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
Here's the story. Intresting how Ben says that he "don't really know anymore"
And it was Ben at the BAFTAs. Good to know.
Because they are all loody scared.
But if really 14 won't happen, a summer 15 should be manageable and IMO, they WILL go for it. Like this, we are still in good shape.
If it is 2015 then the least we should expect is 2017 for the one after.
(re-watches The Hulk)
On second thought if they need to wait to find a good director that is fine
You just described Sam Mendes and we all know how that worked out.
And a longer gap between films seems to yield better results. GE, CR and SF have been the three most successful films, critically and commercially of the modern era and all benefitted from a longer-than-usual gap.
Not sure how I feel about Wright. Atonement was very good but he isn't in the same league as Mendes (still crossing my fingers for Alfonso Cuaron!)
I'm sure some original fans said the same of the two year gap. Doesn't make it any less frustrating though
Agreed with both sets of comments. Filmmaking is just a more complicated, more expensive and more time-consuming business these days. And 3 years is about the standard time it seems to take between sequels for the major franchises now (except for those that are filmed back-to-back like Lord of the Rings or on a more-or-less permanent cycle like The Hobbit.)
The development takes longer now too as there are no more original stories to base the films on (unless Danjaq try to acquire the continuation novels which I'm sure they won't).
They need a strong Director and Writer team willing to be on a few films in order for Bond to every other year again.
The first two-year gap between Bond films was 1965 - 1967. You Only Live Twice was the first Bond film with a story that significantly departed from Fleming. This isn't just a coincidence.
The first three-year gap between films was 1974 - 1977. The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) was the first wholly original story for a Bond film. This, too, isn't a coincidence.
As far back as the early 1980s (FYEO if I recall,) John Glen was complaining that the two-year schedule was becoming harder and harder to stick to and leading to increasingly rushed pre-production periods. Glen's successors, Roger Spottiswoode, Michael Apted and Marc Forster have all made the same complaint. Martin Campbell, Lee Tamahori and Sam Mendes haven't (GE, DAD and SF, of course, had longer development periods.) This, again, is not just a coincidence.
Look at the major recent film series which have largely original stories: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Star Trek, Star Wars, Pirates of the Caribbean, Mission: Impossible, Iron Man, Thor, Captain America. All have roughly 3 years between instalments. You'll have probably already guessed that I don't chalk this up to just coincidence.
The exceptions are (a) Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Twilight, The Hunger Games - all faithful adaptations of novels* or; (b) B Movie fare series like Saw or The Fast and the Furious.
Development takes a long time. Anyone in the film business will tell you that it's the part of the process that takes the longest. Particularly if you want to get it right.
I'd like to see this too for a number of reasons but I don't think it will necessarily help shorten the gaps between films as you imagine. Many of those examples posted above, after all, have had this too.
I agree with @Samuel001 that it's a shame not to have a new film to look forward to every two years but we just have to accept it and take it on the chin. I think it will lead to better films.
*Even then, they have to work to a pretty-much year-round production schedule. That's okay if you're making a finite amount of films but not if you're planning to go on forever
There's nothing we can do if new films are going to be every 3 years except to accept it. And so I will. But I think they could still do one every 2 and be successful, it just sounds like neither Barb nor Mike have their Dad's energy and drive.
Well, I don't think you can ever guarantee results but you can improve your odds. It's a very fair point about the writers strike (also a problem for LTK) and I'd agree with you about DAD which is bottom of my list too. But GE, CR and SF are the three other films that benefitted from prolonged development periods and I don't think I'm unusual in rating them amongst the very best of the modern films.
And as the two-year turnaround has been a complaint from every single director who's had to face it since 1981, I think there's probably something in it.
Well, Cubby was an incredible man. But I think criticism about the energy and drive of his successors is pretty harsh. On Wilson, especially. He's produced 10 massively successful films in 27 years. Most producers would kill for a record like that. On top of that, he exec'd three films beforehand, wrote all 5 of the 80s films, developed the James Bond Jnr cartoon, expanded Bond into the video game market, and fought a huge legal case against Sony and McClory in his capacity as Chairman of Danjaq. And he's just produced the most successful Bond film of all time. He's 71 years old. Maybe Cubby would win out in the energy and drive stakes. But you certainly can't accuse the man of being lazy.
We have it easy. Coming from Star Wars and Metallica and pro wrestling fandoms (and being a Catholic) I was amazed how people here were so positive about Bond. It's like we actually like the thing we're supposedly fans of.
EDIT: Forgot a word
Ha! You're right, of course @Soundofthesinners. I visited a Dr Who forum once and the fans posting there successfully convinced me Dr Who isn't very good! I've stopped watching it.
Do they give any further details, @Suivez_ce_parachute, or do you think that is based on the MGM statement. I have to say that I'm with @Samuel001 and expect to see it in 2015.
I'd be surprised to see it early in the year as that's generally a no-go area for big blockbusters. I think Summer could actually work but LTK spooked MGM / Eon so much that they're still wary of it. Autumn just feels like it's the "Bond slot" now. GE was the first Bond film I ever saw at the cinema - a November release is all I've ever known. But it seems to work well.
It is a long wait though!
But if they think they can have it ready by early 2015, I see no reason to delay for 6+ months. Get them films out, EON!
Agreed! Although the distributor will ultimately decide when it's released so it's out of Eon's hands in that respect. Not sure how that will work between MGM and their co-distributor. Has Sony/Columbia signed up for Bond 24 yet? And does anyone know when the distribution agreement with MGM runs out?
If it is 2015 what was all this, we'll "announce a director soon" from MGM about? I haven't lost all hope for next year just yet.