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
Mabey we should expect a delay of mi8 till December 2022 and Johnny English 4 in April 2023.
I dont think it would hurt the series at all. It certainly didn't back in the Cubby days. Maybe in the current climate 3 years would be better, as they can better anticipate cinematic trends, and not release a film that doesn't feel 'on trend' if you will.
Also, I don't think a return to the 2 year intervals would diminish the quality of the films. I believe one of the recent articles for NTTD , EMPIRE perhaps, mentioned that after Boyle's departure Eon/Purvis and Wade had to start from scratch and cobble together a new plot. That's very last minute as the delay was only a few months. We'll see soon if the final result is a lackluster film, but somehow I don't think so.
However, a 2 year gap seems less likely with each new film. The Bonds are now an occasional event rather than an ongoing tradition. I think that trend will continue as having a set release date for a follow up film doesn't seem to be a priority any longer. As it stands B26 isn't remotely on the producer's minds. Four years from now, we may start to hear official rumblings regarding the next film.
I would like to see the next incarnation mapped out with 5 films in total. There could be story elements that carry over throughout the run with the freedom to do a standalone or films that are not heavily dependent on a on previous entries.
Cast an actor who is between 35 and 40 and wraps up at 50 0r 55.
4-5 years is probably a bit long though. Every two would be nice, but three is fine too. As long as the films still feel like a big event (they may not everywhere but they do in the UK, it's a big thing that transcends generations) I'm not too bothered. My worst nightmare is EON losing the rights to a studio that try to turn it into a Marvel/Star Wars esque machine, with constant soulless films every year or two and spin offs in between.
I feel like CR and QOS were both had a little more small-scale feeling, while SF and SP went for a more epic feel. Can’t tell with NTTD yet. I think the era has had a good balance of that overall, as well as the rest of the series. Certainly having two-year gaps would be preferable as long as the films retain high quality. I suspect we’ll wait 4-5 years for B26 waiting on a new actor, then normally deal with three-year gaps during the era.
Another advantage to the 2-year cycle: If we are disappointed with one film, it wouldn't be a long wait until a new one is on its way. Having just 2 Bond films past 12 years, neither of which I count among my favorites in the series, has made it that much harder.
Does anyone know how long it took to get CR off the ground? Obviously there was a four-year gap between it and Pierce's last Bond film, but of that time, how much was actually devoted to production on CR?
I think Eon wasted a good year or more of that gap developing the legendary JINX film that everyone was dying to see. Then another several months trying to come up with something for Pierce until the ideas ran dry. Finally in early 2005 Eon announced CR as a re-boot to the franchise.
Before that announcement I do distinctly remember B21 initially being slated for a November 2005 release and feeling gutted in late 2004 that it had been pushed back a whole 'nother year.
Literally never heard this before
When you look back on the sausage factory days a lot of the team was in house and they could handle the quick turnaround times. A film like YOLT with the volcano set if it was made today it would take forever to construct, course they might just CGI a lot of it. I really love Ken Adams and love that their appears to be a homage to his work in NTTD.
No reason at all something like the volcano should take longer now. Better technology, lower wages to pay labourers, weaker unions so no tea breaks, smoko, etc. there’s mothing stopping us from getting a movie a year except pure laziness. Years have been wasted - let’s be positive, let’s think ahead a bit, and let’s play..! :)
The MCU is a different beast as they have a plethora of different title characters to draw from as opposed to one like James Bond. Narrow it down to solo films like THOR and GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY and you see each title getting a film on an average of every 3 years or more. The only exceptions were IRON MAN 2 and CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR, which came out two years after the previous installments. One is often regarded as the weakest of the series while the latter is among the strongest, so it's not guarantee.
True, they did have a real work ethic, but at the same time, GF was largely studio-bound and not far from Pinewood for location work, save for some second unit stuff shot in in Florida and some work in Switzerland where Connery actually traveled. If anything, it proves once again that Ken Adam was the man with all the sets and the Fort Knox replica.
No reason at all they can't do the same in 24 months - just laziness... Purvis and wade should be thinking about new storylines and scenarios NOW. What Bond fan doesn't automatically do that around the clock?
My understanding is that they ended up using the Purvis & Wade script that was originally discarded by Boyle, and since they already had locations secured from the Boyle production that meant a lot of their work was already cut out for them. What needed to be done was to conform the original Purvis & Wade drafts with the locations from Boyle's production, with additional writers brought in.