Where does Bond go after Craig?

1247248250252253590

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2023 Posts: 9,102
    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.

    @Mendes4Lyfe … you are very aware that two films in a decade was based on factors out of their hands.

    And you bring up Spectre: that was a film that they were rushing the development on to release on the date they booked. This was a film that, as you’re rightly insinuating, was in trouble at the script stage.

    You are correct.

    But instead of shelving it and kissing it goodbye, and saying adios to the release date, they plowed ahead giving fans like you what you wanted: a film out in cinemas, as quickly on the heels of Skyfall as possible.

    So your perspective of having them hop to it and get films out fast, quite rightly collapses under your own criticism of Spectre.

    Ideally, they should have shelved Bond 24 and gone back to the drawing board; they should have got the script right, and then gone into production. But that would likely mean a delay of 18-24 months…

    So Mendes, what would you prefer: releasing a Bond film every three years and get something undercooked— but at least it’s out in cinemas in your acceptable time frame? Or;

    Take the time needed to release the best film that they have conjured over at HQ?

    What would you choose? The choice isn’t about what type of story it would be in this situation (as not all
    Bond films will hit your fancy), but logistically speaking about developing and releasing a massive tent-pole: get it out every three years (and risk a Spectre?), or; take the time needed to give a CR, SF, even a GE?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,241
    peter wrote: »
    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.

    @Mendes4Lyfe … you are very aware that two films in a decade was based on factors out of their hands.

    And you bring up Spectre: that was a film that they were rushing the development on to release on the date they booked. This was a film that, as you’re rightly insinuating, was in trouble at the script stage.

    You are correct.

    But instead of shelving it and kissing it goodbye, and saying adios to the release date, they plowed ahead giving fans like you what you wanted: a film out in cinemas, as quickly on the heels of Skyfall as possible.

    So your perspective of having them hop to it and get films out fast, quite rightly collapses under your own criticism of Spectre.

    Ideally, they should have shelved Bond 24 and gone back to the drawing board; they should have got the script right, and then gone into production. But that would likely mean a delay of 18-24 months…

    So Mendes, what would you prefer: releasing a Bond film every three years and get something undercooked— but at least it’s out in cinemas in your acceptable time frame? Or;

    Take the time needed to release the best film that they have conjured over at HQ?

    What would you choose? The choice isn’t about what type of story it would be in this situation (as not all
    Bond films will hit your fancy), but logistically speaking about developing and releasing a messenger tent-pole: get it out every three years (and risk a Spectre?), or; take the time needed to give a CR, SF, even a GE?

    Well, from my perspective Bond 25 is just as undercooked as SP and they definitely took their time on development with that one, so I guess I choose the former. I don't think releasing films further apart from eachother has any impact on the quality. You can have a stinker whether you take 2, 3, 4, or 5 years per production. If anything the quality of film has declined since they started taking longer breaks. I never appreciated the middle brosnan films as much as a have in the post 2015 era. Those movies are simple, unpretentious and bags of fun compared to the stale, meandering pace of the later Craig films.
  • Nolan would be a magnificent Bond director. Just need to get the casting right. someone of the acting calibre of Craig would be perfect. Forget the pretty boy wooden actors out there.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    But @Mendes4Lyfe , I’m not talking about your personal tastes in a film.

    Should EoN take the time they need to develop a script? Or;

    Even if the story is in trouble (like Spectre), should they still release anyway— to hit their three year release mandate?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,241
    peter wrote: »
    But @Mendes4Lyfe , I’m not talking about your personal tastes in a film.

    Should EoN take the time they need to develop a script? Or;

    Even if the story is in trouble (like Spectre), should they still release anyway— to hit their three year release mandate?

    Oh, okay. In that case, yes they should absolutely take the extra time. But by then they're already deep into the process, I just think they should start the ball rolling quicker to begin with, so that further delays aren't as catastrophic.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    But by then they're already deep into the process

    They’re still in development when the script is being written, so they’re not deep in the process, but the process of developing a modern blockbuster script takes time.

    If they had a massive team like DC or Disney and Marvel and had teams of writers developing scripts from an archive of stories, I’d be in full agreement with you @Mendes4Lyfe …. I would expect awesome Bond films released in three year cycles.

    But they don’t have a factory like that. In terms of size they’re an independent company making tentpole films based on one character (whose original stories were last written in the 60s).

    Until Amazon bankrolls the personnel to do this, EoN is on their own, developing stories with a small team of creatives. And to see them competing as they do in the crowded market made up of Goliaths, they’re doing a damn fine job and the worldwide box office shows that.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,115
    Also, Bond tends to launch unknown actors into the stratosphere, so they become really popular, the schedules get crowded because the new Bond is in high demand elsewhere (not to mention the schedules of the co-stars, writers, directors, editors at the new Bond's level). BB and MGW tend to be respectful of actors' outside projects, and fees, in a way that perhaps Cubby and Harry were not. Then again, that's why their rift with Connery came about.

    The studio system was already dying by the late '60s, and stars were rising in power and negotiating films on a per picture basis. Eon can't go back to that kind of control and release schedule. It's pure fantasy.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited March 2023 Posts: 8,241
    echo wrote: »
    Also, Bond tends to launch unknown actors into the stratosphere, so they become really popular, the schedules get crowded because the new Bond is in high demand elsewhere (not to mention the schedules of the co-stars, writers, directors, editors at the new Bond's level). BB and MGW tend to be respectful of actors' outside projects, and fees, in a way that perhaps Cubby and Harry were not. Then again, that's why their rift with Connery came about.

    The studio system was already dying by the late '60s, and stars were rising in power and negotiating films on a per picture basis. Eon can't go back to that kind of control and release schedule. It's pure fantasy.

    Every 3 years should be the goal. I think that's very attainable.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    And that’s why @Mendes4Lyfe is a producer for an independent film company, producing blockbuster tent poles.
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    echo wrote: »
    Also, Bond tends to launch unknown actors into the stratosphere, so they become really popular, the schedules get crowded because the new Bond is in high demand elsewhere (not to mention the schedules of the co-stars, writers, directors, editors at the new Bond's level). BB and MGW tend to be respectful of actors' outside projects, and fees, in a way that perhaps Cubby and Harry were not. Then again, that's why their rift with Connery came about.

    The studio system was already dying by the late '60s, and stars were rising in power and negotiating films on a per picture basis. Eon can't go back to that kind of control and release schedule. It's pure fantasy.

    Every 3 years should be the goal. I think that's very attainable.
    These massive periods between films- I'm not getting any younger.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,853
    echo wrote: »
    Also, Bond tends to launch unknown actors into the stratosphere, so they become really popular, the schedules get crowded because the new Bond is in high demand elsewhere (not to mention the schedules of the co-stars, writers, directors, editors at the new Bond's level). BB and MGW tend to be respectful of actors' outside projects, and fees, in a way that perhaps Cubby and Harry were not. Then again, that's why their rift with Connery came about.

    The studio system was already dying by the late '60s, and stars were rising in power and negotiating films on a per picture basis. Eon can't go back to that kind of control and release schedule. It's pure fantasy.

    Every 3 years should be the goal. I think that's very attainable.

    I wouldn't mind getting another film every 2 or 3 years, that's for sure, provided that quality still matters more than quantity. There are times when I wish that the Brosnans post-GE had spent just a little bit more time developing the next entry.
  • Posts: 12,837
    echo wrote: »
    Also, Bond tends to launch unknown actors into the stratosphere, so they become really popular, the schedules get crowded because the new Bond is in high demand elsewhere (not to mention the schedules of the co-stars, writers, directors, editors at the new Bond's level). BB and MGW tend to be respectful of actors' outside projects, and fees, in a way that perhaps Cubby and Harry were not. Then again, that's why their rift with Connery came about.

    The studio system was already dying by the late '60s, and stars were rising in power and negotiating films on a per picture basis. Eon can't go back to that kind of control and release schedule. It's pure fantasy.

    Every 3 years should be the goal. I think that's very attainable.
    These massive periods between films- I'm not getting any younger.

    I get where you’re coming from but funnily enough it was kind of the opposite for me. When I was younger I’d get annoyed at the longer gaps, maybe because I’d gotten used to them coming every couple of years in the 90s. But as I get older the time seems to fly by a lot quicker, and I’ve seen other blockbuster series get churned out so often that I’m glad Bond still feels like an event. A Bond film three years would be nice, but I’d take four or five over a Marvel/DC approach for sure. Ten years ago, I was so into the Christian Bale Batman films that I was buying the video games and thinking about getting into the comics. Now I can’t be bothered with the superhero films at all. Don’t think I’d get sick of Bond in that way because of the attachment I have to it, but still, I like it feeling like a big deal.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited March 2023 Posts: 834
    Just out of interest, what was the last new Bond film you didn’t see at the cinema?

    And would really bad reviews and word of mouth or bad casting for Bond himself keep you from going to see the next Bond film?

    The last Bond film I didn’t see at the cinema was Octopussy, but I seriously considered missing No Time to Die because I had hated Spectre, I felt killing off Bond was a cheap move and didn’t like the idea of rebooting continuity again.

    I wouldn’t skip the next film for a casting decision I didn’t like, but I would skip it if word of mouth was bad and I didn’t like the actor cast.
  • Posts: 1,048
    I skipped No Time to Die. First time since Live and Let Die.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,853
    I skipped No Time to Die. First time since Live and Let Die.

    But you have seen the film by now?
  • Posts: 12,837
    Just out of interest, what was the last new Bond film you didn’t see at the cinema?

    And would really bad reviews and word of mouth or bad casting for Bond himself keep you from going to see the next Bond film?

    The last Bond film I didn’t see at the cinema was Octopussy, but I seriously considered missing No Time to Die because I had hated Spectre, I felt killing off Bond was a cheap move and didn’t like the idea of rebooting continuity again.

    I wouldn’t skip the next film for a casting decision I didn’t like, but I would skip it if word of mouth was bad and I didn’t like the actor cast.

    Licence to Kill. I was too young, apparently. Still haven’t really forgiven them for that one :)) To be honest I’m not sure if there’s anything that’d make me willingly skip a new Bond film. Even if they did something really mental like casting a woman, as much as I hate the idea, I’d still probably be too curious about it to not see it at the cinema.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    I'm with you @thelivingroyale ... The film would have to be so outlandish, but even then, I'd be too curious not to check it out.
  • Posts: 1,009
    Just out of interest, what was the last new Bond film you didn’t see at the cinema?

    Since my first time going to see Bond at the cinema - TND - decided to skip NTTD because I spoiled myself the ending and decided it was too sad: I go to the cinema to feel some quantum of solace, not to be even more depressed than usual.

    That said, there's a thing that's been hovering over my head and I must spit it out. Let me put on a silver paper hat: For some reason, I think that Daniel Craig can possibly be Michael G. Wilson's successor at EON. Now, I'll toss the hat apart and ask: Does this idea make any freaking sense?!
  • Posts: 1,048
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I skipped No Time to Die. First time since Live and Let Die.

    But you have seen the film by now?

    Oh yes, quite a few times. I've got it on a USB stick thing.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,489
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    I skipped No Time to Die. First time since Live and Let Die.

    But you have seen the film by now?

    Oh yes, quite a few times. I've got it on a USB stick thing.

    Watched it via torrent.....
  • Posts: 1,048
    I usually make quite an event of a new Bond film, and in March 2020 I had hotel tickets booked and cinema tickets for the first day, then lockdown happened. Then, when I found out about EON and Craig's 'brave creative decisions' I was glad I didn't see it at the flicks.
    I'm looking forward to the next one.
  • Posts: 3,294
    peter wrote: »
    But @Mendes4Lyfe , I’m not talking about your personal tastes in a film.

    Should EoN take the time they need to develop a script? Or;

    Even if the story is in trouble (like Spectre), should they still release anyway— to hit their three year release mandate?

    I understand the film production process takes longer these days, but writing a script? Come on, EON have had a few years since NTTD was in post to start developing ideas for the next Bond script.

    I cannot believe all EON have right now is a blank sheet of paper with no story ideas for the next one, or even a half finished script in development, and they've happily been in this position for a couple of years, with no urgency to start writing the next one.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    @jetsetwilly … It’s a 60 year franchise. No other film series can boast this. Most have died out, or like Indy Jones, take longgggg pauses to figure out where they’re taking their IP.

    Let EoN figure this out so they can blast back on the scene like they did with GE and CR.

    There’s a process and as I, and @ColonelSun can attest, writing scripts isn’t as easy as , oh I’ve got a grand idea. When you place yourself with a producer, it gets a little more complex. There’s a process to modern blockbuster tent-pole creations.

    And I don’t believe EoN’s been sitting there with a thumb up their rear. I just think they’re pushing through the creative waters to give us an explosive reintroduction. If it was easy, all we Bond fans would be making gazillions off our own Bond-type creations. But we aren’t.

    EoN literally is unique in that it is the size of an independent film production company, but unlike other indies they’re competing in the world of multi million dollar popcorn flicks. It’s a wonder they’re not only surviving but thriving in this marketplace (like seriously, I’d challenge any independent production company to compete in the blockbuster sandbox. I guarantee they couldn’t compete and would be dead within five years).
  • Posts: 1,713
    peter wrote: »
    There’s a process and as I, and @ColonelSun can attest, writing scripts isn’t as easy as , oh I’ve got a grand idea. .

    Are you and @ColonelSun professional script writers?

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited March 2023 Posts: 9,102
    @CrabKey yes we are.

    @ColonelSun was actually on the post team that worked on EoN’s Licence to Kill.

    I’m working on the film adaptation of BA Paris’s The Therapist with Elizabeth Fowler as my producer.
  • Posts: 17,511
    peter wrote: »
    I’m working on the film adaptation of BA Paris’s The Therapist with Elizabeth Fowler as my producer.

    I got that book on my reading list, @peter! Will make sure to read it in time for the film release.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,102
    @Torgeirtrap it’s an excellent book and we are hoping to be in front of cameras by summer or fall!
  • Posts: 1,713
    peter wrote: »
    @CrabKey yes we are.

    @ColonelSun was actually on the post team that worked on EoN’s Licence to Kill.

    I’m working on the film adaptation of BA Paris’s The Therapist with Elizabeth Fowler as my producer.

    Thank you. Always appreciative of informed opinion.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,515
    peter wrote: »
    But @Mendes4Lyfe , I’m not talking about your personal tastes in a film.

    Should EoN take the time they need to develop a script? Or;

    Even if the story is in trouble (like Spectre), should they still release anyway— to hit their three year release mandate?

    I understand the film production process takes longer these days, but writing a script? Come on, EON have had a few years since NTTD was in post to start developing ideas for the next Bond script.

    I cannot believe all EON have right now is a blank sheet of paper with no story ideas for the next one, or even a half finished script in development, and they've happily been in this position for a couple of years, with no urgency to start writing the next one.

    MGW always says when starting the next Bond film they look at what the next big global threat is. Going by that, since NTTD was released the world has changed enormously. Whatever they thought the biggest threat was, would have been scrapped partially if not entirely when Russia re-booted it's invasion of Ukraine and geo-political alliances changed over night, and if they really have their finger on the pulse, the sudden and astronomical rise of A.I. would definitely be something they're watching with interest.

    Going by that, it's quite possible they'd have re-started the script three times by now.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,102
    The last Bond film I didn’t see in theaters was TWINE, but since DAD was my first ever Bond screening, I’m not sure that counts?

    Nothing could make me not want to see a Bond film in theaters.
Sign In or Register to comment.