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
In his Remington Steele days he did. But in the 1990's he looked fine. I think Craig's stubble was fine. Both Craig and Fleming's Bond are rough around the edges so why not?
And Sean's 5 o'clock shadow in GF was badass.
Fair enough. Although, as I mentioned above, I would consider the likes of Resident Evil and Fast and Furious to be firmly established in the "B Movie" category. Sherlock Holmes 2 was released 2 years after its predecessor but its going to be at least a 3 year gap until Sherlock Holmes 3 - indeed the case in a lot of franchises seems to be that they strike while the iron's hot for the first sequel and then take 3 years + for subsequent entries.
The comparable series I would look at are Mission Impossible, Pirates of the Caribbean, Batman, Star Trek, Bourne, Iron Man, Star Wars, Spiderman, Terminator, Superman and Indiana Jones. All big-budget tentpole franchises.
Earlier on the set of Jardhead (2005) in 2003.. So done: now we have all time in the world.
I think so too, specially since the two movies are supposed to share a story arc. Logan should already have the backbones of B25 sorted out.
BTW, really liked the font they used to write "BOND 24" in. I know that's obviously not the final title card nor is it necessarily allusive to the final artwork/design they'll devise, but it's got this classy vintage style. kind of like an old 1930's-40's film noir.
Don't start using Gustav_Graves' method of choosing the facts from the conclusion :)
Because, well, "forgetting" The Hobbit, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, etc is a bit convenient here. And they are big-budget tentpoles to say the least. Out every year.
Even in your examples, POTC : At World's End was released 1 year after the one before, the Bourne Supremacy after 2 years, Iron man 2 after 2 years, and well Star Wars is planned to be released every 2 years too, Amazing Spiderman 2 also two years after the first, and even Man of Steel 2 is said to happen very fast.
You gave a few old franchises to make your point, and indeed in the 80s, 3 years gap or more was quite the rule (the old Star Wars, the old Batman, Indiana Jones, as you list). An exception is Superman II, which was done in 2 years but the Superman/Superman II development was planned well in advance obviously, it's even surprising they dared to make Superman begin with a scene to prepare audiences to Superman II !.
So that's why I say that the gaps for releasing sequels are getting shorter now, and not longer. If Marvel keeps on piling blokcbusters every 6 months without any flop, we can even expect others to try to have the same "go fast as long as it lasts" approach.
With Bond we have a twisted view because it was one of the rare to be out every two years in the 80s - but that was because at that time Bond was king of the worldwide box office (top #1 or #2 three times in a row in that period !). This infamous meaningless "worldwide dollar adjusted" list makes too much people forget that. Cubby Broccoli was much more in commands as far as money was concerned than Eon is now IMO. And he didn't need so much marketing to survive amongst the competition.
Ha. I actually mentioned Harry Potter, Hunger Games and the Hobbit (and Twilight!) and then edited my post to delete them as I worried I was just confusing things and just responded to the points you raised. My argument was that they're quite different as (a) they're direct adaptations as children's / YA novels and (b) they're "finite franchises" i.e. there are a limited number of books and there was not an intention to continue the series indefinitely (as with Bond, Mission Impossible, Star Trek etc. which will basically go on as long as they're profitable).
The POTC film you mention, like The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, the last two Matrix films and Back to the Future pts 2 & 3, are unusual as they were filmed back-to-back.
Marvel is a new interesting model but the franchises are separate from a production POV but unusual in that they are part of the same fictional "universe". The equivalent of the failed Jinx series taking off and being released in between Bond films.
Should have left my post as it was!
He got an Oscar nomination and Mendes likes working with him. I don't want him back but I don't see why him returning wouldn't be likely.
Or is there something you're not telling us?
I think out of Newman and Deakins we are most likely to loose the latter. Deakins spoke of how Bond was an interesting experience for him but not one he'd like to repeat, he usually sticks strictly to arthouse fair.
But to get Mendes and a confirmed premiere date is absolutely great, now we can just wait and enjoy the upcoming two years!
I concur. I did read some spoilers on purpose, but some of the things (like Ms death) were brought up in other parts of the forum thus ruin it for us who didn't want to know a big thing like that.
He will be back. Mendes will obviously want to work with him again and it seems like the producers really want to keep Mendes happy. Which is great, Newman made an amazing score, the Oscar nomination was well deserved.