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 the answer to the latter two is 'no' and as for them 'wanting' it, personally, I don't think they would.
Should they have it? Absolutely not. They'd probably end up, at some point, turning Bond into some kind of animated musical. I've said it time and time again, if Disney acquires MGM and/or Bond, I'm done. Bond won't get another dollar out of me.
I'm just not so sure. Without making them sound too morally upstanding, which of course they're not, Bond just doesn't strike me as something that would sit in their portfolio.
Regardless of the gauranteed revenue from the film, the potential external benefits, ancillary channels etc are nowhere near as desirable as their current stable. These channels are the things that keep their existing crop ticking over between releases. A Bond every three/four years doesn't strike me as a 'must have'. They don't need the money and Bond is not a cash cow in the way their Marvel, SW and animated properties are.
Prestige? Perhaps, but again, this is Disney. Do they really want to dabble in a series whose chief protagonist is an assassin who is known for shagging his way around the world and drinking heavilly? If Bond were something you could slap on a lunchbox these days, they'd be like rats around shit, but that appetite has long gone.
I just don't see the numbers adding up when you take into account effort vs return. There are much easier ways for them to make twice as much money than they would releasing a Bond every three to four years.
Might be totally wrong, but it's the impression I get.
After all, in the period from 2006-2008 they had $1,185m in combined global gross revenue from CR/QoS.
In the period 2009-2014, they had $881m from SF.
That extra release makes a difference and doesn't even account for inflation in the intervening period, which makes the difference even greater.
Because that s not a joke?
I've said this many times before but the majority of Bond films are actually quite mediocre themselves but the difference between Disney/Marvel and EoN is, if Marvel put out an average or mediocre movie, within the same year they could put out a very good movie; one doesn't have to endure a string of disappointing and mediocre entries once every 3 or 4 years, hoping and praying for a good entry as is the case with EoN. The fact that people are lamenting the situation at hand and wishing for the 60s golden age is proof of that....that being said...
There will never be a golden age of spy movies like the 60s because film making was far more inventive and taken a lot morecseriosly as s craft and also the cold war era was easy to romanticise.
The closest we got to that in terms of output was last year where we had Taken 3, Kingsman, MI5, Bridge of spies, UNCLE, SP and maybe a few others...thats a lot of spy films in a single year but of those mentioned, look at the results...varying degrees of success with one in particular expected to stand head and shoulders above the rest but instead stuck out like a sore thumb. Maybe once Bourne returns he can show us all again how its done but lately and as of right now Bond isn't doing that at all. Bond needs good movies and audiences want to see good blockbuster films.
Most definitely. The slate of upcoming action movies coming out is pretty aggressive and all look to be surprisingly impressive. The sad thing is some of them look to be outdoing Bond in certain regards and that's not even including the Asian films because they're on a different level that Hollywood can't compete with.
That's a bit of a sad and concerning viewpoint. I find most Bond films to be very good and enjoyable in various degrees and I'm a very big Bond fan. Although I do feel the way you do but for Marvel movies. Some are good but I find them mostly mediocre. I'd rather wait for a quality product then have the marked swamped with clunkers and the occasional diamond in the rough. Now I know how much you dislike SP and I respectfully disagree with you but SP is what audiences wanted. After audiences were torn on the rather dark and dour Skyfall (Which BTW I did enjoy). Audiences wanted a more by the numbers and fun Bond film. Long before SP was announced people wanted and begged for SPECTRE and Blofeld to be reintroduced into the series, people wanted a more OTT 60's adventure. Granted I wouldn't say that's what the final product of SP is. It's what the audience supposedly wanted. It wasn't a flop, it was a mixed bag by audiences but people did like. I sure did. I loved and enjoyed SP. I'd rather have more SP's than the slew of Marvel movies coming out every year.
It is sad. Don't get me wrong, I love Bond believe it or not but after so long the goggles come off and in as much as I can find enjoyment in all the films, I'm far more objective with how I view these movies especially as tge series has had almost 60 years of experience, talent andvthe best of the best working on them and so I expect better and no film gives me a grwat feelibg likeca good, cracking Bond film. I want that feeling...more consistently.
My issue with SP is that somewhere in there were the ingredients of a cracking Bond film. The lightness of touch was never an issue for me but it was some of the story decisions and overall execution that sunk it. It's just so difficult for me to sit through. The way I see it, SP as it is feels like either a very early story treatment or a first draft. In the end as you know, the film just didn't work for me but such is life.