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
That's fair enough, I completely understand that. I was just interested to know your opinion on it.
I do hope the next era has more consistent release dates, my main frustration in the last era was the unpredictable delays in between films
I just hate waiting 4-5 years for an installment, only to be majorly disappointed and begin waiting all over again. I thoroughly enjoyed NTTD but it took me 13 years from QoS to finally be happy with a Bond film again, with only two releases in between those two. That's absurd. It'll be easier to swallow and wait when there's only a 2-3 year gap.
If the bankruptcy didn’t happen we’d have probably gotten SF in 2010/2011, and if the problems with Boyle and COVID didn’t happen we would now be looks back at a November 2019 film, which means we might have had a Bond 26 to look forward to this very year on the 60th anniversary. I’m sure EON would have preferred that kind of outcome but here we are.
TL;DR, we only had two unusual delays. This isn’t as common an issue for EON as many seem to be griping about. If we don’t any development of Bond 26 by at least late 2023, THEN I’d be concerned. Right now I’m just going to be patient.
That doesn't sound like a fresh creative team.
Excellent post, @MakeshiftPython!
2006 has CR and M:I-3 released. Let’s see who churned out more films during Craig’s tenure:
CR
QOS
SF
SP
NTTD
Okay, five films within a span of 15 years. Not as impressive as Cubby’s sausage factory. But let’s see how Tom Cruise has been running his series:
M:I-3
GHOST PROTOCOL
ROGUE NATION
FALLOUT
What, ONLY FOUR? Within 12 years? Craig did that within 9! ;)
Just to clarify, I don’t really have a gripe over Cruise making any of these films on his own pace, just as I don’t have any on EON. Even Cruise had six years between films at one point, and it’s looking DEAD RECKONING will finally hit theaters after a five year hiatus.
Couldn't agree more mate. I hate being so critical of Bond, but it's frustrating to wait for such a long time and then after the film is released you hear how rushed the production was
I wouldn't mind the wait, provided the script is solid and locked down before they start shooting.
My lack of patience has given me lots of patience in the end. There's plenty to enjoy while we await the next era, thankfully, much like there was during those six years between SP and NTTD (and all the other lengthy gaps).
The scripts are the number one problem with modern James Bond films. The art house egotistical writers need to have a break from writing EON’s James Bond. James Bond is action drama, not art house director’s drama. As for Purvis and Wade, what can I say that hasn’t been said? Them coming back at this point is like JJ Abrams coming back to write and direct Star Wars or Star Trek. It’s actually getting embarrassing for the series. Martin Campbell warned EON that they couldn’t write good material. I’d rather have another Sebastian Faulks write another continuation novel than have these two get more loyalty from EON then they deserve. EON (and Amazon) should do too them what they do to James Bond in all their scripts: have them leave! The reasons are there!
Yeah, it's tiring to see people criticize them for "taking too long" when the largest gaps were reasons outside their control.
Original plan Fall 2006, May 2008, Fall 2010.
They would have also had competition with IRON MAN, so who knows how that would have played out at the box office.
Anyway, I really don't care one way or the other if P&W stay or go. They've had a hand in both the good and bad of modern Bond and as was pointed out their contributions are limited in the grand scheme of things. I do think an ideal route would be having a director or 'creative head' to refine the general story/get everything and everyone moving in a consistent direction but this requires the right sort of person and finding them is a whole other story.
For what it's worth, as other members have pointed out in the past, some of these things can't be helped. Even if a single writer worked on the script you'd have script doctors/script editors giving notes and tweaking sequences. Potentially other writers would be drafted in if they felt elements weren't working and another person was better suited to fixing them etc. This was the case in the early days of Bond and indeed movies in general (there are many stories of multiple writers in the 30s/40s working through the night to get dialogue ready for scenes to be shot the next morning). If anything I think it's a case where the general direction of the story and tone need to be mulled over more and established earlier on with one person overseeing it/pulling everyone in a specific direction (ideally a creative producer would do this, but it can also be a director with individual Bond films).
That's just not the way films are made-- especially blockbusters.
Film is a collaborative art form, @patb ....
Even if you had one writer, they would be taking notes upon notes upon notes from the producers (who essentially become a writing partner); then there will be notes and requests for changes from the director, then; the lead actor, then; new changes to fit the locations........
A script is merely the blueprint. A million more decisions will be made in development. A million more in production. A few thousand more in post...
Thanks for sharing mate, it's interesting to have a perspective on what goes on behind the scenes. It's not my world, I have no idea how it works.
What interests me is how a huge film like Bond, begins filming without a finished script or, like Spectre, with a script that the studio has issues with. With Spectre, those leaked emails made it sound like nobody at the studio liked the "Brofeld twist" or the third act in general.
It's fascinating to me because if you look at the 5 Daniel films, 3 out of the 5 had problems with the script and the 2 that seemed to finished scripts did better both critically and commercially.
I love talking about the process!!
Spectre was certainly in trouble during development, but it seems nobody had the appetite to put that film on pause.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: wished someone pulled the plug and said “we are delaying for at least six months. Toss this script out, and start a new story.”
In this case it was up to Sony to do this. They’re the ones selling it. They didn’t (rightfully) like the script. They should have put the brakes on it, admitted what everyone knew (the story wasn’t working).
But, in the end, there wasn’t the appetite to swallow the millions they had already spent (specifically MGM), and start afresh. They should have.
But make no mistake, there were changes to the SF and CR scripts (whether it be to the dialogue or rewriting action sequences), but these films were, perhaps, built on stronger concepts that, no matter the changes made, only strengthened the original scripts…
Yeah Spectre is an interesting one to me, I didn't read anything that leaked until after the film but it's a shock given the problematic third act it wasn't shut down and then again while shooting given the severity of Daniel's injury (I know he wanted to continue though)
I wish they would have just give it one more polish but I still enjoy the film
I said it earlier, but I wouldn't mind the delays and the gaps in between films as much, if it meant the final product was better
It was also a matter of availability of Craig, Mendes, Seydoux, Waltz, the cinematographer, and so on down the line. In-demand actors are also booked out years in advance.
They don't make films the way they used to in the studio era, or even in the '60s-'90s. Everything is locked in by the agents and shooting and release dates preordained.
It’s a miracle that films get done, especially when you consider how many people worked on it during the various stages; how the higher ups all want their fingerprints on the product etc., etc.
Development Hell is a real thing— and that’s where many-a-good script go to die.