› ›

How long is a reasonable hiatus?

12467

Comments

  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    4 years is way too long, especially if they are trying to do a story arc.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    2 years ...standard Moore/Dalton time limit.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Certainly no longer than 3 years!!!
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm willing to push 3 as reasonable, but not every time. 4 is ridiculous.
    Agreed. 4 years for the 2nd time with a returning actor is beyond shameful, no matter what the extenuating circumstances may be.

    I am literally going to have started and finished highschool without a bond film.
    I think 2.5 years is reasonable. Like the old days switch it from winter to summer every film
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Birdleson wrote: »
    I'm willing to push 3 as reasonable, but not every time. 4 is ridiculous.
    Agreed. 4 years for the 2nd time with a returning actor is beyond shameful, no matter what the extenuating circumstances may be.

    I am literally going to have started and finished highschool without a bond film.
    I think 2.5 years is reasonable. Like the old days switch it from winter to summer every film

    I started and finished college with a Bond film, and I got through it. I know it's rough, but you shall survive.
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    They should be aiming for every two years and then, if extra time is needed or delays happen, stretch it to three. Going in with the mindset of three to four years between films just seems self-defeating. If you can get it out in two years, then why not?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    pachazo wrote: »
    They should be aiming for every two years and then, if extra time is needed or delays happen, stretch it to three. Going in with the mindset of three to four years between films just seems self-defeating. If you can get it out in two years, then why not?

    Absolutely. But folks lamenting the gaps in Craig's films (and consequently blaming EON for all of it) also seem to forget the delays out of their control that've come, including a massive bankruptcy issue and a distribution negotiation in just the last two films. The only delay they can at all be held accountable for is the extra year wait for Mendes post-SF, but all the extraneous criticism they get is another sign that certain folks are ignorant of how movies are made and what stops progress on them from happening in the first place. As EON (and particularly Barbara) is the face of the Bond "brand," surely they are always at fault!
  • pachazopachazo Make Your Choice
    Posts: 7,314
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    pachazo wrote: »
    They should be aiming for every two years and then, if extra time is needed or delays happen, stretch it to three. Going in with the mindset of three to four years between films just seems self-defeating. If you can get it out in two years, then why not?

    Absolutely. But folks lamenting the gaps in Craig's films (and consequently blaming EON for all of it) also seem to forget the delays out of their control that've come, including a massive bankruptcy issue and a distribution negotiation in just the last two films. The only delay they can at all be held accountable for is the extra year wait for Mendes post-SF, but all the extraneous criticism they get is another sign that certain folks are ignorant of how movies are made and what stops progress on them from happening in the first place. As EON (and particularly Barbara) is the face of the Bond "brand," surely they are always at fault!

    Oh yes, i do recognize that Dan has had some bad luck during his tenure. It's a testament to the unity and loyalty of this team sticking together that he will be the longest serving Bond. And I do appreciate the comments he has made in the past year about how fortunate and grateful he is to still have the chance to be doing this. So, I do recognize the positive things. Not that i thought you were singling me out in particular. Still, with all the talk about how tired they were and needing a long break, it just makes me wonder what their thought process is at times.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,109
    It would be interesting to see who had the most none Bond Movie/TV output during respective tenures. I like Craig as Bond though his none Bond work never interested me
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Fire_and_Ice_Returns wrote: »
    It would be interesting to see who had the most none Bond Movie/TV output during respective tenures. I like Craig as Bond though his none Bond work never interested me

    Including Layer Cake and Enduring Love ?

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Birdleson wrote: »
    So Craig's span is just shy of twice as long as Brosnan's, but will only out produce it by one film.

    Indeed, It took less than five years for Connery to make his first five films. 13 for Dan.

    Craig will also be the first Bond since Connery to have played Bond in his 30s, 40s and 50s.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited August 2017 Posts: 9,020
    .
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,005
    The mathematical genius I am I have made this chart:

    Number of Bond films in each 10 year period

    1962 -1971 ….. 7
    1963 -1972 ….. 6
    1964 -1973 ….. 6
    1965 -1974 ….. 6
    1966 -1975 ….. 5
    1967 -1976 ….. 5
    1968 -1977 ….. 5
    1969 -1978 ….. 5
    1970 -1979 ….. 5
    1971 -1980 ….. 5
    1972 -1981 ….. 5
    1973 -1982 ….. 5
    1974 -1983 ….. 5
    1975 -1984 ….. 4
    1976 -1985 ….. 5
    1977 -1986 ….. 5
    1978 -1987 ….. 5
    1979 -1988 ….. 5
    1980 -1989 ….. 5
    1981 -1990 ….. 5

    6 year gap begins to have its effect: with one more Dalton the numbers would be one higher for each 10 year period.
    1982 -1991 ….. 4
    1983 -1992 ….. 4
    1984 -1993 ….. 3
    1985 -1994 ….. 3
    1986 -1995 ….. 3
    1987 -1996 ….. 3
    1988 -1997 ….. 3
    1989 -1998 ….. 3
    1990 -1999 ….. 3
    1991 -2000 ….. 3
    1992 -2001 ….. 3
    1993 -2002 ….. 4

    1994 -2003 ….. 4
    1995 -2004 ….. 4
    1996 -2005 ….. 3
    1997 -2006 ….. 4
    1998 -2007 ….. 3
    1999 -2008 ….. 4
    2000 -2009 ….. 3
    2001 -2010 ….. 3
    2002 -2011 ….. 3
    2003 -2012 ….. 3
    2004 -2013 ….. 3
    2005 -2014 ….. 3
    2006 -2015 ….. 4
    2007 -2016 ….. 3
    2008 -2017 ….. 3
    2009 -2018 ….. 2
    2010 -2019 ….. 3
    2011 -2020 ….. 3
    2012 -2021 ….. 3
    2013 -2022 ….. 3
    2014 -2023 ….. 3
    2015 -2024 ….. 3
    2016 -2025 ….. 2
    2017 -2026 ….. 3

    I think it's fair to say, we've gone from 5 on average 60s, 70s, 80s,
    to 3 on average from the 90s to today. With a notable jump to 4 on average during the Brosnan 10 year periods.

    The Craig 10 year periods have so far given us one of them that only saw 2 films. Unfortunately we are now in that exact period and so we feel there's been not enough Bond films which of course is understandable.

    If we assume the next films will come in 2019 and 2022 (60th Anniversary) it'll give us another 2 films per 10 years period.

    Overall I feel panicking over the "long" gaps is not needed necessarily. We've been on the 3 year per 10 year period phase since 2000, that's 18 years now...

    Let's assume that EoN produces two films with a 2 year gap in between in the future, say in 2022 and 2024, we'll be on a 4 again for some time.

    Of course if EoN can't produce another Bond film by 2022 due to Craig leaving and needing more time to find a successor then things will start to look a little bleaker. But that's really a worst case scenario.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    Two years. Three years is okay once in a while.
    How I want the next era to go:
    .2022
    .2024
    .2026
    .2028
    .2030
    .2032
    You get the point.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    2 years should be the standard situation. 3 years every once in a while. More than that, never.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Remington wrote: »
    Two years. Three years is okay once in a while.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    2 years should be the standard situation. 3 years every once in a while. More than that, never.
    I quite agree with both of you.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    bondjames wrote: »
    Remington wrote: »
    Two years. Three years is okay once in a while.
    mattjoes wrote: »
    2 years should be the standard situation. 3 years every once in a while. More than that, never.
    I quite agree with both of you.

    Great minds think alike.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    I think they know for certain Craig will call it quits after Bond 25 whether it's brilliant or rubbish. He's gone - especially at the rate of production.

    I sense that they pump out the second film of each Bond very quickly - FRWL and TMWTGG were the next year, both TND and QOS were rushed out and LTK kept the established two year cycle. So if EON don't do anything wild like selling up the property and they just recast then I'd expect the second film of the next actor to be out within two years of his debut and at a push three.

    To answer the original question I think three years is a reasonable and sustainable hiatus. Cast a Bond when he's 33 and he could do four or five films and be done before he's fifty which I think is a good age and number of Bond films to bow out on.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    Posts: 2,005
    Four years seems to be too much, I quite agree. And that only started with the Craig era.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Hopefully it ends with it too.
  • RemingtonRemington I'll do anything for a woman with a knife.
    Posts: 1,534
    The only justifiable hiatus during the Craig era was between QOS and SF due to bankruptcy.
  • Andi1996RueggAndi1996Ruegg Hello. It's me, Evelyn Tremble.
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,005
    And what about between 2002 and 2006? Why not produce one more with Brosnan in 2004 and then prepare for CR in 2007, would have made a nice 2007 logo as well ;)
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    Posts: 2,722
    I'm happy if they take four years and we end up with something comparable to CR!

    But I would love it if they were making plans concurrently with Bond 25 for a succession with a new 007 actor. But I'm expecting a hiatus between Craig and the next move.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight
    Posts: 16,163
    Andi1996Ruegg wrote: »
    And what about between 2002 and 2006? Why not produce one more with Brosnan in 2004 and then prepare for CR in 2007, would have made a nice 2007 logo as well ;)

    That would have been nice.

    I really do hope after B25 Eon gets things in gear for future Bonds on a regular schedule. The Craig era has cemented my doubts. I feel the 4 year gap has become so accepted that each entry is just playing it by ear with no real ground plan laid out for the future.

    In some ways it's arrogant for Eon to just assume Bond will always continue and be around in some form or another. Granted there are various versions of the Sherlock Holmes character produced every now and then, as well as Frankenstein, Tarzan and Dracula. But let's be honest: something like Tarzan has been so out of the limelight these past few decades that few people today probably even get the Tarzan yell joke in OP. Not to mention, many newer versions of Tarzan tend to suck. Same with Dracula, unfortunately.

    We're at the point that whenever a new Bond film goes into production, a kid graduating high school would have still be in middle school when the last entry was out. For an 18 year old, that a HUGE portion of their life.

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I think anywhere from 2 years to 3 maximum, but preferably 2 or 2 1/2 and I wouldn't mind the film releases shifting from November to summer to accommodate a time table where we'd get a movie every 2 1/2 years. Though I think the series will rest for a time after Bond 25, as EON decide where they may want to take the franchise as a change must come.

    If the next films do as I think they will in delivering largely standalone adventures, I think a 2 year schedule will be more attainable.
  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya Danny Boyle laughs to himself
    Posts: 2,730
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I think anywhere from 2 years to 3 maximum, but preferably 2 or 2 1/2 and I wouldn't mind the film releases shifting from November to summer to accommodate a time table where we'd get a movie every 2 1/2 years. Though I think the series will rest for a time after Bond 25, as EON decide where they may want to take the franchise as a change must come.

    If the next films do as I think they will in delivering largely standalone adventures, I think a 2 year schedule will be more attainable.

    Or if they go back to period pieces and adapt the novels faithfully it will be much faster to write the sceen plays and easier to film the movies and they can bang em out quicker.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    JamesBondKenya wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    I think anywhere from 2 years to 3 maximum, but preferably 2 or 2 1/2 and I wouldn't mind the film releases shifting from November to summer to accommodate a time table where we'd get a movie every 2 1/2 years. Though I think the series will rest for a time after Bond 25, as EON decide where they may want to take the franchise as a change must come.

    If the next films do as I think they will in delivering largely standalone adventures, I think a 2 year schedule will be more attainable.

    Or if they go back to period pieces and adapt the novels faithfully it will be much faster to write the sceen plays and easier to film the movies and they can bang em out quicker.
    Movies wouldn't do the stories justice, though. I would prefer miniseries that could adapt all the sex and violence of the books as well as the other mature aspects. I never want to see a period piece Bond film.

    I don't really care about the movies being banged out quick if that doesn't come with quality as well. Always quality over quantity in my book.
  • Major_BoothroydMajor_Boothroyd Republic of Isthmus
    edited January 2018 Posts: 2,722
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

    I don't really care about the movies being banged out quick if that doesn't come with quality as well. Always quality over quantity in my book.

    Agree. Just look at the scrappy quality of the Star Wars screenplays now that they're pumping them out once a year.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Major_Boothroyd wrote: »
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »

    I don't really care about the movies being banged out quick if that doesn't come with quality as well. Always quality over quantity in my book.

    Agree. Just look at the scrappy quality of the Star Wars screenplays now that they're pumping them out once a year.
    @Major_Boothroyd, it's part of why I don't get so worked up over some of the longer waits with the Craig films, as I'm satisfied or felt the products were worth it. I've loved each film, so the sting of a lot wait wasn't there as much. I certainly wish we'd gotten more Craig films, but even with 7 with him I wouldn't be satisfied. That being said, with a major production issue facing EON during each film in a big way since CR, I've been beyond fulfilled and happy with what we've got. While I think waiting for Mendes after SF is a debatable point, the hiatus after QoS was unavoidable, as was the strike during QoS (though obviously nothing that caused a delay). With an easier climate sans hacks, strikes and bankruptcies, obviously we'd have ended up with a more regular time table of Bond films, but that's not how the cards were dealt.

    Agree on Star Wars too, as that brand is the definition of over saturated. Rushing out a bunch of films that a lot of the people who love the originals don't want is an interesting business move, but they make money and that's all the powers that be care about so...nothing to be done about it. We'll probably not see the end of Star Wars films until even the bassist in the Mos Eisley Cantina gets his own spin-off film that will tell all about his musical journey across the galaxy playing seedy clubs while rubbing shoulders with smugglers and crime bosses until he ends up at the cantina around the date of the original timeline. The spin-off would naturally end with Greedo and Han shooting the place up as in A New Hope, with a ham-fisted cameo from a CGI young Harrison Ford to top it all off.

    I personally hope that the Bond franchise continues to forgo a lot of the current business decisions of these other tentpole series, including needless spin-offs and release schedules that demand a movie of some sort come out each year. That will only wear out the brand and over saturate the market in a way that won't be satisfactory, including the simple fact that the production team could experience burn out. A more relaxed but regular schedule would suit me far better, and as we can see even longer waits don't put Bond off of achieving a solid average at the box office, with the most delayed films of the current run being the two most profitable, one crossing a billion and one nearly repeating the same action.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    This idea that they tend to rush an actor s second film doesn t really hold up.

    FRWL-standard gap for those first four films. GF came out even sooner.

    TMWTGG-same gap as between DAF and LALD, and that included a search for a new actor as well.

    LTK-same as for well over a decade.

    TND-nothing special there either

    QOS-only special in retrospect
Sign In or Register to comment.