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
Herein lies the issue. Who exactly has ‘given them plenty of time’, you? EON work to their own schedule, you should be used to that by now. You’ve come to the wrong franchise if not.
Excellent point, Sir. The 21st Century: Rise of the Narcissists.
+100000000.
Thank you for mentioning Dynamite comics. They are great!
Don't forget Replaying or in my case playing the game I didn't play the first time around
Seriously, I love this series but the last ten+ years have been an absolute mess. Marvel is killing it and they crank out film after film each year, nearly all of which are stronger than every single Bond film released in the last 24 years (with the exception of CR and SF). My opinion, sure, but the average Rotten Tomato score for Marvel films is around 84%, with a massive 21 films released thus far in only 11 years. The last 8 Bond films (being completed over a 20 year period) have averaged 70%. Bond doesn't have to come every 2 years. But when 25 comes out it will be a paltry 5 films in 14 years. Marvel will have close to 25 films by then, in about 1/5th the time.
I believe the opposite, actually -- that the films would be even more successful if they came out on a regular 2-3 year schedule. Part of the charm of the series was its consistent release schedule. The fans could expect a new film by a certain time.
Deep down EON must understand that, too, which is why as recently as QOS they were hitting that 2 year goal. I think they could still do it if they got the same director and writer(s) to commit to a few films and worked hard at planning the next film while the current one is in production.
Even if one of the films ended up a failure, we'd only have to wait a couple of years for the next one, which is better than waiting 5 years for a piece of garbage.
Each with its own set of directors producers writers and cast again unless you want a Bond cinematic universe (which would suck) we aren't going to get that kind of output
Remember when people thought Skyfall was bad because Silva’s plan didn’t make sense and was convoluted, it would’ve been solved with superpower/magic but it doesn’t because despite some exceptions (DAD), James Bond keeps itself grounded in reality which makes the scriptwriting process a lot more difficult than writing a Marvel film, plus Marvel also has so many different projects they can get different people to work on the projects at the same time. Bond can’t do this. It’s one man with one film at a time, with all the focus on the one project. I understand the success of Marvel but it works extremely differently to how the James Bond franchise could ever work.
We live in a democracy, so I understand people thinking Marvel movies are better than half of the Bond movies. But what I'm sure of is that they are different. Different productions, different marketing, different audience target. And I'm totally against mash-ups or cinematic Bond spin-offs. Only true Bond fans care about M, Moneypenny or Leiter.
On the other hand, I care little to nothing for what Rotten Tomatoes says. They even blocked the negative comments regarding a movie for a matter of SJW-ism. And again, I prefer quality over quantity.
With the possibility of "owning" Bond that we have now (the movies, the collectables, etc. that are one click and a payment away), the 4-5 year gap isn't as painful as the pre-internet two-year gaps. I mean, how much did you know about TSWLM after TMWTGG was released? A friend once told me that it was quite painful when Bond films started the two-year cycle because you had a year of N-O-T-H-I-N-G in the middle. Maybe rewatching an old Bond IF your local cinema rescreened it whenever they wanted to.
I was quite pleased with Skyfall and SPECTRE, particularly the latter, so I don't see them as a flop and they were both a financial success. Back in the day, TMWTGG and LTK damaged the franchise, those were the kind of mistakes EON had to learn.
Yikes at least I don't want that
Was it Billy who left the toilet seat up?
Making every Bond a prestige project for the masses -- basically, trying to do SKYFALL over and over again -- will have diminishing returns. Better to market to a loyal fanbase that consistently turns out for these movies.
But Bond is such a globally recognised brand, that only aiming the films towards that 'loyal fanbase' which, especially compared to such bases for the likes of Marvel or Star Wars, is leaving tons of money on the table.
Maybe they can ease off on the 'prestige' part of it, sure.
http://www.sassilive.it/cultura-e-spettacoli/cinema-cultura-e-spettacoli/i-sassi-di-matera-nella-scena-di-apertura-del-film-bond-25/
Translated via google:
True, Don't mention the ice bergs!!! Lol!
As long as we keep hammering the point home ;)
Good catch! Definitely a hint of his possible casting, I'd say.
That would just be…
I'm pretty sure those suit wearing confident dudes gave a Marvel movie a nomination at the Oscars. Never Bond.