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
I remind myself of it every day, @Agent_Zero_One 8->
Herr_StockmannHerr_Stockmann France
October 5 Posts: 170Flag
Beyond the immediate problem posed by theatrical distribution, I think the immediate consequence for future movies will be a reduction in production costs, and Bond 26, regardless of its release date, won't be an exception. A budget like that of NTTD, around or even exceeding $250 million, is a thing of the past.
When you see that Atomic Blonde only cost $30 million, it might not be so catastrophic. I suppose that Bond 26 will have a slightly higher budget (between $70 and $100 million maybe), but this reduction in costs seems to me necessary to continue to have a series of profitable theatrically released films. At the same time, such situation could allow a more sustained production rate.
Quote
The Force is strong with this one. Quite right, you sound.
NBC censors were obviously offended because they beeped it out for their audience.
If he had said something like "It's the greatest and most fun job in the world being Bond but you have to work hard at it" , it would be closer to the truth and more classier ?
Of course NBC censors would be offended by it. This is the wonderful woke world we live in now.
That would be a great way of making it sound like any other boring job in the world.
Censoring swear words goes back to the early days of US TV.
Censoring swear words also goes back to the early days of this forum. ;))
Yeah it does sound a bit boring. F--k it........ :))
Personally, I would be far from being bothered by this kind of inclination which would allow each film to be associated with a specific location, as had been the case in the past with YOLT or Octopussy.
https://screenrant.com/james-bond-craig-reboot-1960s-setting-reason/
Wherever Bond goes, CF maybe coming with him.
I don't really understand the argument the autor is trying to make here (and in the entire article). Because we already have Bond movies from the sixties, Bond can say something new by re-doing that?
That is exactly the problem with a period piece. Especially one set in the 60s. It's a lose-lose situation. Either, all your doing is a Connery pastiche only it's not as good, because it's not Connery and it's pastiche or you try to get away from that, but why go back to the 60s then?
I would say either go 50s and position it clearly as Fleming adaptations (and by that I mean no "callbacks" to the movies) or go 80s but do a tonal shift from the Moore films. I feel like the very specific tone of those movies has left more space to work in than the Connery films did. But as with all things Bond, it is very likely that people feel the exact opposite depending on your feelings about the various eras.
I am, however, certain that if the series became a period piece, it would not be this path that would be chosen and on the contrary we would have something light, much more eyeing towards a "Cold War Chic" atmosphere. It would be a sort of pastiche of the Connery era and I'm not sure that would be good for the series or can be helpful in the long term, even if the idea could be attractive at first.
I think you are correct in everything you have said here. A good period film with Bond as the main character could be made; it is unlikely that Eon would do it that way.
I think this would be a project one of the big streaming TV companies would jump at the second Bond is in the public domain. But I don't really understand (US) copyright law enough for when and how that could happen. And who knows if these companies still exist then or if the nostalgia for that era we have at the moment is still the same then.
Ian Fleming s books are copyright protected through 2034. From 2035, they are in the public domain unless the rules should change before then.
But then it's strictly the books and nothing that originated from the films, right? And I guess Thunderball will still be problematic, which means SPECTRE is a problem.
But 2035 is still such a long time to go. We might even have seen NTTD by then.
Regarding the possibility of further adaptations of Fleming's character, and only him, once the novels will have fallen into the public domain, I really hope this doesn't cause Eon to take refuge in what they have a monopoly on, Blofeld and SPECTRE for example, exploiting them until they've gotten everything out of these elements, nor to move away from what fell under Fleming to focus on what the general audience takes for the cinematic identity for the series.
Nevertheless, I doubt a concurencial movie won't enter into production before 2040, between the necessary time to settle all legal issues and to lift the fear of any lawsuits over what would come under cinematic James Bond and literary James Bond.
I hear you, as I'm sure do a lot of fans steeped in Fleming, but I fear the mainstream audience wants exactly that: nostalgia and idealization.
Eon wins in this scenario because Disney has to deal with its copyrights first. The movie studios will throw all the money they have to push the copyright expirations further out into the future.
And if we're dealing with Fleming's rights passing into the public domain but Eon still holding the film rights, I'm sure Eon will defend them vigorously, so no gunbarrel, Bond theme, etc. Anyone who gets out of line with their adaptations will be tied up in court.
‘James Bond 007’ is a trademark of Danjaq. Even if the books went out of copyright you couldn’t use James Bond in an adaptation of them.
It feels like giving up to me. Like ‘we can’t think of how to make it work anymore so let’s make more Connery movies‘.
Plus the gadgets get less inventive, the scale has to get smaller, savings from product placements won’t be available... I dunno, it’s just boring. Imagine if Roger had never had his groovy Lotus because they were still setting the films in 1962 when he was making his films... it’s just a bit dull.
Giving up, not in the least, simply a creative decision.
Even if only for a three film arc it would make the transition to another actor in a contemporary setting less jarring.
I also think the main thing that would stop from going for the period approach for the next era would be general audiences. I'm not sure if period Bond films would create mass appeal.
Also, I think it would be important for them to keep away from falling back on the plots and villains that were specific to governments and countries that were used in Western spy-fiction of the time.
See, that's what I mean. This stuff is so stupendously complicated. Or just stupid.
How can the books be public domain, but the name of the main character is not?* And as far as I've heard, Danjaq doesn't mind sueing everyone and everything over the smallest perceived infractions.
At least we would have something to discuss, if we get Thunderball 2.0 and rogue projects get tied up in court left and right. In 2035
*Although this does remind of something I heard about Sherlock Holmes, where - somehow - the Estate has control over a later set of stories, but not the earlier ones. So now they try to sue Sherlock Holmes projects, where the detective "has emotions", because according to them, that only happened in the later stories.
What needs to be stopped when the next Bond starts bringing back old characters. Two (possibly three) times now they’ve hidden characters everyone seen right through: Eve-Moneypenny-SF, Franz Oberhauser-Blofeld-SP, possibly Safin-Dr. No NTTD. Enough of this at this point! Just tell us who’s who!
I think Safin is Safin, with a bit of inspiration from Ian Fleming's Dr. No thrown in.