictional character, so it didn't matter. CraigBond is now a different character, and that's the problem now for a few people. It's much easier to accept a change of actor in the same roll, than it is to accept this 'alternate James Bond universe' nonsense.
Sorry, I mean 'timeline'.
Audiences would be less inclined to accept a new Batman if the previous Batman was killed on-screen.
James Bond is a 'real world' character, not a superhero with special powers in a sci-fi franchise. This is the whole problem with the 'if it's good for Batman, it's good for Bond' argument. Bond isn't Batman, Star Trek, Star Wars or whatever. He used to be a real world hero in admittedly outlandish situations, but it was always grounded in recognised science and reliant on the conventional rules of accepted linear storytelling.
That of no consequence; just as Craig’s Bond had absolutely no linear connection to the previous actors and films, the next will begin a new incarnation of a fictional character.