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
Look at viewing demographics for other successful recent releases that have done well with younger crowds - perhaps the sort of statistics we may want a new Bond release to look like at some point. The Batman's viewership when released skewed male and had a pretty big Gen Z audience. The 30% of 13-22 year olds is interesting, but keep in mind that's a hell of an age gap, and when you break it down further you have 27% who are apparently between 22-29, and another near 30% who are even older at 30-39. The remaining portion of audiences are even older. Teens are a minority in terms of audiences, and potentially in this case the 13-16 age range might only account for 10% of people who saw this film in cinemas, if that. It'll be the same with any popular film you can think of that isn't some teeny bopper fare or children's film marketed at that audience. https://www.tvrev.com/news/unmasking-the-demographics-of-superhero-movie-fans
We have to understand that 12-16 year olds are children. For a lot of them their film knowledge is going to be shaky at best because their interests are still developing and they haven't lived in the world for very long, if they're even going to have any longterm interest in Bond. It's no use any of us older than 22 stroking our chins and trying to unlock some magical formula for making Bond popular amongst this crowd, because a lot of them simply won't care. It's certainly not always the case that becoming a fan of certain characters always develops at that age, nor that being a fan of it at 14 will mean that interest will continue into adulthood. Even if a new Bond film becomes popular and gets similar viewing demographics as the example above, there'll always be a not insubstantial slice of this crowd who either have no interest in James Bond, or won't enjoy these films regardless of what movie we get. We have to understand as fans that if Bond is particularly popular amongst this crowd at any given time (or was to us as individuals at that age) it's always fleeting, and I think to a very large extent these films are not made for them and never were. And that's fine.
The last movie didn't work that well in USA. This is another potential issue.
And new Bond films are released and more people will watch them. Why does the last film matter in that sense? No point in EON worrying about the past and ignoring their future. Even if it supposedly didn't do well in the US (which I'm not sure of anyway) its financial accomplishments far outweigh the vast majority of other films.
We also take for granted just how big Bond's fanbase actually is. For all our fretting about teens and Bond, this forum alone I know has contributors aged anywhere from 18 to 50+. Some became Bond fans with the original Connery films, and others got into it because of the Brosnan or Craig films. That's incredible when you think about it, and puts Bond in a good position going forward. Compare that to some other 'fandoms'. Mission Impossible's fan base is so soft and skews older than Bond's to the point where a limited number of them were actually bothered to see the latest film in cinemas. That's a big problem for that particular franchise. Bond isn't in that position.
Mission Impossible is an example that everyone gets old.
I remember when it was more modern than Bond.
I would love to see the studio's thinking at this point regarding Bond: the world of big cinema just seems so unpredictable at the moment. For a while the only big films doing any business were starring really young stars like Chalamet, with really great action films starring older actors like Fall Guy dying, so I'd forgive them for considering making Bond a 20-something (I don't know how that would play out, but it is at least fairly fresh and could take us somewhere interesting). But then we've got Deadpool Wolverine doing huge business (with older stars), so does that mean you make Bond an 18 certificate swear and gore fest? Certainly legacy sequels seem in a shaky place which maybe seems bad news for an old brand like 007, but then also.. they aren't (Indy tanked but then it turns out Bad Boys really are for life; the Ghostbusters are tired but Beetlejuice can't be busted).
They'll undoubtably be considering all and more of these options based on the current climate, and you've got to consider the current climate much as some fans may say they shouldn't, but it all seems so wildly unpredictable right now that I'd forgive them for being caught in a lot of back and forth over where to take it. I wouldn't even bet on the next Mission Impossible not making loads of money even though the last didn't; everything's all over the place.
And this next film is crucial: if they miss the mark, go young when the audience suddenly want older or go R rated when they suddenly want fancy-free stuff, then it may become really hard to make a course correction and get the series back on track after that once they've committed. With CR they absolutely nailed what the audience were hungry for and it paid dividends for the next 15 years of the series, but it seems way harder now to second guess the audience if anything.
It's not worth doing so to any great degree at this point I'd say, at least as fans. Worth saying worrying about the future is often about what's happened in the recent past, as is the case here. And if we're going from the recent past - for all this talk about Bond's age demographics and earnings - we really haven't had a disaster.
I could be wrong, but I suspect EON's attitude to the next era is less doom and gloom and more cautiously optimistic. This franchise has a lot going for it and can potentially do well in a new era. Sometimes I really do think we as fans forget how extraordinary this franchise actually is and get tunnel vision based on what we want.
Yes, it's a bit like the Indiana Jones example earlier. Bond has a track record of changing things up and coming back to success even with a previous film underperforming. A big part of that is because there's an inherent amount of reinvention with each new actor/era/film.
We'll see what they do. After a certain point I suppose it'll just be about finding what route they want to go in creatively and making the best Bond film they can (and also marketing it to the best of their ability). Same with the actor. To some extent I think it's also a case where audiences don't know what they want (or indeed what they don't want) until they get it.
If you asked them to name a famous spy though, James Bond would be their first or second answer (despite the popularity of M: I I wonder how many know Hunt as just "Tom Cruise"). Ask them to name 3 British protagonists it probably goes Sherlock, Harry Potter and then James Bond.
Asking them to remember the James Bond theme is basically requiring them to have watched any films before, when 12 year olds have only had 2 films in their lifetime. Shaken not stirred and Aston Martins again is probably something that would require some knowledge of the films.
The thing is with James Bond and youth is that I don't think 007 films are the sort of things you view with your parents, nor the sort of things you go with friends at that sort of age. I know at that age I went for the safe popular bets: Avengers films et cetera. I discovered the series through the books first (that's where I took risks).
We don't need a Bond film that caters to these kids: we need a base level familiarity (which is there), and then a good movie that performs well at the box office and catches everybody's eye (like Barbie or Oppenheimer).
Bond isn’t really aimed at 12-16 year olds. I see it as more of a more mature adult, middle aged couples, maybe men in their late 20’s who probably got hooked when Pierce starred in GE.
I don’t think Bond has to cater to a younger audience in order to survive.
Where the next Bond will lose me is by creating a Bond film that has more resemblance to the DC/Marvel universes and the F&F series than the Bond series itself.
As to what will make the next Bond modern, all the technology that is touted as modern is already boring: Bond on social media, the iPhone 4000, playing a video game in his spare time, AI, etc. Action sequences John Wick and Monkey Man style are already worn out cliches. Do we need any more glimpses into Bond's psyche?
I don't want that but it's not impossible.
A GI Joe movie? Uhm…how do you force that square peg into 007’s round hole (and @DarthDimi , mind out of gutter on this one, lol)?
So in other words when they were kids?
As for Bond, it's just interesting where they can take it. Between the movies, the books, and even now the video games. I think @Stamper is right. Not just about the British Empire. In my country, we have the next Hitler running on lies. Elliot Carver (and the average Bond villain) times infinity with him! So, as sad as the world is right now as a whole, there will always be a place for Bond (and a bunch of other action characters) in that same world. The right people just have to know what to do with it, creatively. Bond is honestly for everyone, that's how he keeps coming back.
I'm sure that most people here are like myself in that they probably watched their first Bond film when they were under the age of six or so. It was thrilling, exciting. There was a great sense that you were watching something that your father/grandfather watches and it created a really strong connection with the series. Almost like an indoctrination of sorts. A glimpse at adult adventures.
And the reason Bond can do that is because it navigates that fine line: action, violence, cool gadgets, beautiful locations and beautiful people, but not feature crass language or graphic sexuality. It's "grown-up", but accessible.
If you start consciously attempting to appeal to young audiences, I think you'll ironically take away what made people like ourselves fans of the series in the first place.
So no, that's an ill-conceived idea.
Just make good movies and the crowds will follow. Plenty of young people were there for CR back in '06. If they get the casting right and then make a fine film on top of that, the same will happen again.
Nailed it, and I'm not sure why this crystalized summary is so hard for some to follow? This is certainly the post to end all posts on this topic.
Beautifully stated.
Completely agree. We tend to over-complicate this particular topic. Really, when it comes to a lot of this stuff about appealing to younger audiences, this is pretty much most of the battle.
But this only holds true if young people are actually watching Bond films to begin with - I don't know if that's true anymore. What percentage of preteens have actually seen a Bond film from start to finish? We agree that Bond doesn't hone in on one specific demographic as much as Marvel or Star Wars, but it's still important that yound people are becoming interested in Bond, as they did in previous eras, in order to have some affiliation or strong feeling that they take with them through their adult lives.
@Mendes4Lyfe ... Why do you keep bringing this up? @CraigMooreOHMSS brilliantly summed up and answered this statement!Stop repeating yourself, and read the posts. Jeez man!
But I'll humour you and ask you this: if the way young people have gotten into James Bond traditionally isn't enough anymore, how are you suggesting that the films become more appealing to the next generation on their own terms?
It's very easy to throw out there that "the series needs to appeal to younger people", but how? Is it an aesthetic change? Is it tonal? Is it through casting? Is it through tackling particular types of stories? All of these questions are usually raised in anticipation of a new Bond actor's era, anyway, so what else can be done? I don't think a social media influenced Bond is the way to go. Beyond that, what is there?
Do young people not enjoy good films with a strong leading performance anymore? Do you feel that they're that disconnected? I'm not sure we're at that point yet. Bond still has that appeal.
Bond tends to adapt to the times. That's why we had a Paul McCartney song. Bond hated the Beatles ten years before!
We're not merely talking about Bond adapting to the times, though. You're right, it has always done that. But the title of Mendes' thesis is targeting young viewers specifically, and that would be something Bond hasn't done before and for good reason.
It was the right time for Daniel Craig to end his run and move towards a new era. That's what will gather interest from new audiences and as for adapting to the times, that will come naturally with this process. This will also happen no matter when they commit to it and get the ball rolling. James Bond doesn't have an expiration date.
Moonraker and Octopussy were family friendly movies.
So yes, they did it before.
I think that some want a specific kind of equation to this, like 1 + 1 = 2
And others want to hear readers cries, in their silo of DOOOOOM.
But it’s been beautifully stated, and no more succinctly as the last two posts (with a shout-out to the late-great JEJ).
If they can’t understand this, then nothing will assist them. Really patient and thorough and crystallized posts, gentlemen.
If Moonraker and Octopussy (with their characters being ripped apart by hounds, being slain by rotating blades, and getting their breasts leered at etc) are family-friendly films then all of the Bond films are family-friendly films. So no, they haven't done it before.
Just because they have a high level of camp to go along with the adult stuff, doesn't make them movies made for children. As I said, they're just accessible.
Glad you liked that touch, @peter. What an icon JEJ was!
To be fair, if there is an honest and insightful perspective to be given on any of the questions I posed above, I would like to hear them. I've just not seen any hints of any yet.
They clearly went for a broader audience after the failure of TMWTGG.
Yeah, one's a much better film than the other.
Technically TMWTGG is also somewhat part of that “course correction” for the series following the (at the time) negative reception to Majesty’s.