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
@Mendes4Lyfe … you are very aware that two films in a decade was based on factors out of their hands.
And you bring up Spectre: that was a film that they were rushing the development on to release on the date they booked. This was a film that, as you’re rightly insinuating, was in trouble at the script stage.
You are correct.
But instead of shelving it and kissing it goodbye, and saying adios to the release date, they plowed ahead giving fans like you what you wanted: a film out in cinemas, as quickly on the heels of Skyfall as possible.
So your perspective of having them hop to it and get films out fast, quite rightly collapses under your own criticism of Spectre.
Ideally, they should have shelved Bond 24 and gone back to the drawing board; they should have got the script right, and then gone into production. But that would likely mean a delay of 18-24 months…
So Mendes, what would you prefer: releasing a Bond film every three years and get something undercooked— but at least it’s out in cinemas in your acceptable time frame? Or;
Take the time needed to release the best film that they have conjured over at HQ?
What would you choose? The choice isn’t about what type of story it would be in this situation (as not all
Bond films will hit your fancy), but logistically speaking about developing and releasing a massive tent-pole: get it out every three years (and risk a Spectre?), or; take the time needed to give a CR, SF, even a GE?
Well, from my perspective Bond 25 is just as undercooked as SP and they definitely took their time on development with that one, so I guess I choose the former. I don't think releasing films further apart from eachother has any impact on the quality. You can have a stinker whether you take 2, 3, 4, or 5 years per production. If anything the quality of film has declined since they started taking longer breaks. I never appreciated the middle brosnan films as much as a have in the post 2015 era. Those movies are simple, unpretentious and bags of fun compared to the stale, meandering pace of the later Craig films.
Should EoN take the time they need to develop a script? Or;
Even if the story is in trouble (like Spectre), should they still release anyway— to hit their three year release mandate?
Oh, okay. In that case, yes they should absolutely take the extra time. But by then they're already deep into the process, I just think they should start the ball rolling quicker to begin with, so that further delays aren't as catastrophic.
They’re still in development when the script is being written, so they’re not deep in the process, but the process of developing a modern blockbuster script takes time.
If they had a massive team like DC or Disney and Marvel and had teams of writers developing scripts from an archive of stories, I’d be in full agreement with you @Mendes4Lyfe …. I would expect awesome Bond films released in three year cycles.
But they don’t have a factory like that. In terms of size they’re an independent company making tentpole films based on one character (whose original stories were last written in the 60s).
Until Amazon bankrolls the personnel to do this, EoN is on their own, developing stories with a small team of creatives. And to see them competing as they do in the crowded market made up of Goliaths, they’re doing a damn fine job and the worldwide box office shows that.
The studio system was already dying by the late '60s, and stars were rising in power and negotiating films on a per picture basis. Eon can't go back to that kind of control and release schedule. It's pure fantasy.
Every 3 years should be the goal. I think that's very attainable.
I wouldn't mind getting another film every 2 or 3 years, that's for sure, provided that quality still matters more than quantity. There are times when I wish that the Brosnans post-GE had spent just a little bit more time developing the next entry.
I get where you’re coming from but funnily enough it was kind of the opposite for me. When I was younger I’d get annoyed at the longer gaps, maybe because I’d gotten used to them coming every couple of years in the 90s. But as I get older the time seems to fly by a lot quicker, and I’ve seen other blockbuster series get churned out so often that I’m glad Bond still feels like an event. A Bond film three years would be nice, but I’d take four or five over a Marvel/DC approach for sure. Ten years ago, I was so into the Christian Bale Batman films that I was buying the video games and thinking about getting into the comics. Now I can’t be bothered with the superhero films at all. Don’t think I’d get sick of Bond in that way because of the attachment I have to it, but still, I like it feeling like a big deal.
And would really bad reviews and word of mouth or bad casting for Bond himself keep you from going to see the next Bond film?
The last Bond film I didn’t see at the cinema was Octopussy, but I seriously considered missing No Time to Die because I had hated Spectre, I felt killing off Bond was a cheap move and didn’t like the idea of rebooting continuity again.
I wouldn’t skip the next film for a casting decision I didn’t like, but I would skip it if word of mouth was bad and I didn’t like the actor cast.
But you have seen the film by now?
Licence to Kill. I was too young, apparently. Still haven’t really forgiven them for that one :)) To be honest I’m not sure if there’s anything that’d make me willingly skip a new Bond film. Even if they did something really mental like casting a woman, as much as I hate the idea, I’d still probably be too curious about it to not see it at the cinema.
Since my first time going to see Bond at the cinema - TND - decided to skip NTTD because I spoiled myself the ending and decided it was too sad: I go to the cinema to feel some quantum of solace, not to be even more depressed than usual.
That said, there's a thing that's been hovering over my head and I must spit it out. Let me put on a silver paper hat: For some reason, I think that Daniel Craig can possibly be Michael G. Wilson's successor at EON. Now, I'll toss the hat apart and ask: Does this idea make any freaking sense?!
Oh yes, quite a few times. I've got it on a USB stick thing.
Watched it via torrent.....
I'm looking forward to the next one.
I understand the film production process takes longer these days, but writing a script? Come on, EON have had a few years since NTTD was in post to start developing ideas for the next Bond script.
I cannot believe all EON have right now is a blank sheet of paper with no story ideas for the next one, or even a half finished script in development, and they've happily been in this position for a couple of years, with no urgency to start writing the next one.
Let EoN figure this out so they can blast back on the scene like they did with GE and CR.
There’s a process and as I, and @ColonelSun can attest, writing scripts isn’t as easy as , oh I’ve got a grand idea. When you place yourself with a producer, it gets a little more complex. There’s a process to modern blockbuster tent-pole creations.
And I don’t believe EoN’s been sitting there with a thumb up their rear. I just think they’re pushing through the creative waters to give us an explosive reintroduction. If it was easy, all we Bond fans would be making gazillions off our own Bond-type creations. But we aren’t.
EoN literally is unique in that it is the size of an independent film production company, but unlike other indies they’re competing in the world of multi million dollar popcorn flicks. It’s a wonder they’re not only surviving but thriving in this marketplace (like seriously, I’d challenge any independent production company to compete in the blockbuster sandbox. I guarantee they couldn’t compete and would be dead within five years).
Are you and @ColonelSun professional script writers?
@ColonelSun was actually on the post team that worked on EoN’s Licence to Kill.
I’m working on the film adaptation of BA Paris’s The Therapist with Elizabeth Fowler as my producer.
I got that book on my reading list, @peter! Will make sure to read it in time for the film release.
Thank you. Always appreciative of informed opinion.
MGW always says when starting the next Bond film they look at what the next big global threat is. Going by that, since NTTD was released the world has changed enormously. Whatever they thought the biggest threat was, would have been scrapped partially if not entirely when Russia re-booted it's invasion of Ukraine and geo-political alliances changed over night, and if they really have their finger on the pulse, the sudden and astronomical rise of A.I. would definitely be something they're watching with interest.
Going by that, it's quite possible they'd have re-started the script three times by now.
Nothing could make me not want to see a Bond film in theaters.