Where does Bond go after Craig?

1603604606608609681

Comments

  • edited August 20 Posts: 380
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Worth saying as well that Bond is in a slightly better place now than it was throughout much of the 70s and 80s.
    Really?
    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.


    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.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 20 Posts: 16,413
    Careful, that's usually where someone has a pop at them for 'chasing awards' rather than making good old sludgy potboilers, even though the producers in the 60s were constantly hiring top talent who would often go on to win Oscars and get knighted because they were so incredibly talented. But that's different.
  • Posts: 380
    I mean there were 6 different movies. Choose one.

    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).

  • Posts: 1,368
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.
  • Posts: 380
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.

    And the 80s were 34 years ago. I don’t understand your point.

  • Posts: 4,162
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.

    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?
  • edited August 20 Posts: 3,276
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    Never said we where. But arguing that the franchise is in a better place today than back then based on box office numbers adjusted for inflation (which only makes NTTD the 10th highest grossing Bond movie btw) is painting a rosy picture, IMO. We don't have a new Bond, no Fleming novel to fall back on, the inventor AB is dead, his daughter busy doing something else, MGW on his way to retirement, no news, no rumours, nothing going on at all. Of course there will be a new Bond movie some day, and everyone of us will be happy. But damn... I miss those 70's and 80's where a new Bond movie was either showing in a theatre near you or being in production.
    Burgess wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 4,162
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    Never said we where. But arguing that the franchise is in a better place today than back then based on box office numbers adjusted for inflation (which only makes NTTD the 10th highest grossing Bond movie btw) is painting a rosy picture, IMO. We don't have a new Bond, no Fleming novel to fall back on, the inventor AB is dead, his daughter busy doing something else, MGW on his way to retirement, no news, no rumours, nothing going on at all. Of course there will be a new Bond movie some day, and everyone of us will be happy. But damn... I miss those 70's and 80's where a new Bond movie was either showing in a theatre near you or being in production.

    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.
  • Posts: 380
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    Never said we where. But arguing that the franchise is in a better place today than back then based on box office numbers adjusted for inflation (which only makes NTTD the 10th highest grossing Bond movie btw) is painting a rosy picture, IMO. We don't have a new Bond, no Fleming novel to fall back on, the inventor AB is dead, his daughter busy doing something else, MGW on his way to retirement, no news, no rumours, nothing going on at all. Of course there will be a new Bond movie some day, and everyone of us will be happy. But damn... I miss those 70's and 80's where a new Bond movie was either showing in a theatre near you or being in production.

    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.

  • edited August 20 Posts: 380
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    Never said we where. But arguing that the franchise is in a better place today than back then based on box office numbers adjusted for inflation (which only makes NTTD the 10th highest grossing Bond movie btw) is painting a rosy picture, IMO. We don't have a new Bond, no Fleming novel to fall back on, the inventor AB is dead, his daughter busy doing something else, MGW on his way to retirement, no news, no rumours, nothing going on at all. Of course there will be a new Bond movie some day, and everyone of us will be happy. But damn... I miss those 70's and 80's where a new Bond movie was either showing in a theatre near you or being in production.
    Burgess wrote: »
    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.
    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.

    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.



  • edited August 20 Posts: 3,276
    007HallY wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    Never said we where. But arguing that the franchise is in a better place today than back then based on box office numbers adjusted for inflation (which only makes NTTD the 10th highest grossing Bond movie btw) is painting a rosy picture, IMO. We don't have a new Bond, no Fleming novel to fall back on, the inventor AB is dead, his daughter busy doing something else, MGW on his way to retirement, no news, no rumours, nothing going on at all. Of course there will be a new Bond movie some day, and everyone of us will be happy. But damn... I miss those 70's and 80's where a new Bond movie was either showing in a theatre near you or being in production.

    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
    Did you just refer to a 12 year old movie in a discussion about the Bond franchise "today" ?
    007HallY wrote: »
    Is there any other way you can measure how well the franchise is doing than by box office numbers and critical response? Genuinely curious.
    This is great question, but I think the premise is wrong. Most Bond movies have been amongst the 10 highest grossing movies of that particular year. That kind of success is guaranteed. Like every time a new Fast and Furious movie comes out. But the latest Bond movie is the first one ever to not break even (correct me if I am wrong), and that's certainly not a good place to be if box office numbers are the only scale.

    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.
    Burgess wrote: »
    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?
    I just don't consider 2006 or 2012 as part of "today", that's all.
    Burgess wrote: »
    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.
    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 20 Posts: 8,400
    It really is starting to feel like we could use james bond returning, and putting the world straight again. The next films need to be fun escapism, to take people's minds off the many brewing conflicts around the globe at present. This is the perfect opportunity for Bond to become the unflappable hero of old, a symbol of defiance, instead of the bruised, broken soul.
  • Posts: 380
    It really is starting to feel like we could use james bond returning, and putting the world straight again. The next films need to be fun escapism, to take people's minds off the many brewing conflicts around the globe at present. This is the perfect opportunity for Bond to become the unflappable hero of old, a symbol of defiance, instead of the bruised, broken soul.

    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.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 4,162
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    Never said we where. But arguing that the franchise is in a better place today than back then based on box office numbers adjusted for inflation (which only makes NTTD the 10th highest grossing Bond movie btw) is painting a rosy picture, IMO. We don't have a new Bond, no Fleming novel to fall back on, the inventor AB is dead, his daughter busy doing something else, MGW on his way to retirement, no news, no rumours, nothing going on at all. Of course there will be a new Bond movie some day, and everyone of us will be happy. But damn... I miss those 70's and 80's where a new Bond movie was either showing in a theatre near you or being in production.

    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
    Did you just refer to a 12 year old movie in a discussion about the Bond franchise "today" ?

    Yes. A film from the latest era is the highest grossing Bond film.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Is there any other way you can measure how well the franchise is doing than by box office numbers and critical response? Genuinely curious.
    This is great question, but I think the premise is wrong. Most Bond movies have been amongst the 10 highest grossing movies of that particular year. That kind of success is guaranteed. Like every time a new Fast and Furious movie comes out. But the latest Bond movie is the first one ever to not break even (correct me if I am wrong), and that's certainly not a good place to be if box office numbers are the only scale.

    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.


    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.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    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 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:
    007HallY wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    If your argument is that the Craig films didn’t work in part or in 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).

    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)

    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.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    Burgess wrote: »
    It really is starting to feel like we could use james bond returning, and putting the world straight again. The next films need to be fun escapism, to take people's minds off the many brewing conflicts around the globe at present. This is the perfect opportunity for Bond to become the unflappable hero of old, a symbol of defiance, instead of the bruised, broken soul.

    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.

    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.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 3,276
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    The fact is that the Bond fan base is getting older. And that worries me a lot.
    (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. (...)"
  • edited August 20 Posts: 1,368
    Burgess wrote: »
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.

    And the 80s were 34 years ago. I don’t understand your point.

    Whatever they are doing, It's not working ;)

    Thyy
    007HallY wrote: »
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.

    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?

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,400
    There's been more ghostbusters films in the past decade than Bond films.

    Let that sink in.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 4,162
    Burgess wrote: »
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.

    And the 80s were 34 years ago. I don’t understand your point.

    Whatever they are doing, It's not working ;)

    Thyy
    007HallY wrote: »
    The last "good movie" was twelve years ago.

    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?

    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.

    Not gonna lie, I have no clue what you just wrote.
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    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.
    The fact is that the Bond fan base is getting older. And that worries me a lot.
    (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. (...)"

    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.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited August 20 Posts: 3,152
    With the success of the Bourne films, there was an element of 'Bond is your dad's spy movie' in the early and mid-'00s too - but Craig wiped that out completely with one film and brought in a lot of younger fans for whom he was 'their' Bond. If the new guy can do the same, we'll be fine for another run. EON know this, so it'll probably be a priority for them. I'm not that worried about an ageing audience, tbh.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,413
    There's been more ghostbusters films in the past decade than Bond films.

    Let that sink in.

    And all rubbish.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 3,276
    @007HallY
    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:
    The next films need to be fun escapism
  • edited August 20 Posts: 4,162
    Zekidk wrote: »
    @007HallY
    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:
    The next films need to be fun escapism

    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).
  • I have a feeling the IOI Video Game will do for younger generations what the Goldeneye video game did back in 1997 in “recruiting” (if that could be used as the correct term) younger generations to Bond who could then use that as a lynchpin to explore the films and such. So I’m not nearly as concerned about the possibility of the fandom “aging out” as I used to be.

  • Posts: 3,276
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, most of us are in our 20s to be honest...
    Here is what is written about the NTTD premiere:
    "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/#!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    There's been more ghostbusters films in the past decade than Bond films.

    Let that sink in.

    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.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 4,162
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Well, most of us are in our 20s to be honest...
    Here is what is written about the NTTD premiere:
    "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/#!

    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.
  • edited August 20 Posts: 1,368
    There's been more ghostbusters films in the past decade than Bond films.

    Let that sink in.

    It's not that hard. They made 4 John Wick movies since SF.
  • Posts: 3,276
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, I don't think any of that points to the Bond franchise being in a bad place.
    Bad place. Good place. Actually right now, it's no place. Like I said earlier, if you want to compete, you have got to attend. And that there will be a new Bond movie in the future is not fact. The franchise is put to sleep, until it isn't any longer. Time will tell.
  • Posts: 4,162
    Zekidk wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Anyway, I don't think any of that points to the Bond franchise being in a bad place.
    Bad place. Good place. Actually right now, it's no place. Like I said earlier, if you want to compete, you have got to attend. And that there will be a new Bond movie in the future is not fact. The franchise is put to sleep, until it isn't any longer. Time will tell.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.