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
Yep, it's very concerning. If Bond 26 launches in 2027 and crashes like dail of destiny, what then? Another long gap while EON regroup and try again? There's a lot to consider, personally that's why I don't think they'll bite off more than they can chew. A simple, straightforward story, with a clear sense of the direction to take future installments, with an unmistakably bondian blueprint. It worked in 1995.
I think for something like Dune it’s impressive, and it’s undeniably a hit. Remember, all the 2019 top grossers were either Marvel films or other IPs from Disney (ant their height no less). I’m not sure how well the Dune films would have done if they’d been released around that time in comparison to now. Anyway, glib as this sounds not all films need to be smash hits to be successful.
Going by what I’ve personally seen and the numbers for the last two Craig Bond films, I don’t think Bond 26 needs to worry too much. I know a fair few people in the 18-28 year range, and even though not all are big Bond fans (some even dislike a few of the earlier ones), most went to the cinemas to watch the last two and even enjoyed them. I suspect a big part of it is that Bond is ever modern, while Indiana Jones is literally and figuratively from another time. Audiences don’t expect a Sean Connery or Roger Moore Bond film, they expect a new Bond film. In that sense compared to something like MI (which from what I’ve seen actually has a fan base which skews older) Bond’s viewership I suspect would be relatively varied, and a fair few would likely be under 25 already. They just need to make the best Bond film they can with the best lead they can find, and market it appropriately/release it at a convenient time of the year.
Again, just on a basic level it comes down to the question of would a typical person think it worth spending money to see this film. I really don’t think anyone was crying out for a new Indiana Jones film, and it’s not a franchise that’s really been directly in the public consciousness for many years now. There was limited interest. This is not a problem Bond has. Something like Marvel by contrast has too much content. Outside of the Avengers or the big superhero names would anyone really be bothered watching The Marvels? Again, not an issue for Bond.
Or maybe the new Superman will be more of a pointer.
.
That's the issue. It worked in 1995
Superman’s a double edged sword. It hasn’t really been a thing for a while now (even when Cavill took the role we didn’t get an awful lot of Superman appearances) but it is a recognisable character, and fans are seemingly excited for a new DC era. While I can’t imagine a flop as such I can see that there just simply wouldn’t be enough interest to make it a smash hit, and there is a scenario where it could underperform in this sense. If I’m completely honest I’m not sure if I care enough about Superman to instinctually go and see it, but if there’s good word of mouth, marketing, and others I know get excited to see it, I’ll go. It’s got an excellent chance of being successful on the whole, but to what degree will have to be seen.
Star Wars has an overwhelming fan and nostalgia factor that’s pretty extraordinary (even if some of the films are truly horrendous). But anything’s possible, especially with uneven output and too much of it.
Could be, but the use of "license to" seems intentional.
...incoming
Interesting, I read it quickly and did not catch that.
I don't imagine youtuber guy would have been talking about an unofficial leak, I assume he was talking about an official announcement, and a random gossip-guy doesn't count, imo.
Which youtuber?
A channel called analyze this, mr bond.
True, any film these days can be a major hit or a flop. And Bond films have always managed to be a success. But how much has changed since NTTD was released? Is the tried and true Bond formula still workable? Or are we to see something radically different? Assuming we see Bond 26 in 2026, the 18 year-old of 2026 would have been 13 years-old in when NTTD was released. I wonder how many in that 18-25 group have much interest in a Bond film. Selling the film to a younger audience seems a huge challenge.
The 18-25 demographic will see the next Bond film. I’d worry more about the 40+ age range who I’d argue are more likely to complain about something to do with a new Bond film/are less likely to see a new release in the cinema.
Mwahahaha
Jeff Sneider is not a credible reporter in the slightest. He posts anything and everything he "hears". He is a laughing stock among actual reporters who do actual work.
Understanding media literacy — in its original definition, of vetting sources and applying critical analysis — is imperative in the post-truth online era where any two-bit hack can grab a megaphone and act like they are Walter Cronkite.
True, but as is said, “Every squirrel finds a nut” ; Monday we’ll see if this squirrel has any nuts.
Even more ridiculous is that you talk about the importance of media literacy and insinuate that I don’t have it, when it appears it’s something you don’t know much about.
He just fell for the most obvious fake story ever regarding Sydney Sweeney and Johnny Depp.
I have talked to people who actually do this work for a living, and I have heard how they talk about him. I don't pull this card often because it's pathetic for one to big time off of their acquaintance's accomplishments but this guy is a total fraud.
You see his time in sports reporting all the time — something I'm more familiar with my own first-hand experience. These guys who say everything under the sun, pick a bunch of fights to raise their attention. They promote the few times they were right (which are the result of dumb luck), and bury the numerous times they are wrong.
This line of work is about reputation, one's word is only worth their reputation. He has his reputation for a reason.
I don't understand this obsession Bond fans have with signal boosting charlatans, whether this or whenever Ruimy posts one of his numerous fictitious stories or the British tabloids. There are actual outlets who do real work of confirming with multiple sources and cross-referencing information. Listen to them!
As for some people in the business talking badly about him, he has an outspoken, sometimes grating personality that can rub people the wrong way. But that has nothing to do with his credibility.
Voila. If it's not EON reporting it, I'm not buying it. I'll happily risk not giving some hypothetical YouTuber the credit he's due. Too many rumours have plagued us before; too much empty speculation has bothered us before.
Then there are sources that are not quite as credible as those sites but still are very much worth paying attention to, and it's fun speculating about credible rumours posted by those sources. Wasn't it fun talking about Daniel Craig possibly becoming Bond, which we could do for half a year before the official announcement, thanks to rumours?