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
It seems to me that the Broccoli and Wilson era (Brosnan included) is intentionally stamped with thematic ambition and driven by artistic risks. Bond is one of a few prestige blockbuster franchises that attracts a range of talent who seem reticent about tackling other franchises like Marvel.
Daniel Craig was nominated for a BAFTA for his performance in Casino Royale. Skyfall received the BAFTA for Outstanding British Film, Broccoli and Wilson received the David O. Selznick Achievement Award from the PGA, and they’re going to be honored by the Academy with the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award. The last one was given out in 2018. Three of the most recent Bond films all received the Academy Award for best original song.
That’s sounds like a better place to me.
Just from an awards and critical reception perspective, the Craig films were far more successful than the Bond films of the 80s (which I love, btw).
And the 80s were 34 years ago. I don’t understand your point.
Legit curious, how would you measure a ‘good’ Bond movie in a way that isn’t just your own personal opinion/one held by some others who you agree with anyway?
And that's certainly widening the phrase "better place today", isn't it? If you count the various nominations alone, because you thing that that should be used as the scale, the franchise was actually in a better place from 1977 to 1987, than 2014 to 2024.
Ok. Is there any other way you can measure how well the franchise is doing than by box office numbers and critical response? Genuinely curious.
SF is the highest grossing Bond of all time, overtaking TB which was released in the 60s. SP isn’t far off (I think it’s the fourth highest) and considering we had Covid and delays surrounding its release, NTTD being the tenth highest grossing Bond film is remarkable. As has been said the critical reception of the Craig films has generally been positive (many of the 70s/80s ones were a bit mixed unfortunately).
Again, everything you’ve mentioned is background stuff, and a lot of it your own opinion/assessment. Why does it matter that we have ‘no Fleming novel to fall back on’? The films haven’t fallen back on them fully for decades. Apart from no definitive news (as of yet) EON aren’t dealing with something like the MGM legal problems that put the series to a standstill in the 90s, or a film which underperformed to a point it made less than half the previous entry. They’re certainly not dealing with a questionable future as they had to face twice in the 70s alone.
I understand you have nostalgia for those days, I suspect you were quite young/getting into Bond around this time. I have the exact same feelings about SF in 2012. But the series is arguably in a better place even just by basic financial/critical response.
All of that is awesome and desirable but is it illustrative of a better place or just a different place?
Arguing about box office inflation or even ticket sales seems like boxing in the dark. It tells us nothing about the marketplace in which any given film competes. There’s some valuable historical perspective but ask a CEO if they care that the first three quarters of 1962 outperformed the first three quarters of 2024 when adjusting for inflation. Value is assessed by the current marketplace. Of course, the size of the audience matters but so does the current cost of a ticket.
You don’t think it’s unfair to simply lop off the first half (or so) of Daniel Craig’s tenure as Bond to make a point? Daniel Craig’s five films are collectively the most lauded and successful run of Bond films since the Connery/Lazenby era.
Awards and positive critical reception are signifiers, like box office, that a movie connected with its audience or even found success amongst a wider audience. They’re not the end-all-be-all but they’re certainly indicative of a job well done.
Success is also measured in continuity, interest and keeping a fanbase. That is what we witnessed back then, and that is what is missing today. Bond fans today are, compared with the fan bases for other action franchises, and compared to the 70's and 80's, middle-aged-to-old. That is concerning.
I just don't consider 2006 or 2012 as part of "today", that's all.
100% agree. And the competition today compared to the days before streaming is much stiffer. If you want to compete, you've got to attend.
I agree that the zeitgeist seems ready for Bond’s return. I actually think the “bruised, broken soul” (well put) of Craig’s Bond is still appropriate for our current time. One element of Fleming’s novels that resonates with me is that Bond is remarkable not because he’s unflappable but because he’s tenacious. With all of his skill and intelligence and resources, Bond is still a man in a suit with his small but dependable Walther PPK. He’s heroic because he can bleed. Despite his own mortality, Bond takes it on the chin and on the chins and in gut to protect us from the evil hand that holds the whip.
That being said, there does seem to be a renewed optimism in the global North that closely tracks to either changes in leadership, prospective changes in leadership or the beating back of fascistic forces.
The key to the next era of Bond may be in a synthesis of Craig’s interior exploration of the character with the renewed idealism reflected in Western politics. Bond fighting for a better world instead of only maintaining the status quo.
Yes. A film from the latest era is the highest grossing Bond film.
All Bond films are successful in the strictest sense, and I agree somewhat that they're always going to be moneymakers. But it's no guarantee they'll get to the level they have done as of late. Films like TMWTGG, OHMSS and LTK underperformed, even necessitating outright course corrections.
Gross is different to profits, and even then it doesn't seem like NTTD has bankrupted EON, so I don't think that's an issue. If we want to compare the recent Bond movies to its contemporaries (which may well be a better route to go down on the financial side), then the Craig films have pretty much always made more money than the latest Mission Impossible films. Heck, the last three have fared better than a lot of Marvel films in that sense too, and certainly DC. The fact is a lot of people are going to see these films.
I understand what you're trying to say, but it's tricky trying to measure the overall interest of a fanbase as wide as Bond's, especially nowadays. The truth is it's a franchise with quite a wide range of ages and opinions, and your assessment of this really depends on who you are and who you interact with. For me personally, I interact with Bond fans on these forums and in my day to day life. Perhaps those off the forums aren't quite as dedicated as us, and perhaps more of a 30+ demographic is reflected here (even then there are quite a few of us in our 20s here from what I can tell) but I've had some really cool discussions about the Craig films with friends and I know many who are genuinely looking forward to the next Bond film. Heck, when the ATJ tabloid rumours came out a few months ago a number of people I know readily discussed it, and discussing who the next Bond will be isn't an unusual work/pub conversation for me.
It's also worth mentioning many fans might simply not have the same interests as others. Again, this is just personal anecdote, but I know people who are keeping an eye on when the new Bond game is going to come out. I'm sure there are many who have no interest in that, but it's a big deal for a good chunk of the fandom (the Craig era games were lacklustre and the 'Golden era' of Bond was quite a while ago now).
There's also this idea which I outlined earlier today, and it's something that tends to be a bit more vocal nowadays with the internet:
The reality is it's something you're always going to get with Bond. I suspect some fans of the 60s films would have derided TSWLM or MR when they came out and have said it wasn't the same franchise for them.
Again, I don't see any way this can be measured, and it's a very long running and successful franchise. But I see a lot of engagement with it even just on these forums, and I know many who got into Bond because of the Craig era, or are really only fans of the Craig Bond films. There doesn't seem to be a lack of interest or a bias fully towards middle aged people from my perspective. If anything it's something like Mission Impossible which has an older, much softer fanbase.
I agree with the last part, we certainly need our heroes to start reflecting a kind of optimism again. I know bond in the books is a lot scrappier, that's one of the things I'm happy they changed for the screen after the early connery films, I think Bond should always have a certain composure of being in control even when he isn't, a great example being Connerys jest "well, you can't win them all".
I just think we're emerging into a completely new world in terms of global affairs, and the next bond film needs to feel like a jolt in the arm after the slower poignance of Bond 25, which was technically a pre-pandemic movie afterall.
(Anecdotial): Where I come from, if you went into any public school during the late 70's you could find plenty of Bond fans. Not so today. In the words of my own 14-year old son: "Bond movies are dad-movies"
(More substantial):
There's an interesting comment on this page here:
https://raritania.blogspot.com/2021/11/why-james-bonds-audience-is-so-middle.html
"Why James Bond's Audience is so Middle-Aged
1.Older viewers got hooked on the Bond series back when it had a genuine claim to novelty (....)
2.Nostalgia has been a powerful factor in sustaining interest in the Bond films--but we are increasingly remote from that moment. People who grew up in the '80s and '90s might still remember being touched by the nostalgia for the '60s in which jet-setting Playboy lifestyle spymania figured so prominently (hence Austin Powers), but someone who grew up in the '00s would likely be left scratching their head looking at all that. The pull is simply not there for them (...)
3.The newer Bond films--the films younger viewers are most likely to know, and to judge the franchise by--basically abandoned what was distinctive about the series (such as would let it stand out from the intense competition), and some would say, also what was fun about it. (...)"
Whatever they are doing, It's not working ;)
Thyy
That's muy point. You like NTTD more than I do and we don't had many movies since 2012.
You are happy, i'm not.
Let that sink in.
Not gonna lie, I have no clue what you just wrote.
Fair enough. I don't know any 14 year olds and the extent of my Bond conversations are with people in their 20s. The closest I have anecdotally are a couple of cousins who are 17 and 18 respectively, and they like Bond (actually they both prefer Bond to the MI films and made a not dissimilar comment about them that your son did about Bond - that they're for older people who wish that James Bond was still in the 70s/80s, which I found quite funny and can see what they mean!)
I suspect the Craig films have slightly less of a 'teen' fanbase than maybe some of the breezier Bond movies did. They're a bit darker and I think people in their 20s get a bit more out of them. I remember CR being quite popular amongst people a bit older than me at the time (so around those teenage years) for what it's worth... same for SF in my age group.
I suppose we'll see where the franchise is at in the coming years. Like I said I know people excited for the new game, and perhaps that might get a newer generation of fans onboard. But I get the sense Bond's fanbase is quite wide.
And all rubbish.
If EON is smart, they should maybe cater more to the generation Z audience in the next one, much like the Aliens franchise has done with their newest. One thing that can make me restore faith in the franchise, is if I see 13 year-old kids excited about a new Bond movie again (and buying their tickets themselves instead of being dragged along by their dads). One way of doing it:
Well, most of us are in our 20s to be honest...
I think they just need to make the best modern Bond film they can with a strong lead (who will inevitably be younger even if compared to the previous Bond anyway). Try to make sure the film is relevant for today as others have said, and get the best people they can to make and star in it. I don't really know what specifically they can do to 'cater' to Gen Z, and making a film 'fun escapism' means absolutely nothing without specifics (truth is it's something I can imagine a well meaning but slightly out of touch middle aged advertising executive saying).
"57 percent of ticket buyers were over the age of 35, including 37 percent over 45."
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/no-time-to-die-box-office-friday-1235029067/#!
Yes, and they barely broke even and were critically somewhat disappointing as well. The recent one had trouble figuring out how to balance the time between the old guys and the new crew; the script had no purpose or room for some of the previous film's characters; and if Wikipedia is right about where the series is going next,
In February 2024, Kenan revealed that ideas for multiple future films in the Ghostbusters franchise had been discussed. Kenan specifically mentioned the Mini-Pufts storyline as something he and Reitman would like to expand upon. The Mini-Pufts are featured in the film's post-credits scene.
I'm not sure Ghostbusters is a good example to prove your point, @Mendes4Lyfe.
I meant Gen Z as a whole (I only said us because I'm in that age bracket). I suppose the youngest are still in their teens, but most are in their 20s. Think the oldest is something like 27/28. It's a wide demographic. I'm not sure what specifically the strategy is to 'cater' to it.
Actually that's not too bad a split of ages all things considered/if that's true. To me that shows how much of a wide appeal Bond has.
Again, we'll have to see how Bond 26 does in this area, but I think the fresh face, the new era, and perhaps the video game will make an impact here. I don't know how this has gone in the past, but I suspect that has helped the franchise get fresh viewers in the past.
Anyway, I don't think any of that points to the Bond franchise being in a bad place. It seems like it's in a pretty strong position all things considered.
It's not that hard. They made 4 John Wick movies since SF.
As far as I can see, EON is in a strong place (certainly compared to what was going on in the early 90s and the early 70s). Sure, nothing's guaranteed in life in general, but it's pretty much expected that a new Bond film will be made, and that it will be made by them. Short of something going disastrously wrong this will be the case. They've even got other Bond projects in non-film media being made (in this case the reality show and the video game).
So no, the franchise hasn't been put to sleep.