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
Well written, story driven movies are best. GE is not DN, FRWL, OHMSS, CR, etc. GE is a carbon copy of Bond and other action movies. If you're going to pine for things, I would pick the best.
The possible issue with trying to combine it is that one ends up with a mess tonally. It takes a deft touch to pull it off properly.
I agree though, that would be a nice thing to see.
Agreed :-bd
I'd love him to say: " we expect the Bond movies to return to their traditional 2 year cycle beginning with B25 due out in November 2018."
:)) Then Barbara Broccoli calls in to the line and yells out "Horseshit!"
I would throw a party so hard if that happened I think everyone would \m/ B-) <:-P :-bd =))
I'm upset with those two I feel like their out of ideas and don't care for the franchise anymore so much so that a 2 year cycle will never happen under them I almost want them to sell the rights
The cycle that ended in 1999?
But it ushered in longer wait times between films. Giving us just five Bond films from 1999 - present. Was this to flesh out the stories, create better scripts...or because the film industry just got a whole lot harder to produce films.
The two year cycle up to 1999 had given us 8 Bond films in the same 18 year time frame. So have we missed out on 3 Bond films?
Reading these pages, and I'd include myself to some degree, but there are fans who would like to see a return to the old 'formula' Bond film on a 2 year cycle. Could it be done however. And how did they do it for all them years, yet struggle to now.
This is true but there have been extenuating circumstances during the Craig era. Originally QoS was to come out in May 2008 (they were starting on the script whilst CR was in production), less than 2 years after CR but the director they wanted decided he couldn't go through with it. Skyfall was originally going to come out in 2011 (admitedly now a 3 year gap) but came out in 2012 due to MGM - the first Hobbit film also was supposed to come out in 2011 rather than 2012. Spectre was planned for 2014 (back to a 2 year gap) but they waited for Mendes to be available.
To miss out on 3 Bond film chances is woeful.
I also pray for the 2 year cycle but maybe Babs and MGW need to go before that will happen.
Maybe this area needs freshening up and a new change applied.
Having said that, their track record of late with the four+ year gap (CR, SF, GE) is far superior to anything they've been able to pull off on the three year gap (DAD, SP), or the two year gap (QoS, TND, TWINE), which is quite sad really.
Now we're averaging three films per decade (if we're lucky), when it used to be five to six. It's not like we're getting any younger. For me it's kind of sad to think that by the time I get to Roger's AVTAK age, there will probably be only a small handful of Bond films released when really there could be at least seven more.
Totally agree that TLD is the last of the old school Bonds.
LTK marks the start of that break from the past (although still has a lot of the old elements).
I sincerely believe that Richard Maibaum played a central role in ensuring the two year cycle was kept to, while still ensuring quality stories and scripts.
What EON lacks is a quality, reliable writing team who can enable them to bang these films out at the required standard.
Yes they did two a year from 95 to 99, but the quality was (IMO) abysmal.
He definitely had a 5th film in him,and I think he would have been fine making one more,and deserved a better send off.
I do wonder if Cubby was still running things in 2002-2004 would Brosnan 5th film be made?
I feel if the fans wanted it Cubby would of gave it to them.
Absolutely Cubby would have given Brosnan a 5th. Guaranteed success? Popular with the audiences? No question. This is the guy who asked Roger back until he was nearly 60 and who wanted to sign Dalton up through the 90s despite the unusually long gap following LTK.
1,2,3,4,5 years-it really doesn t matter when it comes to quality as has been proven.
Yeah, remember those completely rubbish Bonds FRWL, GF, and TB they rushed out in a single year? I hope we never see Bond films of that quality again!
You mean those films in the 60s? When Bond became and remained the only phenomenon?
Whether you like it or not cinema has changed, dramatically. Production, marketing, distribution... Yes, obviously they could release a film every two years, but competition is fierce - release a middling dud and you're fucked. You can harp on until the cows come home about SP being shite, but it pulled in big numbers, sold a bucket load on disc and can still be purchased from any random supermarket 14 months down the line.
The goal posts have moved. Right now they're about keeping Bond's head above the parapet. Whether you, I, or anyone else agree with that model is moot, it's what they feel they have to do to keep Bond front and centre at this moment in time.
It's not as simple as saying 'I want, I want' and I can't be arsed to go into the minutiae of 'why', because a little thought leads you to the answer.
Which is a completely different argument from it being all about quality. But okay, if it's all about money-making, I'd say the Bond films have always made good money (though Dalton's made a little less and that wasn't a frequency issue). The Star Wars films and Marvel films are being cranked out one a year now. Are they suffering at the box-office? Personally, I'm less concerned about how many zeros Spectre's take has behind it and more about the actual quality of the film. Quality Bond films can be released every two years and still make good money. Furthermore, I'd suggest the longer they keep Bond out of the public consciousness, the more difficult it will be for them to compete. But as you say it's all moot and neither you and I nor anyone else here can tell the producers what to do. Why are you so adamant though that the producers are deliberately releasing the Bond films on the timeframes that they have been for, I guess, market optimization purposes? From the look of it, their production schedules over the last few films have been dictated almost entirely by matters of out of their hands—things like strikes and cast and crew availaibility.