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
Agree to agree. And I disagree that the Craig films as a whole have been a high point of the entire series. Also, I think the Downey/Doom idea is terrible myself.
That is hands down one of the best posts I’ve seen in this thread for a longtime.
Good thinking @Burgess
I think there are fans in the industry who could give Barbara a run for her money. Look at what Favreau did for Star Wars.
I do think she is more interested in her projects with Craig than with the Bond franchise at the moment.
The Craig films are not the best when compared to the presentations of the Bourne, Mission Impossible, Avatar and even U.N.C.L.E. films that have come out over the last thirty years. They don't feel handcrafted to me, especially when considering the amount of the budgets and the cash thrown at problems.
Quantity never hurt the original 5 Connery films which remain classics to this day.
Again, in the hands of someone like Favreau, the Star Wars franchise can shine.
I put my head in my hands at the thought of waiting to have CN direct the next Bond, who I believe is just not the right fit for Bond. At least we can agree that DV would be worth the wait if EON and Amazon cannot figure out how to kickstart the franchise back into action sooner.
Regardless of the time frame, I stand by the idea that if Craig is not part of the production team, which I would not look forward to, of the next Bond film that Broccoli will hand off the actual producing duties to someone else from EON. Personally, I would not have a problem with that. The Craig films are Barbara's legacy Bond films. [/quote]
Scorsese really likes working with DeNiro and , more recently, DiCaprio. Does that mean he can’t work with any other actor? Does it mean that he’s so tied in with these two actors that he’d need them to produce films with him that they don’t star in? And if they don’t, will he just not do the project??
It’s obvious that BB likes working with Craig. Like Scorsese likes working with certain actors too. I don’t see how collaboration would take away from her responsibilities for Bond?
I dunno, I just don’t understand this way of thinking. She’s a film producer. She wants to do other things other than one character.
Like I said, it’s like assuming an author only wants to write about only one character, or a painter only wants to paint the portrait of one muse.
Who cares how BB spends her time if a Bond film is right around the corner (Oct 2027).
The 1960s were a different era for Bond and cinema. Production time was shorter and productions were comparatively smaller. The Connery films had the benefit of being fresh and cutting edge in a time where big budget, genre competition was sparse.
Avatar aside, the Craig films mostly outperformed all the examples you give in box office, critic scores and legacy. Skyfall alone made over a billion dollars. All of Craig’s films are some of the most successful films of all time at the UK box office.
Favreau successfully launched The Madalorian but let’s not act as though Star Wars since 2019 hasn’t been in a sort of creative free fall. The Mandalorian, and arguably Andor, are the only things working for Star Wars at the moment.
If your argument is that the Craig films didn’t work in part or on the whole, then why would making more films at a quicker pace yield better results? That seems counterintuitive. I’d rather wait longer for a Casino Royale than rush into something like The Man With The Golden Gun (great villain notwithstanding).
My compliments on a great post, sir. I absolutely agree and couldn't have said it better.
I do find it a bit odd that this forum often seems to complain that it's not liked any Bond movie since 1969 and yet the same producers who have never made a Bond movie we like should get a move on and make a new Bond movie.
If you haven't liked any they've made why do you want a new one? (Not aimed at you, Burgess)
Thank you.
Much appreciated.
Only Kubrick was Kubrick but filmmakers operating at Kubrick’s level want to make Bond films. Let them make it with EON’s guiding hand. Time be damned. I don’t agree with every decision EON makes, but they have an authorial voice that makes the Bond films what they are and I enjoy their vision.
You can serve two masters. Theses filmmakers need freedom if you want "good movies".
There’s an odd little subgroup of Bond ‘fans’ I tend to see online/very occasionally in real life (not so much on these forums incidentally, and this isn’t describing anyone directly here. It’s more a thing you see sometimes if you were to scroll through the comments of a YouTube video about Bond, or get into a real life discussion about the series with someone you’ve just met). It’s usually slightly older viewers who would claim something like that - that they haven’t enjoyed a Bond film since [insert any pre-Craig era decade that they usually first watched Bond during] but at the same time complain about the lack of very recent output. They don’t even seem to like the actual films all that much from their preferred era. It’s literally just the bare bones idea of James Bond that appeals to them - the womanising, the suaveness, the coolness etc. They certainly have no interest in Fleming. Despite Craig’s Bond having all those elements he gets the brunt of criticism for various story reasons - him falling in love, retiring from the service, being ‘moody’. It’s very much the ‘let Bond be Bond’ crowd.
I’m not saying Bond shouldn’t have that aspirational element to him (we all gravitate towards Bond for those reasons, and at the end of the day it’s fantasy with a charismatic hero at its centre) but there’s something a bit sad about it when it comes to that group. Like I said they tend to be older, and there’s very much an element that they don’t see in the Craig films what they saw in the first Bond films they watched. Doesn’t matter if someone claims that many viewers feel that way about Craig’s Bond, or that the more ‘personal’ or ‘moody’ story elements from his films come from prior Bond movies as early as the Moore era. For them Craig or anyone after him will never be Bond, and yet they seem to invest so much time critiquing a series they claim to like (but haven’t by their own standards for a long time), yearning for an idea of Bond that likely hasn’t existed past DN (if that).
That’s the small subgroup I don’t think EON can ever appeal to, no matter what they release, nor how quickly they do so.
Filmmaking is all about serving multiple masters. The most prolific filmmakers are still accountable to producers and the studio. The best directors still need others to make their vision come to life.
More so than even their legendary father, Broccoli and Wilson have successfully threaded the needle between artistry and commerce. We can speculate on the involvement of Nolan and Villeneuve, in large part, because Broccoli and Wilson raised the bar on what a Bond film can be. Thematically and aesthetically, the Craig era was ambitious in a way that few Bond films matched. I love all the Bond films to varying degrees. The worst Bond film is still entertaining but the Craig era hit at a different level.
Even with that success, I think we’re only scratching the surface of where the franchise could go. The films may be released further apart but there’s creative experimentation with these pictures that makes it feel like each new Bond film could be the best Bond film.
Call me a romantic, but the hands at the wheel today belong to members of the original Bond family, people who were there when some of the legendary Bond films were made, and I'd rather see them in charge than Holywood vultures ready to oversaturate the Bondian output to the point of 007 fatigue.
I can understand it to some extent as fans become fanatical about how that thing was, not necessarily what it has or will become, so they'll often yearn for it to be as good as it was when they were younger (and I think personal nostalgia always plays a part in this too).
But what I can't understand is getting angry about not getting more of that thing which you already don't like. It seems counter intuitive to me. Maybe they're hoping that finally next time they'll get exactly what they want, something which looks just like that thing they watched when they were 14, but it's a vain hope.
Personally I love the recent run of 007 films and I'd like more like that, or maybe a development from them, or maybe something new. But they are only films so I'm fine to wait for whenever they're ready. And I'm someone who visits this forum every day, so I'm a pretty big fan, but my getting frustrated isn't going to make it happen.
The 70's, 80's and 90's were a different era to the 60's, in which productions became considerably bigger, yet Cubby/EON still managed a film every 2 years for the most part.
And as a Bond fan I would not want to be without LALD, TMWTGG, FYEO, TLD and LTK. Hell, I would even throw DAF into that list, so this factory churning out of Bond films regularly gave us decent results.
I can see the argument why some fans think Barbara is more invested in working with Craig, rather than working on the next Bond film. All current status of her activity points towards this, particularly when you think how long ago NTTD wrapped, and if the next Bond film doesn't get released until 2027.
That is a very long gap.
They're partnered with MGM Amazon... why not just ask them to pony up? I cant see it being a particularly expensive production.
They managed it well into the 2000s. Then after they felt they stumbled with QoS they worked longer on Skyfall and had the biggest hit they've ever had.
Similar sort of thing with TSWLM.
I do believe they were originally targeting 2010 for Bond 23, then MGM went bankrupt and it delayed it all. It was then moved to 2012 to make the most of the 50th Anniversary. I dont think it was a case of 'QoS was poorly received so we need more time'.
No, but it still worked out for them better than rushing QoS did.
That’s not to say those earlier films aren’t great and the Craig films are perfect (they’re not). But I think it’s fair to say the recent Bond efforts are the most successful since the 60s. Even just taking into account hype/audience satisfaction I’ve seen consistent excitement for new Bond films since CR, with SF being something of a height in that area. The franchise is in a good place.
Well said. I agree.
They can make a good movie by chance. It's called statistics.
Yes I feel like at the time by the 80s, the latest Bond was kind of a staple- there would be a Bond out. The Royal Premiere would be on the telly, there would be another along soon. Whereas I kind of feel like they're more front page news now- the number of times Craig and the films got on the front pages of the papers was pretty surprising. I remember DAD having one grainy snap of the filming in the The Sun, NTTD got whole spreads of the shooting going on in Jamaica etc. I'm obviously not saying they weren't big in those times, but the recent ones seem to have drawn even more attention to me.
I’m not sure that art/entertainment works this way but doesn’t the statistical chance of making a “good movie” go down with less films being made? If so, then could the successes that EON have had be the result of artistry rather than mere luck?
Accepting your premise, it seems that for most artistic endeavors the opposite is true. The more of a thing that’s made, the more diluted that thing becomes. Which has a higher build quality per car: an Aston Martin or a Hyundai? Is Jurassic Park a better film than Jurassic Park 3? Is Star Wars: Episode IV a better movie than Star Wars: Episode IX? Is From Russia With Love a better film than Diamonds Are Forever?
There may be a reason why the first 6 films of the Bond franchise are venerated as the best while all the others sit at various levels of quality and prestige. In a product-packed yet unsteady marketplace, a bad film could do more damage to a brand than no film.
Can you expand on this?
I remember those days. The late 70's and the 80's. Back when Bond movies were a huge event. A time where there were no streaming services and we had to wait a year for it to hit VHS to watch the newest Bond movie again, after having seen it a couple of times in our local theatre. A time where there were load of magazines, toys and all sort of Bond related merchandise and where every teenageboy wanted to go see the new Bond movie.
So how is Bond in a slightly better place today exactly? We haven't seen Bond related news for a while, nothing hinting at the next movie in a time where the whole blockbuster movieindustry is in a creative crisis and competing with streaming. To me, that doesn't really sound like being in a better place than the days from TSWLM to LTK.
That’s interesting. Personally I’ve only ever known Bond films having that hype/build up (my most vivid memories of the run up to a Bond release is SF, with some hazy memories of CR/QOS). But yeah, nowadays it’s kind of an event - we get the official press conference, the snaps from onset, the articles upon Bond articles from film magazines, websites etc. That’s not even mentioning the inevitable stuff that comes a bit closer to the time, the Bond song, the Heineken ad (or whatever product it might be) featuring the Bond lead, the trailer releases, the inevitable Graham Norton cast interview, the premiere.
The idea of Bond releases being routine is something I’m just don’t have a concept of. It’s always been a big event as a release for me.
I said exactly how it’s in a good place in the rest of the post.
All that you’ve mentioned is background stuff anyway. TSWLM had an even more uncertain and tenuous run up to pre-production. We’re not in a situation where the future of the franchise is in question, or where fans are uncertain whether Bond can go on with an alternative lead.