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
Barbenheimer is the main reason. Just think at how many premium screens and shows it lost to them so early.
It is interesting, and I suspect it's a combination of many reasons.
Firstly, it seems to have been eclipsed by Barbie and Oppenheimer. More people seem willing to go and see those over MI. For numerous reasons I won't go into those films (particularly Barbie) just captured the zeitgeist and the marketing/audience discussion around them outshone MI:7. I suspect there's also an element that since this is part 1 of a two part film many viewers felt less inclined to go and see this one and are fine catching up with it when it gets released on home media.
Other reasons I suspect (and these may well be debatable and are my own thoughts) are that MI, while popular, has a much more 'soft' fan base than a franchise like Bond. I mean this in the sense that while people watch and enjoy them, I don't see all that many die hard fans who will flock to see this film in the cinema out of that sense of obligation. For many audiences it's just popcorn entertainment. It doesn't have the same level of devotion and affection that other more well established franchises have. I also suspect that while Tom Cruise is a big movie star he's not as fundamentally well liked as the lead actors of other franchises (I always compare Cruise as Hunt to Keanu Reeves as John Wick, Robert Pattinson as Batman, or indeed Craig as Bond - for whatever reason these actors are more warmly talked about amongst audiences. It's a paradox I've seen on these forums - while Cruise's films are liked and there's even a sense of admiration for his stunt work, people don't necessarily feel that warmly about the man himself. In that sense his name isn't quite the big draw that some people assume).
I know some people will cite a weariness with the spy genre, or indeed franchise films in general, and I suppose there's an element of that, but I think these are the bigger reasons. I don't think MI:7's relative lack of financial success means anything for a future Bond film even if we were in a situation in which it would be released as early as next year.
I'm must admit I'm not excited about the future of the series, but I'm confident EON know Bond best
Yeah I think there's lots of different reasons, as you say. I don't know if I hold with the fanbase thing, as I'm not sure Bond really has much of a fanbase, in as much as I don't think the films are aimed at the relatively small amount of fans like us it has. Bond is for the general audience and everyone likes it. Maybe there's a bit more of a generational attachment, but I think Bond is generally seen as reliable blockbuster fare. Mission was doing great business with the last film, so I don't think that would have shifted suddenly.
Spy genre weariness might be a factor, it is possible. There's so much crap being pumped out on Netflix and the like where they wanted some B level stars with guns so just make them spies that I guess it's possible it's turning people off it.
Perhaps fan-base wasn't quite the right term. I suppose what I meant was Bond has a longer history, and a stronger broad appeal for the casual viewer. Like I said, I get the sense MI's appeal is much softer by contrast. When a Bond film comes out more viewers tend to have more of an obligation to go and see it because it's 'the new Bond film', which MI doesn't quite have. This is regardless of the actual tone and even quality of the films. I would say Bond has a more dedicated and larger core fanbase than MI though.
Again, spy weariness might be there, but it's worth saying I'm not sure how many people actually watched those crappy Netflix shows in the first place. And I think Bond is a prestige enough series to stand out in this crowd. So really I wouldn't worry about MI's performance here when thinking about Bond. Fundamentally a MI movie has a much greater chance of flopping than a Bond film ever will, short of a film so objectively bad it tanks the series, which I doubt we'll get under EON.
Sure, but I thought Mission was too.
I should say, I don't think spy weariness is a big factor, but it's an interesting thought that you bring up.
Fair enough. I think the best way of saying it is not only is MI a much younger film series than Bond, but it has significant disadvantages as a franchise which consequently leaves it at a much greater risk of financial underperformance and doesn't put it on the same level of prestige as Bond. The quality of the films is irrelevant in this case. Without Tom Cruise in the lead role - like I said, a celebrity who viewers have that odd relationship with as an actor - it's not a film series that can arguably even exist. This is not a problem the Bond movies have today, no matter how popular the outgoing lead actor is. Its brand is so recognisable beyond that, and this ability to reinvent itself with the times while maintaining that consistent brand/notoriety is a major reason it'll likely outlast most franchises around today. Before MI:7 the last handful of films were not released at times in which it went against significant competition. Obviously that's a major difference this time round. Hell, it's worth noting just in terms of raw numbers none of them made as much as the later Craig Bond films from SF onwards, and Rogue Nation was even delayed to avoid going head to head with SP. I'd argue that even a part of the later MI film's success was that they were compared as being Bond-esque by some viewers.
Again, such a film series will never have that same allure as Bond, nor can it attract that same wide audience based on its name alone. I said in another thread I suspect had a Bond film of any kind been released in the place of MI, it wouldn't have outshone Barbenheimer, but it would have fared much better than MI:7 has done.
It's younger, but not exactly young (it's older than this century) and it hasn't underperformed before. It's also, up to this point, cost a lot less than Bond to make and never failed to find an audience.
I don't think that's impossible though.
But it hasn't consistently been around all that time to the extent Bond has. It's very possible, for instance, for a parent to have fond memories of watching a James Bond film in the cinema when they were young, and taking their child to go and see it out of that nostalgia/excitement of their kid seeing 'their first Bond film' in the theatre. I'm not sure if you'd get that with MI, at least not as broadly. That's the kind of appeal that very few franchises have, that ability to get viewers on its name/history alone, its recognisability despite the lead actor constantly changing, and that ability to keep its films being produced relatively consistently and changing with the times.
It doesn't really matter how successful the MI films were when compared to their budgets in this sense. Neither does the critical or audience reaction to them. More people went to see the later Craig films not specifically because they were good films (this is subjective) but because they were Bond films.
Perhaps not impossible, but it's extremely difficult. I don't think MI ever had that ability.
I feel like this is a subjective personal reaction more than a universal one. There have been 7 MI films over the last 27 years, and 8 Bond films: I'd say that's not exactly far off the same consistency.
I can't really see why though. I doubt anyone thought it would last 27 years, but it has. It has iconography and name recognition; I'm not seeing the fundamental flaw with it that you seem to.
True, but what I'm saying is I think it's a far more common personal reaction when associated with the Bond film franchise. Also it's not just the output over the last 27 years, it's the fact that Bond has an additional 33 years of films under its belt and has remoulded itself so many times while keeping its essential traits - namely they're Bond films. A casual viewer can have a favourite Bond actor while hating another one. They can take their child or friends to see the new Bond film out of that nostalgia while absolutely despising the latest one. And they'll likely go to see the next one when it comes out. It has a longevity, nostalgia, brand prestige, adaptability, and recognition that MI just can't compete with as of yet.
I suppose time will tell, but as of now as far as I'm aware it seems MI likely won't continue to be made after the next one comes out. I don't know if it can survive without Tom Cruise (but then again this was said of Bond in regards to Connery after he left in '67, so take of it what you will).
MI has iconography and recognisability, sure. But so does Indiana Jones and look at how the latest one fared. Or Star Wars. But these are films in which specific roles are associated with particular actors, and arguably they're associated with specific filmmakers who made them. They weren't franchises continuously going. Bond by contrast not only has the iconography but has gone beyond being tied to single actors or filmmakers. It's spanned into different decades, hell a different century, and it's part of the reason for its success that few other franchises have. The closest I can think of is Dr. Who.
I'm an original Bond fan, so I've seen the progression of films over the years and the increasing dependence on spectacular stunts and effects. The effects in DOD left me indifferent. DR was the more entertaining film, but the motorcycle/parachute jump felt more contrived than other stunts.
Obviously I can't speak to what younger audiences want in a Bond film. Have the Fast and Furious, DC, and Marvel films run their course? Or will the Bond films morph into effects extravaganzas in search of younger audiences? For me a good film is a good story and characters we care about, which is why OHMSS and CR remain my favorite Bond films.
I hope the death of Bond does not signify the death of Bond films so that they are no longer recognizable as Fleming's creation. I hope we don't get something along the lines of Citadel, which seems little more than an A.I. concept.
Currently Deadline.com is featuring an interview with William Friedkin in which he talks about his style of filmmaking and the current trends. There's something raw and appealing about old school filmmaking.
A good film “is a good story and characters we care about”…. These should be the points of making a movie, or, even more specifically: characters that we care about make great films… I think the modern blockbuster has got away from this notion…
They should definitely be looking at Indy 5 and learning from it, but I think it’s less “white male driven franchises are suffering” (the superheroes still do well don’t they?) and more that our generation is starting to lose the iron clad grip we’ve had on the blockbuster area for so long.
I don’t think young people are opposed to Bond as a concept either, or that he’s completely out of step with current sensibilities. All the stuff that made him so popular is still popular, and I doubt the politics of it will be an issue now that he isn’t slapping women around. You’d still get some media commentators going on about how sexist he is for daring to enjoy consensual sex with different women, but audiences clearly aren’t bothered, so the film makers can ignore that. And he’s never really been an establishment figure despite working for them, and especially not in the new ones, and most most young people in the UK don’t vote at all, so I doubt most of them will write off a cool looking blockbuster because the main character has a posh accent and works for the government.
I think they just need to make some casting/aesthetic/musical choices that’ll make it look and feel like less of an “old man” thing. And you can still do that while being true to Bond’s spirit imo.
And how many other competitive franchises from the '80s are still around?
Bond skips around in time and reunites with all of his past loves (Tracy, Vesper, Madeleine, Christmas, and--dark horse---Dench's first M). Theme song "The Tramp is a Lady" by Nancy Sinatra. Script by Purvis & Wade, based upon the unused bits of DN (the monkey), OHMSS (the aquatic car), and SF (the cool shot of Patrice falling from the building). 3 hours 50 minutes long, because why not.
Only in theaters in 2035. Maybe 2036.
So he's a relatively young, very fit man very interested in women who ended up in the service of his country. We should probably figure out what motivates a young man to do such a thing in this day and age, regardless of where we actually meet Bond on screen. Perhaps they brush it away as a natural place for an orphan, ala CR.
So then what's it like to be an adult orphan who is very fit and very interested in women, in service of England, who has been trained and is willing to kill in cold blood given a good enough briefing. So a bit of a psychopath. This is fun.
Look at the 2 biggest (and surprising) blockbuster hits of the year. It's not MI or Indy Jones, but instead a 3 hour film about a scientist who builds a bomb, and an adult film about a kids doll.
Hopefully this kick starts Hollywood and Disney into thinking differently about how to greenlight major blockbuster films. It's not super heroes and OTT action CGI that audiences are craving anymore.
I would definitely love that, although I doubt TPOAL will ever make it as a title. I think it's not a strong enough title, and secondly it's already been used in OP, both the title and the adapted short story.
Maybe they go back to the books but using the latest Horowitz tales, which could either be Forever and a Day, which is set before CR (if they want another Bond Begins reboot), or Trigger Mortis, which is Bond at his peak, already established.
Either book uses material from Fleming, and they could also weave in the unused scenes from the Fleming books too to pad out the story. This to me seems the most logical way of going back to Fleming, if that is EON's intention with the next film.
Anyway, I suspect Bond 26 will incorporate Fleming material, but not necessarily in the sense that it'll be adapted in a straightforward way. They'll just do what they've done throughout Craig's later run - that's to say take elements from the novels, and adapt the themes/ideas to an original story. Honestly, they're better off doing that than trying to adapt Horowitz or unused Fleming novels. I'd personally like to see something new that still harkens back to the source material.
As long as it doesn’t have a variation of the word die in it. It seems to be a cliché of Bond it seems now.
I would like to think that will be consciously avoided after the last film.