Where does Bond go after Craig?

1246247249251252584

Comments

  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,339
    More perspective. Eon planned Bond films in 2006, May 2008, 2010.

  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,236
    Yeah Mendes4Lyfe, that entire argument of yours is weak sauce.

    Fact is we’re never gonna get a Bond film every two years ever again, and we should be glad. I want Bond films to be special events, not something churned out by Disney.

    The Sequel Trilogy for example would have greatly benefitted from having three year intervals. But because of Disney’s greed, they were rushed and it showed. I don’t want that to happen to Bond. We saw that with the subpar QOS.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,090
    peter wrote: »
    We got four films in thirteen years (since there’s no incumbent Bond at the moment I’m not counting the last two years), because there was MGM’s financial woes (again), and a worldwide pandemic that shut down everything for three years— and we are still recovering.

    So take three years of MGM’s issues and three years of Covid, and what’d you get? Over half a decade of pauses inside of 13 years that effectively wiped out any development coming out of EoN HQ!!

    Six years where they couldn’t work. Out of thirteen years.

    Almost 50% of the time you’re complaining about was literally out of their hands. The other years were taken up with development, pre production, filming, post and releases and a 60th anniversary, and now…. Re-introducing the character!!!

    Sorry @Mendes4Lyfe … but you’re conveniently deleting history.

    If you read my post above you would see how I explained how those gaps could have been avoided by EON simply getting a move on after release of the previous film, (like they did in the old days) and not waiting 1 or 2 years before starting the process in motion. If directly after the release of SP in late they took 1 - 2 months off and then got to work and began the script writing process, there's no reason they couldn't have finished the movie by late 2019, that's plenty of time even for EON. That way they would avoid the pandemic entirely, infact they could use that time busy on the script of Bond 26 whilst everyone is locked down so that starting in late 2021 when the lockdowns lifted they would have been ready to move ahead with filming. And so on and so forth. These long stretches of dead time are all of EON own making, and could have easily been avoided by just being on the ball. If you plan to saunter around hope things will fit nicely into place, then ofcourse you're going to run into problems.

    It just sounds like you’re impatient
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,032
    I have no idea what EoN did after Spectre— other than producing a few other films (actually seven non-Bond films were produced by EoN between ‘14-‘22), which you may not have seen. They also produced theatrical productions. Which is well within their rights to do so @Mendes4Lyfe .

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,090
    It’s always hilarious, HILARIOUS, to me when fans whine about not enough Bond films being made when we live in a world where 25 Bond films exist. :))
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,032
    I hear you @MakeshiftPython ... we live in a drive-through culture. People want things yesterday, and when they finally get what they want, half way through, they’re already thinking about the next actor, next film, or next meal, or next trip.

    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(!!!))
  • Posts: 1,706
    It’s always hilarious, HILARIOUS, to me when fans whine about not enough Bond films being made when we live in a world where 25 Bond films exist. :))

    When did expressing an opinion become whining?

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 828
    It’s always hilarious, HILARIOUS, to me when fans whine about not enough Bond films being made when we live in a world where 25 Bond films exist. :))
    Why mock another poster’s opinion instead of discussing it?

    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.
  • timdalton007timdalton007 North Alabama
    Posts: 155
    In the first 15 years of the franchise (1962 - 1977) we got 10 films. In the last 15 years of the franchise (2008 - 2023) we got 4 films. That's not even 50% of the output over the same span of time. I understand the films taking longer because they're much bigger productions, but it seems like after each new film gets released they take at least a year off before they even think about picking up the phone and hiring writers to start penning the next one. Think about it, if they had been quick out the blocks on Bond 25 it's highly probable they could have finished and released the film in 2019, before the pandemic shut them down for 2 years and cost them millions in advertising and shelving a finished product. Then, if they had been quick to get to work the script for Bond 26, they could gotten the film shot and completed in time for the sixtieth anniversary in late 2022. Then, if they had been quick again, they would have around 5 months to at least have a first draft or an outline prepared for Bond 27, so that, at minimum if their IS a strike looming in a month's time, they would have something to go on and start making preparations. They can't write, but if they know which locations to look for they can at least scout and brainstorm things on their own. So really a lot of the lost time has nothing to do with mammoth productions taking longer, it has to do with EON not being prepared and not being willing to make things happen, always waiting as long as possible to start the process and then panicking midway through production when things aren't going well. We all saw the Sony leaks, we know how SP was a salvage job, how they were flying by the seat of their pants and the people at Sony were frantically trying to work out why their wasn't a more climatic finale than bond firing his ppk at a helicopter. It reminds me of when your at school and you have a assignment except you don't start it until the day before it's due, so you just start typing anything to get some words down on paper. You know what your writing isn't very good, you know you can do better, but the sheer constraints of time mean that you can't question what your writing, you just have to go with it. That's basically the pattern has been in since Skyfall. Taking way to long to get going, not being prepared thinking things will just fall into place, and then having to pull a salvage jobbie when things start going ***s up, and just making the best of a bad situation. Not to say that this is an EON exclusive problem, theres many instances in hollywood these days of compromised productions, or things falling apart before they even get off the ground (see star wars). But its certainly very frustrating to see a company that used to be at the top of its game, spitting out gold every few years and not letting anything slow them down or kill their momentum suddenly slow to a perpetual crawl. And when a new film is released, it's always a salvage Job where just just had to make things work at a pinch. And who knows how long the next film could take now? If the strikes go ahead, as it seems likely they will, that could completely wipe out the rest of 2023, and then they probably take a year or so to cast bond, a year on the script a year on production and 3 - 6 months on post production until release date (that's if nothing else goes wrong in the meantime). I kinda hope there IS some internal shakeup happening, as if the current regime maintains itself we could only see 3 - 4 bond films over the next 2 decades. How is a franchise supposed to maintain its popularity and prescience in the public conscience, as well as win over a whole new generation who have never even heard of Bond, if they can't even manage 3 films per decade? In many ways I was one of the lucky ones, growing up in the 90's/early 00's we had the bond movie marathons on ITV in the UK every Sunday evening, that's how I fell in love with Rogers bond and the gadgets and the hidden lairs and big fight scene extravaganzas and all those aspects that appeal to the imagination of a young boy. But the same young kid today doesn't watch ITV on a sunday, he is on his phone or on his computer watching minecraft youtubers or fornite twitch streamers. How is bond supposed to stay relevant, and not just become a franchise for the 40 plus crowd, which seems to be the case based on the last entries. I can only see the franchise slowly going to pasture if things continue the way they are, we need some fresh blood from somewhere, because it's only when the franchise is running strong that there is overall enthusiasm and engagement that creates new fans. Think what you want about about Bond 25, but it wasn't a film to create new fans, it might be the ending you wanted and hit the all the right notes if you've been a fan of the Craig films from the beginning, but it didn't ignite a new passion for the franchise like, say TSWLM or Goldeneye, or even Casino Royale did. Poignant for the older crowd, but not hopeful for younger fans who Want something to get excited about EON needs to wake up and find some energy and inspiration or I can quickly see the day coming where james bond will not return...

    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.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,032
    CrabKey wrote: »
    It’s always hilarious, HILARIOUS, to me when fans whine about not enough Bond films being made when we live in a world where 25 Bond films exist. :))

    When did expressing an opinion become whining?

    @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)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,236
    In the first 15 years of the franchise (1962 - 1977) we got 10 films. In the last 15 years of the franchise (2008 - 2023) we got 4 films. That's not even 50% of the output over the same span of time. I understand the films taking longer because they're much bigger productions, but it seems like after each new film gets released they take at least a year off before they even think about picking up the phone and hiring writers to start penning the next one. Think about it, if they had been quick out the blocks on Bond 25 it's highly probable they could have finished and released the film in 2019, before the pandemic shut them down for 2 years and cost them millions in advertising and shelving a finished product. Then, if they had been quick to get to work the script for Bond 26, they could gotten the film shot and completed in time for the sixtieth anniversary in late 2022. Then, if they had been quick again, they would have around 5 months to at least have a first draft or an outline prepared for Bond 27, so that, at minimum if their IS a strike looming in a month's time, they would have something to go on and start making preparations. They can't write, but if they know which locations to look for they can at least scout and brainstorm things on their own. So really a lot of the lost time has nothing to do with mammoth productions taking longer, it has to do with EON not being prepared and not being willing to make things happen, always waiting as long as possible to start the process and then panicking midway through production when things aren't going well. We all saw the Sony leaks, we know how SP was a salvage job, how they were flying by the seat of their pants and the people at Sony were frantically trying to work out why their wasn't a more climatic finale than bond firing his ppk at a helicopter. It reminds me of when your at school and you have a assignment except you don't start it until the day before it's due, so you just start typing anything to get some words down on paper. You know what your writing isn't very good, you know you can do better, but the sheer constraints of time mean that you can't question what your writing, you just have to go with it. That's basically the pattern has been in since Skyfall. Taking way to long to get going, not being prepared thinking things will just fall into place, and then having to pull a salvage jobbie when things start going ***s up, and just making the best of a bad situation. Not to say that this is an EON exclusive problem, theres many instances in hollywood these days of compromised productions, or things falling apart before they even get off the ground (see star wars). But its certainly very frustrating to see a company that used to be at the top of its game, spitting out gold every few years and not letting anything slow them down or kill their momentum suddenly slow to a perpetual crawl. And when a new film is released, it's always a salvage Job where just just had to make things work at a pinch. And who knows how long the next film could take now? If the strikes go ahead, as it seems likely they will, that could completely wipe out the rest of 2023, and then they probably take a year or so to cast bond, a year on the script a year on production and 3 - 6 months on post production until release date (that's if nothing else goes wrong in the meantime). I kinda hope there IS some internal shakeup happening, as if the current regime maintains itself we could only see 3 - 4 bond films over the next 2 decades. How is a franchise supposed to maintain its popularity and prescience in the public conscience, as well as win over a whole new generation who have never even heard of Bond, if they can't even manage 3 films per decade? In many ways I was one of the lucky ones, growing up in the 90's/early 00's we had the bond movie marathons on ITV in the UK every Sunday evening, that's how I fell in love with Rogers bond and the gadgets and the hidden lairs and big fight scene extravaganzas and all those aspects that appeal to the imagination of a young boy. But the same young kid today doesn't watch ITV on a sunday, he is on his phone or on his computer watching minecraft youtubers or fornite twitch streamers. How is bond supposed to stay relevant, and not just become a franchise for the 40 plus crowd, which seems to be the case based on the last entries. I can only see the franchise slowly going to pasture if things continue the way they are, we need some fresh blood from somewhere, because it's only when the franchise is running strong that there is overall enthusiasm and engagement that creates new fans. Think what you want about about Bond 25, but it wasn't a film to create new fans, it might be the ending you wanted and hit the all the right notes if you've been a fan of the Craig films from the beginning, but it didn't ignite a new passion for the franchise like, say TSWLM or Goldeneye, or even Casino Royale did. Poignant for the older crowd, but not hopeful for younger fans who Want something to get excited about EON needs to wake up and find some energy and inspiration or I can quickly see the day coming where james bond will not return...

    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.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,090
    You’re asking Eon to work in a manner as if the circumstances are no different from the 60s. That’s just not true.

    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.
  • Posts: 12,346
    Personally, I feel like 3-year gaps are the sweet spot of being not too soon or long for the next adventure.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,032
    Films aren’t made that way anymore. It’s not sustainable.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,236
    You’re asking Eon to work in a manner as if the circumstances are no different from the 60s. That’s just not true.

    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.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,236
    peter wrote: »
    Films aren’t made that way anymore. It’s not sustainable.

    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.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,090
    You’re asking Eon to work in a manner as if the circumstances are no different from the 60s. That’s just not true.

    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.

    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.

    Why the rush? Just because they used to do it or because you’re entitled?
    peter wrote: »
    Films aren’t made that way anymore. It’s not sustainable.

    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.

    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.

    Cubby has been dead for nearly 30 years. This isn’t his show anymore.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2023 Posts: 9,032
    peter wrote: »
    Films aren’t made that way anymore. It’s not sustainable.

    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.

    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.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2023 Posts: 6,109
    In the first 15 years of the franchise (1962 - 1977) we got 10 films. In the last 15 years of the franchise (2008 - 2023) we got 4 films. That's not even 50% of the output over the same span of time. I understand the films taking longer because they're much bigger productions, but it seems like after each new film gets released they take at least a year off before they even think about picking up the phone and hiring writers to start penning the next one. Think about it, if they had been quick out the blocks on Bond 25 it's highly probable they could have finished and released the film in 2019, before the pandemic shut them down for 2 years and cost them millions in advertising and shelving a finished product. Then, if they had been quick to get to work the script for Bond 26, they could gotten the film shot and completed in time for the sixtieth anniversary in late 2022. Then, if they had been quick again, they would have around 5 months to at least have a first draft or an outline prepared for Bond 27, so that, at minimum if their IS a strike looming in a month's time, they would have something to go on and start making preparations. They can't write, but if they know which locations to look for they can at least scout and brainstorm things on their own. So really a lot of the lost time has nothing to do with mammoth productions taking longer, it has to do with EON not being prepared and not being willing to make things happen, always waiting as long as possible to start the process and then panicking midway through production when things aren't going well. We all saw the Sony leaks, we know how SP was a salvage job, how they were flying by the seat of their pants and the people at Sony were frantically trying to work out why their wasn't a more climatic finale than bond firing his ppk at a helicopter. It reminds me of when your at school and you have a assignment except you don't start it until the day before it's due, so you just start typing anything to get some words down on paper. You know what your writing isn't very good, you know you can do better, but the sheer constraints of time mean that you can't question what your writing, you just have to go with it. That's basically the pattern has been in since Skyfall. Taking way to long to get going, not being prepared thinking things will just fall into place, and then having to pull a salvage jobbie when things start going ***s up, and just making the best of a bad situation. Not to say that this is an EON exclusive problem, theres many instances in hollywood these days of compromised productions, or things falling apart before they even get off the ground (see star wars). But its certainly very frustrating to see a company that used to be at the top of its game, spitting out gold every few years and not letting anything slow them down or kill their momentum suddenly slow to a perpetual crawl. And when a new film is released, it's always a salvage Job where just just had to make things work at a pinch. And who knows how long the next film could take now? If the strikes go ahead, as it seems likely they will, that could completely wipe out the rest of 2023, and then they probably take a year or so to cast bond, a year on the script a year on production and 3 - 6 months on post production until release date (that's if nothing else goes wrong in the meantime). I kinda hope there IS some internal shakeup happening, as if the current regime maintains itself we could only see 3 - 4 bond films over the next 2 decades. How is a franchise supposed to maintain its popularity and prescience in the public conscience, as well as win over a whole new generation who have never even heard of Bond, if they can't even manage 3 films per decade? In many ways I was one of the lucky ones, growing up in the 90's/early 00's we had the bond movie marathons on ITV in the UK every Sunday evening, that's how I fell in love with Rogers bond and the gadgets and the hidden lairs and big fight scene extravaganzas and all those aspects that appeal to the imagination of a young boy. But the same young kid today doesn't watch ITV on a sunday, he is on his phone or on his computer watching minecraft youtubers or fornite twitch streamers. How is bond supposed to stay relevant, and not just become a franchise for the 40 plus crowd, which seems to be the case based on the last entries. I can only see the franchise slowly going to pasture if things continue the way they are, we need some fresh blood from somewhere, because it's only when the franchise is running strong that there is overall enthusiasm and engagement that creates new fans. Think what you want about about Bond 25, but it wasn't a film to create new fans, it might be the ending you wanted and hit the all the right notes if you've been a fan of the Craig films from the beginning, but it didn't ignite a new passion for the franchise like, say TSWLM or Goldeneye, or even Casino Royale did. Poignant for the older crowd, but not hopeful for younger fans who Want something to get excited about EON needs to wake up and find some energy and inspiration or I can quickly see the day coming where james bond will not return...

    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.
  • Posts: 12,346
    Speaking as someone else who loves to write fiction, I know I need breaks sometimes, and sometimes long ones at that with no writing. I come back readier and stronger for having that time off. This is especially applicable if it’s concerning the same universe + characters for a very long time. I’d rather have 3-5 year gaps between films if it means higher quality, especially instead of literally every year where it would assuredly grow tiring fast. Star Wars has suffered for it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,236
    peter wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Films aren’t made that way anymore. It’s not sustainable.

    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.

    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.

    Films aren’t made this way anymore.

    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.l 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.

    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.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,090
    .
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Personally, I feel like 3-year gaps are the sweet spot of being not too soon or long for the next adventure.

    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.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,032
    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.

    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”….
  • Posts: 1,706
    peter wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    It’s always hilarious, HILARIOUS, to me when fans whine about not enough Bond films being made when we live in a world where 25 Bond films exist. :))

    When did expressing an opinion become whining?

    @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)

    Dictators are able to impose their will on others. That is not going on here.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,090
    Barbara claims no script is written, but I think she’s really only saying that just to get the press off Eon’s backs. They ALWAYS had a script in development since 1962, even within those long gaps there were drafts. Dalton had two completely different drafts set for him between LTK and leaving the role. There was one for Brosnsn before Eon decided to change gears. There’s the Peter Morgan script that morphed into what would eventually become SF. And then there’s B25 that had two different sets of drafts.

    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.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,236
    echo wrote: »
    In the first 15 years of the franchise (1962 - 1977) we got 10 films. In the last 15 years of the franchise (2008 - 2023) we got 4 films. That's not even 50% of the output over the same span of time. I understand the films taking longer because they're much bigger productions, but it seems like after each new film gets released they take at least a year off before they even think about picking up the phone and hiring writers to start penning the next one. Think about it, if they had been quick out the blocks on Bond 25 it's highly probable they could have finished and released the film in 2019, before the pandemic shut them down for 2 years and cost them millions in advertising and shelving a finished product. Then, if they had been quick to get to work the script for Bond 26, they could gotten the film shot and completed in time for the sixtieth anniversary in late 2022. Then, if they had been quick again, they would have around 5 months to at least have a first draft or an outline prepared for Bond 27, so that, at minimum if their IS a strike looming in a month's time, they would have something to go on and start making preparations. They can't write, but if they know which locations to look for they can at least scout and brainstorm things on their own. So really a lot of the lost time has nothing to do with mammoth productions taking longer, it has to do with EON not being prepared and not being willing to make things happen, always waiting as long as possible to start the process and then panicking midway through production when things aren't going well. We all saw the Sony leaks, we know how SP was a salvage job, how they were flying by the seat of their pants and the people at Sony were frantically trying to work out why their wasn't a more climatic finale than bond firing his ppk at a helicopter. It reminds me of when your at school and you have a assignment except you don't start it until the day before it's due, so you just start typing anything to get some words down on paper. You know what your writing isn't very good, you know you can do better, but the sheer constraints of time mean that you can't question what your writing, you just have to go with it. That's basically the pattern has been in since Skyfall. Taking way to long to get going, not being prepared thinking things will just fall into place, and then having to pull a salvage jobbie when things start going ***s up, and just making the best of a bad situation. Not to say that this is an EON exclusive problem, theres many instances in hollywood these days of compromised productions, or things falling apart before they even get off the ground (see star wars). But its certainly very frustrating to see a company that used to be at the top of its game, spitting out gold every few years and not letting anything slow them down or kill their momentum suddenly slow to a perpetual crawl. And when a new film is released, it's always a salvage Job where just just had to make things work at a pinch. And who knows how long the next film could take now? If the strikes go ahead, as it seems likely they will, that could completely wipe out the rest of 2023, and then they probably take a year or so to cast bond, a year on the script a year on production and 3 - 6 months on post production until release date (that's if nothing else goes wrong in the meantime). I kinda hope there IS some internal shakeup happening, as if the current regime maintains itself we could only see 3 - 4 bond films over the next 2 decades. How is a franchise supposed to maintain its popularity and prescience in the public conscience, as well as win over a whole new generation who have never even heard of Bond, if they can't even manage 3 films per decade? In many ways I was one of the lucky ones, growing up in the 90's/early 00's we had the bond movie marathons on ITV in the UK every Sunday evening, that's how I fell in love with Rogers bond and the gadgets and the hidden lairs and big fight scene extravaganzas and all those aspects that appeal to the imagination of a young boy. But the same young kid today doesn't watch ITV on a sunday, he is on his phone or on his computer watching minecraft youtubers or fornite twitch streamers. How is bond supposed to stay relevant, and not just become a franchise for the 40 plus crowd, which seems to be the case based on the last entries. I can only see the franchise slowly going to pasture if things continue the way they are, we need some fresh blood from somewhere, because it's only when the franchise is running strong that there is overall enthusiasm and engagement that creates new fans. Think what you want about about Bond 25, but it wasn't a film to create new fans, it might be the ending you wanted and hit the all the right notes if you've been a fan of the Craig films from the beginning, but it didn't ignite a new passion for the franchise like, say TSWLM or Goldeneye, or even Casino Royale did. Poignant for the older crowd, but not hopeful for younger fans who Want something to get excited about EON needs to wake up and find some energy and inspiration or I can quickly see the day coming where james bond will not return...

    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.

    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?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,090
    echo wrote: »
    In the first 15 years of the franchise (1962 - 1977) we got 10 films. In the last 15 years of the franchise (2008 - 2023) we got 4 films. That's not even 50% of the output over the same span of time. I understand the films taking longer because they're much bigger productions, but it seems like after each new film gets released they take at least a year off before they even think about picking up the phone and hiring writers to start penning the next one. Think about it, if they had been quick out the blocks on Bond 25 it's highly probable they could have finished and released the film in 2019, before the pandemic shut them down for 2 years and cost them millions in advertising and shelving a finished product. Then, if they had been quick to get to work the script for Bond 26, they could gotten the film shot and completed in time for the sixtieth anniversary in late 2022. Then, if they had been quick again, they would have around 5 months to at least have a first draft or an outline prepared for Bond 27, so that, at minimum if their IS a strike looming in a month's time, they would have something to go on and start making preparations. They can't write, but if they know which locations to look for they can at least scout and brainstorm things on their own. So really a lot of the lost time has nothing to do with mammoth productions taking longer, it has to do with EON not being prepared and not being willing to make things happen, always waiting as long as possible to start the process and then panicking midway through production when things aren't going well. We all saw the Sony leaks, we know how SP was a salvage job, how they were flying by the seat of their pants and the people at Sony were frantically trying to work out why their wasn't a more climatic finale than bond firing his ppk at a helicopter. It reminds me of when your at school and you have a assignment except you don't start it until the day before it's due, so you just start typing anything to get some words down on paper. You know what your writing isn't very good, you know you can do better, but the sheer constraints of time mean that you can't question what your writing, you just have to go with it. That's basically the pattern has been in since Skyfall. Taking way to long to get going, not being prepared thinking things will just fall into place, and then having to pull a salvage jobbie when things start going ***s up, and just making the best of a bad situation. Not to say that this is an EON exclusive problem, theres many instances in hollywood these days of compromised productions, or things falling apart before they even get off the ground (see star wars). But its certainly very frustrating to see a company that used to be at the top of its game, spitting out gold every few years and not letting anything slow them down or kill their momentum suddenly slow to a perpetual crawl. And when a new film is released, it's always a salvage Job where just just had to make things work at a pinch. And who knows how long the next film could take now? If the strikes go ahead, as it seems likely they will, that could completely wipe out the rest of 2023, and then they probably take a year or so to cast bond, a year on the script a year on production and 3 - 6 months on post production until release date (that's if nothing else goes wrong in the meantime). I kinda hope there IS some internal shakeup happening, as if the current regime maintains itself we could only see 3 - 4 bond films over the next 2 decades. How is a franchise supposed to maintain its popularity and prescience in the public conscience, as well as win over a whole new generation who have never even heard of Bond, if they can't even manage 3 films per decade? In many ways I was one of the lucky ones, growing up in the 90's/early 00's we had the bond movie marathons on ITV in the UK every Sunday evening, that's how I fell in love with Rogers bond and the gadgets and the hidden lairs and big fight scene extravaganzas and all those aspects that appeal to the imagination of a young boy. But the same young kid today doesn't watch ITV on a sunday, he is on his phone or on his computer watching minecraft youtubers or fornite twitch streamers. How is bond supposed to stay relevant, and not just become a franchise for the 40 plus crowd, which seems to be the case based on the last entries. I can only see the franchise slowly going to pasture if things continue the way they are, we need some fresh blood from somewhere, because it's only when the franchise is running strong that there is overall enthusiasm and engagement that creates new fans. Think what you want about about Bond 25, but it wasn't a film to create new fans, it might be the ending you wanted and hit the all the right notes if you've been a fan of the Craig films from the beginning, but it didn't ignite a new passion for the franchise like, say TSWLM or Goldeneye, or even Casino Royale did. Poignant for the older crowd, but not hopeful for younger fans who Want something to get excited about EON needs to wake up and find some energy and inspiration or I can quickly see the day coming where james bond will not return...

    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.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 2023 Posts: 6,109
    I'm sure Eon's thinking about what generally to do, what they might have done differently with Craig's scripts if they had had more time, the reintroduction of Spectre, what Fleming is left (e.g. is it time for Gala Brand and the bridge game?), etc.

    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.
  • Posts: 12,346
    .
    FoxRox wrote: »
    Personally, I feel like 3-year gaps are the sweet spot of being not too soon or long for the next adventure.

    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 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.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 828
    It’s a vicious circle, though - the longer the film development takes, the greater the expectation.
Sign In or Register to comment.