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
Which is not say I am not a fan of GL, TD, and DC. They were their own Bonds based upon their acting abilities. Good at what they did, but ultimately not SC. Of course certain elements have always retained ties to those earlier films: PTS, gun barrel opening, Bond music, some minor characters. IMO, those are Bondian elements, not settings per se.
Certainly the look and feel of Bond films have changed over the years. Beginning with LALD, the canvas seemed to get bigger. Almost as if more visual stimuli would divert our attention from thinking too much about a new and very different Bond. With Craig came a new Bond who was the best since Connery, but never his equal. However much others will disagree, neither they nor I will change our opinions.
For me the series is broken into three parts: Connery/Lazenby; Moore/Dalton; Brosnan/Craig. Part I is very basic. Part II is more ambitious. Part III is full on modern taking advantage of technologies not previously available. Part III feels very far removed from Part I. I hope going forward, the films don't morph into something unrecognizable because of the wildly creative technologies now available. As an example, I watched Fast and Furious X last night, only because it was free. As compared with the first film, not even in the same universe. Not only ridiculous, implausible special effects, but shoddy as well. Not that Vin Diesel ever had much in the way of character, but he might as well have been a computer generated character in this film. (Jason Momoa, on the other hand, would make a great Bond villain.) There is so much that can be done with film these days, but what makes the best Bond films truly great are story and character, not the settings, the stunts, and special effects. Why do OHMSS and CR rate as my favorite Bond films? (Without Connery no less.) Because I remember their stories and characters, not the explosions and crashes, etc.
Just going to put a pin in that theory by pointing out there was a decline at the both the domestic/worldwide box office for both Spectre/NTTD, indicating that some audiences were starting to lose some of that engagement they had with Craig after Skyfall, especially when you consider that Craig had been on an upwards trajectory from Casino Royale - Skyfall at the box office. Counter that to Brosnan, who didn’t have that massive a drop in box office sales for his tenure. Admittedly TND was a drop from at the worldwide Box Office from GE, but that’s down to opening up on the same weekend as Titanic. Even for how ludicrous DAD is, it was still a bonafide box office success continuing that upward trend in Brosnan’s tenure. If Craig was as popular as you claim, why didn’t that upward trajectory continue into Spectre, and NTTD? Why didn’t Spectre at least become another Billion Dollar hit? Because some of that audience engagement had dwindled.
Also Daniel Craig was not the sole reason why his era was so critically well received. To credit him with that is a huge disservice to everyone else who worked on those films, mainly the writers/directors. We’ve seen what happened when Craig tried his hand in assisting the writing of one of these films, and quite frankly I think it’s fair to say he shouldn’t try his hand at that again.
Plus I don’t buy this narrative that’s pushed by some fans that Craig is the only Bond who could rival Connery. If that’s their prerogative then fine, but Craig’s Bond was way too emotionally disturbed that he loses some of the appeal of the character. He has little to no control over his emotions, which is the complete opposite of the cool and calculated Connery, plus at several points in his era Craig becomes a liability to those around him and his organization, definitely a far cry from the seasoned professional that Connery played. Simply put, watching Craig’s Bond felt like watching a teenager riddled to the brim with angst and insecurities, whereas Connery’s Bond was the real deal by comparison; a smooth operator who never let his emotions get the best of him.
That doesn’t negate anything I’ve said though. Yes ultimately Amazon purchased MGM for the library of content they can add to Prime, but they also purchased MGM to become major players in the film landscape. Realistically speaking, I don’t see any of MGM’s other franchises coming close to the profits that could potentially be made from the Bond series under Amazon. Do you think a Robocop movie is going to help Amazon collect a return on their investment the way Bond does? How about the Pink Panther? Rocky? Legally Blonde? The Adams Family? The Wizard of Oz? Again $8.5 Billion Dollars is too much money for Amazon to continue to be okay with the apparent lack of progress on EON’s part. All I’m saying is that EON might have to figure out a direction soon before Amazon forces them too.
SP and even NTTD still under pandemic effects both have very strong box office.
@007ClassicBondFan :
The fact that SF made a billion was an outlier. Bond films were consistently making half a billion and, when Craig came on the scene, it went up…
But a billion was an outlier….
SPECTRE came back to earth, but was still drawing in close to a billion (what was it $880 million or something— still quite a bit over the Bond average box office, and ; NTTD was released when COVID was still killing all kinds of biz and the film still managed almost 800 million. That too is well over the average of Bond’s box office).
Add to that a majority of consistently positive receptions for Craig’s films that haven’t been this accepted since the Connery Era, and I think it’s clear that in the modern era, Craig was seen as the most popular Bond since Connery.
So I’m afraid you can put your pin away for now.
You said you heard that Amazon purchased MGM for Bond only… Whoever told you that is telling quite a fib. It’s owning the library and the IP of EVERYTHING that MGM had that has value, not just one, sixty year old character.
And they’re not sitting around at Amazon Studios twiddling their thumbs, waiting for Bond. They have so much in development from this sale, that their investment is already in action and starting to pay dividends.
I think they’ll let EoN do their thing at the moment. Develop this properly, and then, from there, we will see more consistent releases…
Let’s not kid ourselves here @peter, that’d be a good argument if it wasn’t for the fact that not a lot of movies were making over a Billion Dollars at the box office prior to 2010. The few exceptions were the likes of Jurassic Park, Star Wars Episode 1, and Titanic, all of which were giant event movies/pop culture events. Couple that with Skyfall’s excellent marketing campaign and the fact that it was the 50th anniversary of the Bond franchise, and there’s your reason for why Skyfall made as much as it did; despite what you may believe, it wasn’t solely down to people liking Craig as Bond. Therefore, that point is moot. That doesn’t address the fact that there was still a downwards trajectory from Skyfall when they’re should’ve been an upwards trajectory.
Again, you’re missing my point here entirely. I’ll admit that there was way more to owning MGM besides owning James Bond, but it’s as if you’re too busy hanging up on one inaccurate point I made while conveniently ignoring what I am trying to say, which I don’t appreciate.
Amazon is going to want to ensure the get the most out of their investment, and a new Bond film/era is going to undoubtedly play a huge role in ensuring they get a return on that investment. So what I’m trying to say, is that if another 2-3 years pass with seemingly no updates on the progress of the next Bond film, that’s going to appear as troublesome in the eyes of Amazon.
Put it this way, you thought the studio interference in Brosnan’s tenure was bad? It’ll be worse if Amazon sticks their grimy fingers in the mix, and that’s what I’m afraid of.
Yes and no. A part of me thinks that Spectre could’ve easily reached the Billion Dollar mark if not for word of mouth, but on the flip side to that argument, Brosnan’s films never had strong critical word of mouth during their initial releases, and yet the audience engagement kept on increasing with each film until his tenure ended. Craig’s era is the first time since the 80’s that the series had seen a slight decline in box office earnings, and I think that’s due to the polarizing nature of his films, and his Bond.
"Franchise fatigue" is a possible explanation.
The safe projection was about a half a billion, maybe a little higher. The numbers Craig was pulling in exceeded their projections, and he made killings not seen since the Connery Era- which is the gold standard. Please don’t misread this and claim I’m saying the popularity and box office returns are equivalent to the 60s; I’m saying this era was the most consistently popular and the most successful since the Connery Era.
And Amazon isn’t twiddling thumbs waiting on Bond. They’re actively developing a lot of TV and films.
Yes, Amazon will be happy when the next era starts, and they will work with their partners at EoN to set more consistent film releases, once they crack what the new era is.
But, I don’t think anyone at Amazon is sweating during this development phase. After all, there’s no investment in a new film yet, no release date… They’re waiting for EoN to do their thing. Once there’s a release date, and money is being poured into a film, and THEN if people are sitting on their hands, then Amazon will have issues and will be impatient (and rightfully so…)
But until that happens (it won’t), there’s not much to discuss…
But most films weren’t reaching that projected benchmark. Again it was few outliers that were reaching over $1Billion mark. So I tend to think it’s more the result of Craig being at the right place and right time rather than any perceived popularity for his Bond. He was coming along at a time when the series had been on nothing but a high, and he helped continue that trend until the other side of Skyfall. But judging off of conversations that I’ve had with casual audience members/casual Bond fans, most of them tend to point out that while Craig isn’t their ideal Bond, the films are generally great and entertaining. So that’s the point I’m trying to make, Craig’s films might be incredibly popular amongst the general audience, but as for his take on Bond itself, it’s a bit more contentious, at least from the discussions I’ve had with people. He’s not as unanimously praised as Connery’s Bond was, so I don’t think the comparison that’s often made between the two really lands.
I wish I had your faith @peter lol, I really do. Maybe it’s just me being pessimistic after seeing so many big franchises be destroyed/ran into the ground over the last few years, but I’ve always liked and preferred for EON to never cave into the demands of MGM/Sony/UA for the most part. Amazon is an entirely different beast than anything they’ve dealt with before, and that terrifies me as a Bond fan. I don’t want more studio mandated decisions like the ones that have plagued the Brosnan years, I don’t want Amazon having a creative input in the direction of the series, I don’t want Amazon having a say in how EON operates, and it seems like all of those hypotheticals could potentially come true.
@ColonelAdamski
Five Daniel Craig Bond movies, sir. Happy to have helped.
Eon has complete creative control. That's what's kept the series going as long as it has.
Just give us well-drawn characters and a good story--with all of that, even who is playing Bond isn't a dealbreaker.
P.S. Sorry for the double post.
Man, do I appreciate the Slow Horses recommendation. It's excellent, especially the writing.
*Teri Hatcher enters the chat*
“Well actually…”
The real story is we could’ve had Monica Bellucci in TND as Paris Carver, but because Teri Hatcher was a bigger star back then, MGM forced EON to cast her instead.
Also, see Denise Richards and Halle Berry.
Exactly. Isn’t it funny how all of those actresses were studio picks yet they’re commonly touted as being some of the worst Bond girls.
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but MGM distributed some, if not all, of the Brosnan pics, correct?
If so, it’s fair for the distributor to have a say in the cast since they’re also selling the film to market. And in the case of Bond women at the time, I’m sure these were very popular choices.
But make no mistake about it: apart from compromising on cast and story, EoN really usually does have final say.
I’d also imagine that BB and MGW were more open to suggestions at this time since they were truly on their own at this point, so soon after Cubby’s passing.
And now, after pretty confidently running the show during the Craig Era, I’m not sure BB and company would be so easy to push over.
In fact I know that there was friction when a few people at Amazon were pressuring for more spin offs and potential television using the Bond universe.
Not only did EoN dig their heels in, they also went with a public statement clearly mandating that they make films for worldwide distribution for the big screen, and not for television.
So, yeah, the Barbara Broccoli in 1997 is not the same one we have today in 2024. She’s quite a force, and so is the company.
EDIT: @echo — it’s bloody great, isn’t it? Slick, tight writing of story, plot and characters. Great filmmaking, pushing stories forward, plenty of wonderful obstacles, tension that stretches like a wire, ready to snap…. Smith and his team have great energy and I’d love to see them involved in developing a Bond script….
I wouldn't lay the blame for those characters at the door of the actresses. Theyre poor at a script level, any actress would struggle.
I think TWINE was the first, GE and TND were United Artists still (small difference though).
There's only four in my world.
I get that. Even Katherine Hepburn couldn’t make those roles work. But I think it just highlights my point about the Studio interference during the Brosnan years, and my (perhaps paranoid) fear that Amazon could enact those same type of decisions.
I think you’re right about both MGW and BB being at a different place now vs back during the Brosnan years, but I can’t say I’ll be looking forward to whatever influence Amazon exerts on them. Hopefully things will continue the way they have been.
I’m happy that EON, as far as I’m aware, was never forced with studio mandated casting decisions during Craig’s tenure like they were during Brosnan’s years. I don’t think the likes of Eva Green, Olga Kurylenko, and Bérénice Marlohe would’ve been cast if there were.
Yes, very mature. 🤣