Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
How long is a reasonable hiatus?
M16_Cart
Craig fanboy?
I'm in no particular hurry. I'd rather a great Bond every 4 years than a decent one every 2 years. There are increased production costs, stunts and so on which may delay writing. However, this is not a matter of production time. Instead, it's always the politics on whether the actor is going to do another Bond film or not.
I'm open-minded and I see both sides of the coin. Craig is very talented, he's built a career as Bond and it would be hard to replace him. However, it's really immature to just spend years in hiatus not informing anyone what is going on or even if he is signed up to do another one.
The hiatuses are longer and it seems like with every new Bond film, "Bond is back". It would pain me to see Craig in his next film as an old man.
I'm open-minded and I see both sides of the coin. Craig is very talented, he's built a career as Bond and it would be hard to replace him. However, it's really immature to just spend years in hiatus not informing anyone what is going on or even if he is signed up to do another one.
The hiatuses are longer and it seems like with every new Bond film, "Bond is back". It would pain me to see Craig in his next film as an old man.
^ 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
To quote Stromberg:
"Hurry, Commander! I'm not renowned for my patience!"
I agree. Quantum of Solace came at just the right time to be a convincing sequel. However, if it's going to take 12 years to make a trilogy, people are not going to care unless it's acclaimed like the Godfather.
I don't mind waiting at all, but the present situation at MGM is too chaotic. They're trying to build a second Blofeld trilogy on top of a film that didn't have a strong story to begin with. Craig is getting older, and so are his considered successors. Craig's tenure is approaching - if not surpassing - the length of Moore's.
When I think of things like this, I'm happy Roger Ebert lived long enough to see Skyfall, the Bond film he always wanted.
I'm 25. I have a while to go. I became a Bond fan 4 years ago, so Spectre was the only release I anticipated.
There is a potential idea of having a Bond television series for more regular installments. However, EON established Bond as too much of a big-shot action hero to be confined to a TV soap.
A big contributing factor as to why Logan worked so well was because the film takes place 12 years in the future but it had also been, what, five years since The Wolverine?
WTF.
What is your problem this time?
Perhaps you're right.
Perhaps, @Mendes4Lyfe, you shouldn't lose your mind at every opportunity. If you had calmly read my post, you'd have understood I said I don't want longer gaps, because for the older fans like Birdleson, those will limit the amount of new films they'll see. And as much as I can't wait for Aidan Turner not to be the next Bond so you'll stop your constant fanboying about him, I definitely am looking forward to many more reviews from @Birdleson. Which is why I said I want shorter gaps.
Yes, that's rational.
Believe me, it isn't ideal to me either. But if Craig is going to do a swansong, how else can they approach it given how SPECTRE ended?
However, if he's back, I'd say just ignore it and go in a different direction with a compelling new narrative, like they did with SF but without the drama. They don't necessarily need to do the 'old dog' thing again. Just a passing mention of Madeline is all that's necessary also. They kept it vague enough that one could assume he didn't leave the service but was taking a holiday.
The less I hear about Blofeld or anything that reminds me of SP the happier I will be, especially if we have to wait until 2019 for the next entry.
-15 official entries by the 25th anniversary (up to and including TLD).
-Only 8 in the next 25 years (up to and including SF)
Now ask yourselves. Which set do you prefer? For me it's the first 15.
These days, Disney are doing something similar with the Marvel adaptations and with SW. They are delivered regularly, which keeps interest up. People know what to expect when Cap or Iron Man is in the frame.
That's different from many other franchises, which seem to be more defined by their 'specific concept' and which don't have 'legs' like Bond. An example is LOTR vs. the Hobbit franchise. Think also of any other franchise that has been rebooted, like Jack Ryan etc. Even sure things like Batman are severely impacted by reboots, sometimes negatively.
If they continue with this longer 3-4 year gap between films (with direct continuity), then they run the risk of changing the long term expectations of the audience. Moreover, actors can do fewer films, and so each actor's tenure becomes more isolated and compartmentalized in comparison to the past (purely due to the increased passage of time). There is less spillover between actors, and each tenure becomes more standalone & distinct.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing for the long run health of the franchise, especially when the time comes for an inevitable changeover.
Yes, and we already see the results. Many fans expecting the next Bond actor to take up the mantle of Craig, and to look and act like him. The next guy will be most likely be completely different of course, just like Craig was a complete departure from Brosnan.
Longer gaps are not ideal, but you can hardly blame the current slate of films for purposefully taking their time. QoS was an as scheduled follow-up to CR, but faced massive production issues due to the writer's strike; it could've actually been delayed if EON decided. After that MGM had their bankruptcy and we didn't see Bond again until SF. And now, we've got the distribution issues and EON's future with a particular studio (or studios) up in the air as negotiations carry through.
None of these issues are EON's fault, things happen to shake up productions in the film industry and contracts run out, throwing you into times of uncertainty. They don't enjoy not making films on a more consistent basis, they've just had horrid luck in the past ten years with getting more films off the ground. The one thing I think they could be taken to task for is waiting for Mendes between SF and SP, but beyond that I don't see much logic in blaming them for the above.
Personally, I think three year gaps aren't crossing lines. I don't know how I feel about two year gaps, as that almost feels like too much of an output from a series that has gone so long there is a worry of repeating oneself. I'm not the type to moan and groan about a wait, as I don't find it productive. It'll happen when it can happen, as has always been the case.
I don't see this. There's a lot going on we don't see, and you don't exactly share all that in interviews when you're the lead actor. Especially if Dan was negotiating money for a return, or was waiting out a script to see if the story was worth a return. Of course he's not going to confirm anything, or rush to say, "Yeah, I'm back." It's very easy to shoot him down and blame him for a lot of things, but it's not logical. He's always waited for the script, why would he change his tune for what could be his last adventure?
Because we live in a technologically powered world people think they are owed by these franchises to know everything that happens with them, and that's a bad tradition to have set in. Back when TMWTGG was leading into TSWLM after the big gap, I don't think Cubby worried about informing the public every month about where the production was at for three years. They just got on with it, and trusted people not to be so impatient or to misunderstand their intent. Back in the 70s, people knew patience.
I like that the Bond team just go away and let us hear things when there's actual news to take in. They won't tweet, "Still waiting on distribution," or "Dan needs a script, we're working on it," for two years when they're just repeating themselves. There's a process to it, and they're getting it done.
So many want Nolan doing a Bond film, and if he was the director this is exactly how he'd run his ship. He'd release nothing, say nothing, and just shoot the damn film. I much prefer this method than those run by franchises like Star Wars or Marvel that do a bit too much talking with little to say. Creating hype and over-sharing on a film aren't things I want to see Bond take on.
It's their job. To make Bond films.
Nolan managed to do Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight and Inception all within 2 year gaps of each other. So sure, he is secretive, but he gets the job done quickly.
Unless they pull in the scope, I can't see a two year gap between films ever occurring again. There's no reason why they can't do it in 3 (or 4 if the lead role needs to be recast).
2 years is perfectly feasible. Whether they want to do it going forward is a different matter, but it can certainly be done, if the operation is well tuned with a solid team in place (including writers and the entire 'back office', as it were).