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
They spent 3 years on SP and it still turned out a hot mess, I don't think how much time they have actually has as much importance to the finished product as people around here think it does.
It just sounds like you’re impatient
Bottom line: almost 50% of the years you’re complaining about was out of their hands.
The other years were taken developing, pre production, filming, post, releases of Bond films, as well as celebrating 60 years!
And there were other smaller projects they produced in between (film, stage).
You have an opinion about what they should or should not be doing, Mendes, but reality dictates a completely different narrative than the one that runs through your imagination.
I was always taken aback when people were already discussing Craig’s replacement as early as QoS (at least in my sphere). I didn’t understand that at all.
Can’t we just live in the moment? Bask in the glow? Worry about tomorrow when tomorrow comes?
There’s a certain population who indulge in dictator-think when it comes to fandom. The demand that a property should do things their way (because any other way is WRONGGGGG(!!!))
When did expressing an opinion become whining?
It’s nice that we have 25 Bond films available, but the older you are, the more often you’ve seen them. If you are happy with the 25 films you’ve got, that’s great, but this thread is about future Bond films, you are going to find a lot of us are looking forward to a new film.
Forgive my saying so @Mendes4Lyfe but there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking going on. Which, as an author and reader of alternate history, is saying something. There's also enough "ifs" in your scenario to qualify as a work of alternate history in its own right.
As it stands, we did get five Craig Bond films in 15 years. An average of a film every three years, which isn't far off the film every two years or so. The problem, I suppose, are the sizable gaps we had between QoS and SF then SP and NTTD. But the only way to avoided those gaps would have involved either factors outside of Eon's control (as rightfully pointed out by @peter in their posts) or to have gone with versions of those films that weren't quite what Eon made (the Peter Morgan drafts of what became SF or the Danny Boyle Bond 25). From what we know about those efforts, I'm by no means certain we would have ended up with something as good as what we got in the end.
My own thoughts remain that Eon learned lessons from the rush to get QoS into cinemas for its 2008 release date, to the point of filming an underdeveloped script that was being reworked even as they were filming. Sure, they struck while the iron was still hot from Casino Royale but they ended up with a hot mess of a film. As for earlier times, while we lament not having a film every other year, I do think modern fandom overlooks how wildly uneven those films could be throughout the seventies and eighties.
The one thing I do agree with you on is finding ways to bring a younger audience into Bond. There's other ways of doing that that doesn't involve cranking out less than stellar films every couple of years. That includes things like the video games you mentioned (and which were a big part of the Bond brand throughout the Brosnan and early Craig era) and merchandise that isn't tailored exclusively towards being a high-price lifestyle brand. Blaming that lack of youth engagement (if you want to call it that) entirely on the films is missing out on other factors, too.
@CrabKey : some people state an opinion. Others whine and complain.
There’s a big difference (the whiners tend to be dictators and stomp around insisting their ideas are how EoN should run their family business; others just state a belief or a thought or a concept to share and don’t expect an echo chamber to applaud and agree with them (as if an echo chamber will ever translate to reality)
Thank you, @timdalton007 and thank you for being polite and engaging with the substance of my post.
I respectfully disagree that I'm playing backseat driver with EONs choices. The only critique I have, the only alternate take to how EON operates currently is that they get to work on the next film soon (1 - 3 months) after they finish the last one and begin the process of developing the next story, hiring the right director and writer, etc. in exactly the same fashion as they did in the 60's, in exactly the same fashion as they in the 70's, the 80 and so on. That's all I'm saying. I know that things come up, like Boyle leaving the project, which are out of EON's hands but my point is that if EON had been quicker and more focused from the beginning, they could easily afford that to happen and still release the film in late 2019, before the pandemic would ever affected them. I know this is doable for a fact because they DID it, consistently, for almost 40 years. I'm not asking anything of EON that they haven't demonstrated they're capable of in the past.
Maybe they could churn a film out every year like in the 60s, that’s assuming they start adapting novels and find an actor that is willing to work tirelessly year after year with limited opportunities in between films.
And if you think you can start to get a new film up and running one to three months after the last one, then you have no understanding how films are made. Apart from the creative drain you’re begging for, most producers want to see how the present film did at the box office before venturing into the sequel.
No, I'm saying get to work on day 1. If the process takes 3 years, 4 years, so be it. Just don't sit on your hands for 2 years before you even think about calling someone about writing a script. Bond 25 was released for a year and a half ago, and Barbara in a recent interview said they don't even have a script or anything to work from yet. That simply didn't happen in years gone by, and there's no excuse.
I mean 1 - 3 months after the release of the film in cinemas. They certainly know whether the film is a financial success or not by then. Again, this is no different to how Cubby would have gone about things.
Why the rush? Just because they used to do it or because you’re entitled?
Cubby has been dead for nearly 30 years. This isn’t his show anymore.
Films aren’t made this way anymore, @Mendes4Lyfe
Cubby wouldn’t be producing Bond films in this day and age, I’m afraid to say. He knew only one way of making films, and no matter how much I love the 80s Bond adventures, Cubby’s way was collapsing. He couldn’t keep up with newer, glossier films like Die Hard or Lethal Weapon or Batman or Indiana Jones.
He tried to compete with them, but he continued to churn out the sausage factory while the other studios were putting films through proper development. Cubby seemingly didn’t change to compete. What he did instead was chop budgets, asked his usual script monkeys to churn, and poached Michael Kamen and cheap tv actors to dress the rest.
It’s a blessing that the ‘89-‘95 gap happened.
Certainly no gaps here.
Eon in the early years had the benefit of a range of novels to adapt. Now Eon has to deal with dwindling source material (sure, they can adapt Wint and Kidd kicking the crap out of Bond but what do you do with the other 118 minutes?) and sky-high expectations with every film.
Can you imagine being in a position where *every* time the public is expecting you to deliver the best Bond film ever? You'd take your time too.
But I'm not saying churn out films like a sausage factory, I'm merely saying faster than 2 films a decade is 100% doable and within their control. If putting films "through proper development" leads to a final product like SP and B25 then perhaps that system isn't without its flaws.
If they started doing a run like this, with an actor committed to four films in 2025, 2028, 2031, and 2034, I’d consider that a very successful well oiled machine. Ideally, that’s how it should have been with Craig. Would have been 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015, with the possible fifth in 2018.
I’m not sure if this concept exists on fan sites anymore @echo ( maybe it never did, 😂 ). Look at the mud being thrown at James Gunn. It’s ludicrous that he ever thought engaging with a fan base could lead to mutual respect and an education in how films are done.
He tried to share with these people but;
He was drowned out by their finger-pointing, their anger and their frustrations (fuelled by their ignorance).
If you want to guess why EoN doesn’t go out of their way to correct all the shitty rumours, false declarations, outright BS that is published about their property every week of every year, look no further than Gunn and the “discussions” he had with his “fans”….
Dictators are able to impose their will on others. That is not going on here.
The real thing to look out for is when Eon starts vetting directors to help forge a path for what they want with the next Bond actor.
sure, I just don't know how spending 1 to 2 years doing nothing is supposed to make this process easier. If you're worried about running out of material to adapt, surely you'd want to start planning sooner not later?
That’s assuming they aren’t actually doing anything. You don’t know behind the scenes.
Barbara Broccoli often says it's tougher to write a Bond script than people think, and I'm sure she's right. The expectations are just through the roof every time.
I agree. The gap between SF and SP - the only 3-year one in his era - by far felt the smoothest to me. The end results of SP can be debated, but that wait time felt just right to me of all the varying gaps during Craig’s time as Bond.