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
My comment wasn't on output, it was in response to those who said EON don't tell them anything. A Nolan Bond film would move along just as quietly. And he'd have to take just as long as director if he faced the kinds of constraints EON has.
Well, it's their job to make films. I know some people expect EON to be slaves to this series, but I think they earn moments where they actually get to produce other films or plays, as Barbara likes to do in between her work. I see nothing wrong with that, as refreshing yourself creatively and stepping away from Bond to cleanse is a nice way of dealing with the time in between films. I wouldn't expect them just to make Bond films, as that doesn't make sense to me. That leads to complacency and factory styled outputs of films rather than interesting and different films because the producers wouldn't get those breaks from Bond's world when they need it.
At that rate, if this dwindling productivity were to continue, we can expect only 4 films in the following 25 years after SkyFall.
I think once every 2-3 years is acceptable. But 4 is pushing it.
Tell them the over arcing theme if their is one and let them go create a script! Even if they are all sand alone films too?
One just needs a consistent dedicated team in place (including writers, composer, set design etc. etc.).
That's pretty much what they had in the old days (classic Bond, as it were).
They even worked with a select group of directors over and over (only 4 directors were involved repeatedly in the first 11 films).
Only 5 were involved in the first 16 films (and on top of that, both Hunt and Glen had worked on prior films in another capacity - so they were very experienced with the world of Bondom).
That's the kind of extended 'family' they were back then.
---
The new team operates differently.
Exactly.
They're in a period of negotiations and change, we won't hear anything yet. Besides it all, we're not owed a thing from them. Nothing.
Until then, it's safe to assume Bond 25 isn't in production.
If you're referring to fans refusing to see EON's new Bond film when they don't like their decisions at the point in time, I find that to be a minority issue. Most of the people that protest this or that in the films will throw money at EON to see the new films no matter what. In that way, EON always wins the battle because they are the sober entity that feeds the addiction of their junkies.
I'm sure I'll be a fan of the history of this series for the rest of my life, but if Mendes were to return, that'd be a guarantee that I'm not seeing it in theaters, nor am I paying money to see it. It'd have zero impact on the box office returns, of course, but at least then I could vote with my wallet, not my mouth like a lot of general filmgoers tend to do.
That's interesting. Literally nothing could happen for me to stop watching a Bond film in theaters.
The delay in Skyfall allowed them to spend a lot more time on the script. If it had come out in 2011 as planned, the 3rd act would have ended up been the generic ending in Europe that they had originally planned and then scrapped.
But if there is an area I see people complain about with SF, it's the plotholes and lacklustre ending. Doesn't seem like the extra time really helped improve things much.
QOS had a two year turnaround and a writers strike but is at least coherent if lacking a great deal of polish. SF had 4 years and the script just about holds together but still has plenty of plot holes. SP they waited an extra year for Mendes taking it to 3 in total yet seemingly started writing on the day of shooting.
Better writers equate to a better script yet EON are seemingly asleep at the wheel in this regard, inexplicably putting their faith in P&W time and again.
The only precedent that seems to spur EON into creating a better script is after they go so far over the top they need to come down earth (YOLT-OHMSS, MR-FYEO and DAD-CR).
Now whether SP could be accused of being an MR or a DAD is highly debatable. I don't there's much that can't be fixed by a decent script editor. The question is was it such a disaster that you need to start from scratch? If you decide you do then you have to reboot the actor because I don't see how, after hamfistedly cobbling his whole tenure together and leaving Blofeld alive you cant just ignore the events of SP if Dan stays.
The Marvel parallel is only pertinent in the fact that they have planned what they are going to do and are following that plan. I don't think the relentless sausage factory approach that Marvel and Disney are following would benefit the series. But if EON are insistent on having interconnecting stories they could do a lot worse than follow Marvel and PLAN IT IN ADVANCE RATHER THAN MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO ALONG.
The Craig era could have been very interesting if they had gone into it from the start with some thought and careful planning. We could have seen him go through the whole arc of Fleming's Bond in the 5 films ending with the YOLT meltdown. But what we have ended up with is utterly botched. One minute he's a rookie next he's over the hill next he's 'just getting started'. We set up a secretive organisation called Quantum which is then unceremoniously ditched with no comment when McClory dies and we get the rights to SPECTRE and then we're supposed to believe they were running the whole show because of one line of dialogue?
Anyway I'm deviating off the point which is more time makes no difference. Some might want to believe that during by this perceived period of inactivity EON are beavering away coming up with a killer script.
On current form I'm afraid I can't share that optimism. A new Bond film will arrive in due course and all we can do is hope it's good. With the emphasis on 'hope' because in all honesty EON delivering a good script or not is pretty much a lottery.
Upon further reflection, I believe EON went in this direction with the Craig era because they realized they could. They saw an opportunity to delve into character and back story with him because of his unique position as the 'reboot from scratch' Bond.
It's a damn shame that they went about it in this manner however. Nevertheless, I assume they felt that if the 'arc' failed (as some, myself included, think it did), they could just ignore it and get back to standalones going forward, thereby isolating the Craig (and Blofeld) story within this incarnation. Similar to how Jack Napier was the Joker who killed Bruce's parents only for the Keaton iteration of Batman.
This is how I think it will play out eventually.
The Craig formula for Bond films is wearing a little on the public at this point. Whenever a Bond actor starts to look on the old side, there becomes a growing sense of unrest, as the natural urge to see someone new in the tux begins to gain traction. I think EON would have to expect a decline in boxoffice if they are to continue with Craig, simply because a story of a old Bond has already been done with Craig before. It would be extremely hard to approach the same themes again, 4 years after SPECTRE and not seem like you're treading water. I really can't see a fifth Craig film being anything more that another AVTAK or DAF, ie the tired last gasp of an era.
The other issue EON created is that they split the die hard community with SP. Some can't forgive "Bloberhauser" (seeing it as an indelible stain on Fleming's creation), while others (mainly those who really like Craig) have bought into brothergate (or at least can forgive it).
In order for a continuity driven story to work, people have to be interested. It must be compelling. I think it's highly debatable whether that's the case with the Bond/Blofeld story. Much of that is on account of how it was rolled out (it isn't the sort of captivating, nail biting drama that begs for a continuation), and part of it is because it was more of a completion story in itself (we now know that Blofeld authored all of Bond's pain going all the way back to 2006).
I think they can still go back to this tired well one more time if they really want to, but they have to do it by 2018.
Great post, all very true.
General audiences are ambivalent to the continuity of the Craig films, but if they wait until 2019 and then go over the same "old Bond reaching back into his past" ground they've delivered with the last 2 films, I can't see Bond 25 making 850 million again, or close to that.
To be honest, by autumn 2019 I doubt anyone will remember madeline as a character. They might remember Waltz playing Blofeld, but even that will be a vague memory on the public consciousness by then. I never see or hear anyone discussing SPECTRE as a film, besides committed fans (and even then rarely in a postive light). The film already seems to have been forgotten about.
Very true. SF had a word of mouth buzz and water cooler discussions that at the time made it a must see event.
SP had none of that and I suspect it's box office was largely built on those who had been talked into getting onboard the SF express. Whether they will come back again for a third helping (particularly in view of how poor SP was) is extremely debatable.
The other point about the public not caring is again true. For 99.9% of the audience they did not have a problem with the step brother thing so if EON deems it will generate them a good enough haul amongst the public if they continue with it why would they not?
The views of us on here are of as little account to EON as sparrow's tears.
I doubt anyone remembered her the day after seeing the film.
I've also read some people saying nowadays it's very difficult to make a film every two years, but I'm not really sure why. If you maintain a group of regular cast and crew members, what's the problem? At most I'd like to see one film every three years, but more than that is pushing it, especially when, as some of you have noted, the films are so continuity-heavy these days (I really am curious to know if the average moviegoer remembered who Mr. White was while watching Spectre).
Also, in a way, perhaps a faster production rate would make things work better, by keeping the momentum going instead of having the writers, along with everybody else, stop and start working every time. A well-oiled machine and all that. Like Cubby Broccoli would've wanted.