Where does Bond go after Craig?

1424425427429430523

Comments

  • Posts: 1,704
    peter wrote: »
    I don't think there needs to be these major changes over at EoN HQ... If we can just take a step out of our collective fandom and look at the big picture:

    Barbara Broccoli and MGW have basically run the ship for almost thirty years. And in that time, they not only relaunched two different Bond eras, but they relaunched one of them when the popular belief was that James Bond was no longer relevant.

    In these thirty years, and two different eras, they made films that were not only hugely, wildly, successful at the box office, but they were able to pull in millions of brand new fans.

    And in these thirty years, we've witnessed the death of many film franchises-- all of them in their infancy, compared to 007.

    No, no big changes need to happen at EoN. They will find the man and the stories they want to tell. It'll happen soon enough.

    But seriously, take a step out of our little tunnel-vision here and look at what they've done over the last 30 years. And look at all the franchises we've seen come and go.

    Were there mistakes on the way? Of course, but Saltzman and Broccoli also made mistakes. All ventures make mistakes! But the successful ones accumulate far more wins than losses, and build on their positive achievements.

    EoN, and those in charge, are just fine. When changes are needed they'll make their shifts and pivots... When they find the right perspective for the new era, it'll likely follow the same pattern of the past 30 (and 60) years: more success...

    On this one I'll say we agree to disagree.

    From a fan's POV I'm interested in the authenticity of Bond over box office success. Perhaps the character of Bond is able to transcend the mistakes made by Eon over the past 60 years which is why it has lasted so long. I'd just like to minimize the mistakes.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I don't think there needs to be these major changes over at EoN HQ... If we can just take a step out of our collective fandom and look at the big picture:

    Barbara Broccoli and MGW have basically run the ship for almost thirty years. And in that time, they not only relaunched two different Bond eras, but they relaunched one of them when the popular belief was that James Bond was no longer relevant.

    In these thirty years, and two different eras, they made films that were not only hugely, wildly, successful at the box office, but they were able to pull in millions of brand new fans.

    And in these thirty years, we've witnessed the death of many film franchises-- all of them in their infancy, compared to 007.

    No, no big changes need to happen at EoN. They will find the man and the stories they want to tell. It'll happen soon enough.

    But seriously, take a step out of our little tunnel-vision here and look at what they've done over the last 30 years. And look at all the franchises we've seen come and go.

    Were there mistakes on the way? Of course, but Saltzman and Broccoli also made mistakes. All ventures make mistakes! But the successful ones accumulate far more wins than losses, and build on their positive achievements.

    EoN, and those in charge, are just fine. When changes are needed they'll make their shifts and pivots... When they find the right perspective for the new era, it'll likely follow the same pattern of the past 30 (and 60) years: more success...

    On this one I'll say we agree to disagree.

    From a fan's POV I'm interested in the authenticity of Bond over box office success. Perhaps the character of Bond is able to transcend the mistakes made by Eon over the past 60 years which is why it has lasted so long. I'd just like to minimize the mistakes.

    I don't know if Bond films have ever been inauthentic, though? That no matter the year, or the star, they made the best attempts at putting out the best Bond adventure they could at that time. And as you know, as someone who works in the industry, no one ever sets out to make a poor film, and, no film can please all audiences...

    I do understand the importance each Bond fan feels for the character and the films, but if EoN tried to please us all, they'd end up pleasing none of us. They're in the business of collecting more fans to put butts in seats, and although I'm not happy with all of their choices, I do realize that, in the scheme of things, they're doing their best, and my feelings in the matter mean absolutely nothing at all.
  • Skyfall release was 10 years ago. We already need a fresher approach.
  • Posts: 6,675
    An effin decade ago?!? Bloody hell! Tempus fugit.
  • I don’t know if there needs to be a major shakeup at EON either. The only change that needs to be made is one of tone/style. I personally would rather we get something entirely different from Craig, and even Brosnan.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,949
    Yes. I have tremendous respect for Barbara. She was, after all, in charge of the truck sequence of LTK. I'm sure she asked Cubby for his advice as well.

    Meanwhile, Gregg oversaw the plane/truck sequence for SP.

    Let's just say Gregg should continue to follow his aunt's lead, for now. She is more seasoned.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited December 2023 Posts: 8,471
    echo wrote: »
    Yes. I have tremendous respect for Barbara. She was, after all, in charge of the truck sequence of LTK. I'm sure she asked Cubby for his advice as well.

    Meanwhile, Gregg oversaw the plane/truck sequence for SP.

    Let's just say Gregg should continue to follow his aunt's lead, for now. She is more seasoned.

    Agreed @echo ... I'm a huge hockey fan, and I love hearing the stories of how how Mario Lemieux drafted Sid the Kid as an 18 year old.

    He insisted that Crosby live with he and his family during the hockey seasons (until he turned 21, but I think Sid actually lived with him for a few more years after)). Sid was now part of the family and had daily chores and babysat Lemieux 's younger kids when he and his wife went out to dinner.

    On the hockey front, Mario came out of retirement and then played for a few more years with Crosby, nurturing him all the way...

    And now, Crosby at 36, is still my favourite player, and the man I would choose to lead any of my fantasy teams. He is the consumate leader, yet incredibly humble (I've had the honour of meeting him several times), who has won all the Hardwear. It was because of Lemieux's nurturing and teaching that Crosby grew into this future-hall-of-famer.

    My long winded point is that Gregg has been getting more and more responsibility on each Bond film, he's being nurtured properly, and, when one, or both, of MGW and Barbara retires, he will be ready as he's been an engaged pupil under their tutelage.

    And @007ClassicBondFan, I have a feeling the last thing EoN want is to strike a tone that will remind audiences of Craig.

    In some ways, this new era will have to be tackled in a similar fashion to when Moore took over the role; they couldn't force a Connery-lite, so the new James Bond would have to stand on his own two feet, and pave his own way-- which LALD did brilliantly.

    I think the same basic philosophy applies to the new era.
  • I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…
  • Posts: 511
    peter wrote: »
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…

    A lot of people don't appreciate the difficulty in maintaining a steady (and frankly growing) audience after all these years.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…

    A lot of people don't appreciate the difficulty in maintaining a steady (and frankly growing) audience after all these years.

    I have to agree with you, @BMB007 ... And I have to admit, I just don't understand it. I really don't.
  • BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…

    A lot of people don't appreciate the difficulty in maintaining a steady (and frankly growing) audience after all these years.

    That, or a lot of people expect film producers to work at a rate similar to that of Kevin Fiege.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…

    A lot of people don't appreciate the difficulty in maintaining a steady (and frankly growing) audience after all these years.

    That, or a lot of people expect film producers to work at a rate similar to that of Kevin Fiege.

    And look at what has happened to him and his products over a decade. The MCU has collapsed under its own weight and the rate of quality couldn't be sustained -- and they're working from unlimited supplies of source materials!!!
  • peter wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…

    A lot of people don't appreciate the difficulty in maintaining a steady (and frankly growing) audience after all these years.

    That, or a lot of people expect film producers to work at a rate similar to that of Kevin Fiege.

    And look at what has happened to him and his products over a decade. The MCU has collapsed under its own weight and the rate of quality couldn't be sustained -- and they're working from unlimited supplies of source materials!!!

    Exactly. I’d also argue that Fiege is also constricted by Disney on so many fronts. BB and MGW have the advantage in that they don’t have to worry about maintaining a “family-friendly” image, and the Bond series as a whole has longevity; something the MCU doesn’t have currently, and at this rate, may not have in the future.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 14,917
    echo wrote: »
    Yes. I have tremendous respect for Barbara. She was, after all, in charge of the truck sequence of LTK. I'm sure she asked Cubby for his advice as well.

    Meanwhile, Gregg oversaw the plane/truck sequence for SP.

    Although I guess that’s not a 100% positive record as poor Terry Madden got career-ending injuries on that sequence.
    He also handled the TV show didn’t he?
  • Some of the comments in this thread make me think that some of you are first and foremost EON fans, instead of Bond fans.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,427
    peter wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I think it's time for BB and MGW to step aside. Fresh blood needed.

    Why?

    Look at what they’ve accomplished over two eras.

    They’ve grown the fan base over thirty years.

    In that same time span, beloved franchises were born, then burnt-out.

    But Bond keeps thriving.

    Why would you want these two to step aside? And I say this as one who wasn’t exactly the biggest fan of one of their two eras…

    A lot of people don't appreciate the difficulty in maintaining a steady (and frankly growing) audience after all these years.

    I have to agree with you, @BMB007 ... And I have to admit, I just don't understand it. I really don't.

    I find those that want MGW out to be reasonable when respectful. Anybody who doesn't want BB or the Wilson family attached to a Bond movie does NOT know what they are a fan of, however. Let's just put it that way.

    The producers have brought so much contemporary flavor and nuance to the franchise as individual creatives working together on a fun and often campy vision, guarding against the corporate boardrooms at the gates. Some want the board rooms in charge, and someone can't really take themselves seriously as a Bond fan if in that boat. I won't take them seriously.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,330
    Barbara and Michael don't need to go but having someone challenge their ideas and throw in some consideration that maybe some ideas they have aren't good would be a good thing.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited December 2023 Posts: 1,427
    That exists as the studio system the producers work within. I'm not saying producers keep Bond immune to trends and change and isolated, he did go to space, he did a drug war, he did go gritty and scaled down, all of these challenges to the traditional Bond system, but all under the guiding vision of a family of people with their own skin in the game, not salaried employees who are only chasing the bottom line.

    The bottom line chasers exist to check the creative freedom of the producers, and we should respect and I would think hope to keep that balance. Look back to the Sony email scandal to see what a studio-driven Bond movie would look like.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 1,704
    peter wrote: »
    delfloria wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    I don't think there needs to be these major changes over at EoN HQ... If we can just take a step out of our collective fandom and look at the big picture:

    Barbara Broccoli and MGW have basically run the ship for almost thirty years. And in that time, they not only relaunched two different Bond eras, but they relaunched one of them when the popular belief was that James Bond was no longer relevant.

    In these thirty years, and two different eras, they made films that were not only hugely, wildly, successful at the box office, but they were able to pull in millions of brand new fans.

    And in these thirty years, we've witnessed the death of many film franchises-- all of them in their infancy, compared to 007.

    No, no big changes need to happen at EoN. They will find the man and the stories they want to tell. It'll happen soon enough.

    But seriously, take a step out of our little tunnel-vision here and look at what they've done over the last 30 years. And look at all the franchises we've seen come and go.

    Were there mistakes on the way? Of course, but Saltzman and Broccoli also made mistakes. All ventures make mistakes! But the successful ones accumulate far more wins than losses, and build on their positive achievements.

    EoN, and those in charge, are just fine. When changes are needed they'll make their shifts and pivots... When they find the right perspective for the new era, it'll likely follow the same pattern of the past 30 (and 60) years: more success...

    On this one I'll say we agree to disagree.

    From a fan's POV I'm interested in the authenticity of Bond over box office success. Perhaps the character of Bond is able to transcend the mistakes made by Eon over the past 60 years which is why it has lasted so long. I'd just like to minimize the mistakes.

    I don't know if Bond films have ever been inauthentic, though? That no matter the year, or the star, they made the best attempts at putting out the best Bond adventure they could at that time. And as you know, as someone who works in the industry, no one ever sets out to make a poor film, and, no film can please all audiences...

    I do understand the importance each Bond fan feels for the character and the films, but if EoN tried to please us all, they'd end up pleasing none of us. They're in the business of collecting more fans to put butts in seats, and although I'm not happy with all of their choices, I do realize that, in the scheme of things, they're doing their best, and my feelings in the matter mean absolutely nothing at all.

    As hard as films are to make, there are times when producers need to make hard choices in order to capture the magic a series can offer. Barbara manged to do it with CR but since then something seems to be off. I just hope we don't get more of the same mistakes like the Brofeld disaster in the future.

    True, No one sets out to make a poor or bad film but sometimes the writing is on the wall {pun intended}. Having read the shooting scripts to DAF, LALD and MWTGG, there was no way the end result was going to get out from under just how badly structured they were. It was pretty obvious that they were going to end up with a poor piece of entertainment from the get go. I would image that you yourself have had to slog through scripts that within the first 10 pages you knew were headed for disaster.
  • Posts: 511
    Some of the comments in this thread make me think that some of you are first and foremost EON fans, instead of Bond fans.

    Look around the environment. Look at every other big, long-lasting Western film franchise. They are all controlled by a major corporation where the films are not films but are "products" in a content-pipeline. Everything is over-extended and over-exposed. There is no magic to any of it. There is no event.

    And look at what that has wrought. Bomb after bomb after bomb. The corporate interest doesn't care, though. They need gains this quarter and they don't care what the long-term cost is to the health of the property. They don't care about the medium, its history, its legacy, or pushing things forward.

    So yeah, I am a fan of a multi-billion film franchise that is effectively a family business and still cares about the long-term and not the short-term.

    Look at how Disney in just a few years made "Star Wars", the most iconic original film (meaning not adapted) series ever into a television property. I don't want that for Bond and I am thankful that they have stewards to ensure that never happens.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,073
    honestly it would make sense if they just took the paloma sequence from Bond 25 and made a more traditional mission based adventure based on that tone and around 2 hrs in length to introduce the character to a new generation and give older fans the bombastic larger than life bond back they've been missing, kinda like Goldeneye and TLD.
  • edited December 2023 Posts: 7,500
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Some of the comments in this thread make me think that some of you are first and foremost EON fans, instead of Bond fans.

    Look around the environment. Look at every other big, long-lasting Western film franchise. They are all controlled by a major corporation where the films are not films but are "products" in a content-pipeline. Everything is over-extended and over-exposed. There is no magic to any of it. There is no event.

    And look at what that has wrought. Bomb after bomb after bomb. The corporate interest doesn't care, though. They need gains this quarter and they don't care what the long-term cost is to the health of the property. They don't care about the medium, its history, its legacy, or pushing things forward.

    So yeah, I am a fan of a multi-billion film franchise that is effectively a family business and still cares about the long-term and not the short-term.

    Look at how Disney in just a few years made "Star Wars", the most iconic original film (meaning not adapted) series ever into a television property. I don't want that for Bond and I am thankful that they have stewards to ensure that never happens.

    This +1
  • BMB007 wrote: »
    Some of the comments in this thread make me think that some of you are first and foremost EON fans, instead of Bond fans.

    Look around the environment. Look at every other big, long-lasting Western film franchise. They are all controlled by a major corporation where the films are not films but are "products" in a content-pipeline. Everything is over-extended and over-exposed. There is no magic to any of it. There is no event.

    And look at what that has wrought. Bomb after bomb after bomb. The corporate interest doesn't care, though. They need gains this quarter and they don't care what the long-term cost is to the health of the property. They don't care about the medium, its history, its legacy, or pushing things forward.

    So yeah, I am a fan of a multi-billion film franchise that is effectively a family business and still cares about the long-term and not the short-term.

    Look at how Disney in just a few years made "Star Wars", the most iconic original film (meaning not adapted) series ever into a television property. I don't want that for Bond and I am thankful that they have stewards to ensure that never happens.

    Yeah well said. EON don’t have a perfect track record and the long gaps can be frustrating, but I don’t think fans really think about what the alternative would actually be like. The only people making blockbusters of Bond’s scale, with a similar commitment to practical effects and location shooting, are Cruise/Mcquarry and Christopher Nolan. And they, like EON, are exceptions to how most blockbusters are produced nowadays. Even the good ones, like Indy 5 for example, still feel very corporate to me and don’t have the sense of magic that Bond has somehow managed to cling onto for all these years.

    If BB and MGW sold to a big studio we’d be much more likely to get something like The Gray Man than Mission Impossible. And if you compare that film to say, Spectre, which is talked about like it’s one of the worst Bond films, then I think that shows how lucky we are.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    @delfloria , I have read through some bad scripts, and it's true that within the first few pages you do see a story falling off the rails, and Act I is the "easiest" part to writing a script (Act II is usually the place where many scripts come to die).

    But unlike you, I didn't feel anything "off" about the films after CR. I didn't think they were perfect films either, but I'm okay with that, because I've never watched a film that is perfect (I could go through my favourites of all time and see things that are glaring, and that includes such greats as Godfather I and II, Raging Bull, hell, Casino Royale has got a few things in it I'd love to correct, lol!).

    But when I look at the big picture, and what EoN has done over the past thirty years, I think it's amazing-- and I wasn't a big fan of one of their eras. But no matter if I was a fan, or not, I could see the hugely successful series they were building around their actor, and each of these films really did have enough for me to enjoy to keep coming back.

    Meanwhile, in that same time, we saw new film series being born, then burning out a few years later.

    But Bond kept going, finding ways to bring in the older fans and picking up millions of new ones on the way.

    Nothing is perfect, and every venture make mistakes and while we witnessed the rise and fall of MCU, of the new STAR WARS era, of FAST and FURIOUS, XXX, BOURNE, and DC, and older series sputter and die, like DIE HARD, ALIENS under Scott, LETHAL WEAPON unable to find it's footing in a crowded marketplace, BOND kept moving, pivoting, adapting. And this IS thanks to the stewards and the team they bring onto their productions.

    In an ever-changing and volatile environment, I'm in awe that EoN has been this successful (the odds weren't in their favor, not the way the industry is run today. EoN is this "creaky, old" entity with only one main character in its stable, and this character was created in the 50s(gasp!), and the film series itself started in the 60s (which in this day and age in the film industry, might as well be a few hundred years ago)).

    I wouldn't want anyone getting their hands on James Bond. They'd over saturate him and kill him inside of 10-15 years. This family knows what they are doing to make unique films with class and style and action and thrills, that separate it from the others. For such an "old" character, he does still feel and look fresh as a daisy compared to the ugly series coming out today.

    And with this new era about to begin, James Bond will look like the most energized as well.
  • peter wrote: »
    @delfloria , I have read through some bad scripts, and it's true that within the first few pages you do see a story falling off the rails, and Act I is the "easiest" part to writing a script (Act II is usually the place where many scripts come to die).

    But unlike you, I didn't feel anything "off" about the films after CR. I didn't think they were perfect films either, but I'm okay with that, because I've never watched a film that is perfect (I could go through my favourites of all time and see things that are glaring, and that includes such greats as Godfather I and II, Raging Bull, hell, Casino Royale has got a few things in it I'd love to correct, lol!).

    But when I look at the big picture, and what EoN has done over the past thirty years, I think it's amazing-- and I wasn't a big fan of one of their eras. But no matter if I was a fan, or not, I could see the hugely successful series they were building around their actor, and each of these films really did have enough for me to enjoy to keep coming back.

    Meanwhile, in that same time, we saw new film series being born, then burning out a few years later.

    But Bond kept going, finding ways to bring in the older fans and picking up millions of new ones on the way.

    Nothing is perfect, and every venture make mistakes and while we witnessed the rise and fall of MCU, of the new STAR WARS era, of FAST and FURIOUS, XXX, BOURNE, and DC, and older series sputter and die, like DIE HARD, ALIENS under Scott, LETHAL WEAPON unable to find it's footing in a crowded marketplace, BOND kept moving, pivoting, adapting. And this IS thanks to the stewards and the team they bring onto their productions.

    In an ever-changing and volatile environment, I'm in awe that EoN has been this successful (the odds weren't in their favor, not the way the industry is run today. EoN is this "creaky, old" entity with only one main character in its stable, and this character was created in the 50s(gasp!), and the film series itself started in the 60s (which in this day and age in the film industry, might as well be a few hundred years ago)).

    I wouldn't want anyone getting their hands on James Bond. They'd over saturate him and kill him inside of 10-15 years. This family knows what they are doing to make unique films with class and style and action and thrills, that separate it from the others. For such an "old" character, he does still feel and look fresh as a daisy compared to the ugly series coming out today.

    And with this new era about to begin, James Bond will look like the most energized as well.

    Excellent post @peter
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    Oh thank you, @007ClassicBondFan !
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,523
    peter wrote: »
    @delfloria , I have read through some bad scripts, and it's true that within the first few pages you do see a story falling off the rails, and Act I is the "easiest" part to writing a script (Act II is usually the place where many scripts come to die).

    But unlike you, I didn't feel anything "off" about the films after CR. I didn't think they were perfect films either, but I'm okay with that, because I've never watched a film that is perfect (I could go through my favourites of all time and see things that are glaring, and that includes such greats as Godfather I and II, Raging Bull, hell, Casino Royale has got a few things in it I'd love to correct, lol!).

    But when I look at the big picture, and what EoN has done over the past thirty years, I think it's amazing-- and I wasn't a big fan of one of their eras. But no matter if I was a fan, or not, I could see the hugely successful series they were building around their actor, and each of these films really did have enough for me to enjoy to keep coming back.

    Meanwhile, in that same time, we saw new film series being born, then burning out a few years later.

    But Bond kept going, finding ways to bring in the older fans and picking up millions of new ones on the way.

    Nothing is perfect, and every venture make mistakes and while we witnessed the rise and fall of MCU, of the new STAR WARS era, of FAST and FURIOUS, XXX, BOURNE, and DC, and older series sputter and die, like DIE HARD, ALIENS under Scott, LETHAL WEAPON unable to find it's footing in a crowded marketplace, BOND kept moving, pivoting, adapting. And this IS thanks to the stewards and the team they bring onto their productions.

    In an ever-changing and volatile environment, I'm in awe that EoN has been this successful (the odds weren't in their favor, not the way the industry is run today. EoN is this "creaky, old" entity with only one main character in its stable, and this character was created in the 50s(gasp!), and the film series itself started in the 60s (which in this day and age in the film industry, might as well be a few hundred years ago)).

    I wouldn't want anyone getting their hands on James Bond. They'd over saturate him and kill him inside of 10-15 years. This family knows what they are doing to make unique films with class and style and action and thrills, that separate it from the others. For such an "old" character, he does still feel and look fresh as a daisy compared to the ugly series coming out today.

    And with this new era about to begin, James Bond will look like the most energized as well.

    @peter That was a delight to read, sir!
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 8,471
    Thanks @DarthDimi (now I’m blushing, 😂)!
  • Posts: 1,704
    peter wrote: »
    @delfloria , I have read through some bad scripts, and it's true that within the first few pages you do see a story falling off the rails, and Act I is the "easiest" part to writing a script (Act II is usually the place where many scripts come to die).

    But unlike you, I didn't feel anything "off" about the films after CR. I didn't think they were perfect films either, but I'm okay with that, because I've never watched a film that is perfect (I could go through my favourites of all time and see things that are glaring, and that includes such greats as Godfather I and II, Raging Bull, hell, Casino Royale has got a few things in it I'd love to correct, lol!).

    But when I look at the big picture, and what EoN has done over the past thirty years, I think it's amazing-- and I wasn't a big fan of one of their eras. But no matter if I was a fan, or not, I could see the hugely successful series they were building around their actor, and each of these films really did have enough for me to enjoy to keep coming back.

    Meanwhile, in that same time, we saw new film series being born, then burning out a few years later.

    But Bond kept going, finding ways to bring in the older fans and picking up millions of new ones on the way.

    Nothing is perfect, and every venture make mistakes and while we witnessed the rise and fall of MCU, of the new STAR WARS era, of FAST and FURIOUS, XXX, BOURNE, and DC, and older series sputter and die, like DIE HARD, ALIENS under Scott, LETHAL WEAPON unable to find it's footing in a crowded marketplace, BOND kept moving, pivoting, adapting. And this IS thanks to the stewards and the team they bring onto their productions.

    In an ever-changing and volatile environment, I'm in awe that EoN has been this successful (the odds weren't in their favor, not the way the industry is run today. EoN is this "creaky, old" entity with only one main character in its stable, and this character was created in the 50s(gasp!), and the film series itself started in the 60s (which in this day and age in the film industry, might as well be a few hundred years ago)).

    I wouldn't want anyone getting their hands on James Bond. They'd over saturate him and kill him inside of 10-15 years. This family knows what they are doing to make unique films with class and style and action and thrills, that separate it from the others. For such an "old" character, he does still feel and look fresh as a daisy compared to the ugly series coming out today.

    And with this new era about to begin, James Bond will look like the most energized as well.

    Agree to agree on this one. Well said.
Sign In or Register to comment.