›

how did the producers manage to bring out a bond film a year in the early 60s???

thelivingroyalethelivingroyale
edited October 2011 in Bond Movies Posts: 12,837
i may have this totally wrong but here it is

dr no- 1962

FRWL- 1963

goldfinger- 1964

thunderball- 1965

how did they make the films so quickly???? i wish they could do the same now because these long gaps are really boring

Comments

  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,350
    Is there any need for this thread? Anyway...

    Filming today is a far different process than it was in the '60s. Now it takes far longer. Plus only the first three films were released a year apart, Thunderball took 15 months.

    Bored of the long gaps? I'm sure others are too sometimes but that's the way it is. These four year breaks should be very rare to non-existent in the future with any luck.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    For starters, they didn´t have to deal with writer´s strikes, nor with MGM filing bancruptcy. And I think film companies were not as much driven by lawyers as they are today.
  • Artemis81Artemis81 In Christmas Land
    Posts: 543
    i may have this totally wrong but here it is

    dr no- 1962

    FRWL- 1963

    goldfinger- 1964

    thunderball- 1965
    Funny, I always thought about that too. It would be kinda exciting to see a Bond film every year (like how they used to do with the Disney films), but I don't mind the two year gap either. Man, if they did a Bond film every year and included those long gaps, we would have about 50 films already! Yeah, the long gaps can get kinda boring, but there are other films to watch during the meantime and I always get excited when the new Bond film finally comes along.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Yeah, the long gaps can get kinda boring, but there are other films to watch during the meantime and I always get excited when the new Bond film finally comes along.
    Exactly! And these "boring" times will soon be coming to an end and are actually what we've just been though over the last couple of years, when filming gets underway. Then it's the countdown to release which is always fun and one of the best aspects of the Bond films as everyone wants to know something.
  • Baltimore_007Baltimore_007
    Posts: 5,634
    suppose for arguments sake, for those who know nothing about Bond, If Bond was released every two years from 1965 onwards, why was Golden Gun brought out in 1974, just one year after the last one and not 1975 in keeping with tradition, we then had a three year gap until Spy came along, did a minor issue arise with productions
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,570
    Well only two films came out after a year- FRWL and GF. TB and TMWTGG both came out 18 months after the previous film as was YOLT. But that's being pernickety :-)
  • The_ReaperThe_Reaper
    Posts: 1,092
    Things were different then. The films are so much bigger, in cast and crew and locations are more complicated. I wish they would come out every two years, that would be awesome but it isn't always possible.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 13,350
    suppose for arguments sake, for those who know nothing about Bond, If Bond was released every two years from 1965 onwards, why was Golden Gun brought out in 1974, just one year after the last one and not 1975 in keeping with tradition, we then had a three year gap until Spy came along, did a minor issue arise with productions
    More court issues and the loss of Harry caused the break between The Man With The Golden Gun and The Spy Who Loved Me. If you wanted that answered that is...

    As far as the two-year pattern goes, I see no reason if everything goes well why we won't be able to get films in 2012, 2014 and 2016 which really would be fantastic and echo the same run we had in the late '90's.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Y'know, as long as they release more games and books to bridge the gaps, I don't really mind the gaps. Very few people complained between '02 and '06, because to bridge that gap we had NightFire, Everything or Nothing, GoldenEye Rogue Agent, From Russia With Love, the reprints of Fleming's novels, the Young Bond books. We just need more of this stuff to ease the wait.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Y'know, as long as they release more games and books to bridge the gaps, I don't really mind the gaps. Very few people complained between '02 and '06, because to bridge that gap we had NightFire, Everything or Nothing, GoldenEye Rogue Agent, From Russia With Love, the reprints of Fleming's novels, the Young Bond books. We just need more of this stuff to ease the wait.
    We all have MI6 too. >:D<
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    The Beatles were releasing 2 albums a year. That's unheard of these days. But that's the way deals were done back then. EON/Danjaq probably had a multi-film deal where they had to produce x-number of films within a certain timeframe. So it was more out pressure to meet the stipulations of the contract then anything else.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    edited October 2011 Posts: 7,570
    suppose for arguments sake, for those who know nothing about Bond, If Bond was released every two years from 1965 onwards, why was Golden Gun brought out in 1974, just one year after the last one and not 1975 in keeping with tradition, we then had a three year gap until Spy came along, did a minor issue arise with productions
    I think the producers wanted to consolidate the success of LALD and a settled leading man by getting the next film into production asap. Golden Gun appeared at Chrsitmas 1974, 18 months after the release of LALD. I know the year is always relevent, but in real terms there was nothing unusual about the gap between TMWTGG and TSWLM.

    TMWTGG December 1974 - TSWLM July 1977. 2.5 years
    YOLT June 1967 - OHMSS December 1969 . 2.5 years (all but a month).

    Exactly the same in real terms, so the delay after TMWTGG isn't particularly significant, just the usual production hold ups.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    edited October 2011 Posts: 1,497
    Golden Gun appeared at Chrsitmas 1974, 18 months after the release of LALD.
    Gosh, can you imagine getting Bond24 for Summer 2013??? That would certainly make me happy. But I think the sequel status quo these days for big blockbusters is a minimum 2 years.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    edited October 2011 Posts: 4,399
    The reasons they were able to pump those couple early films out so quickly...

    #1- films didn't cost as much to make back then - also figure in that there wasn't as much a need to shoot on location - they could get done with 75% of the film at Pinewood... also production crews were smaller - easier to book travel plans for 40 instead of 400..

    #2- not as much red tape - the studios and producers had far more control over the schedules of people they have under contract than they do now.

    #3- in general, they could film quicker then, because they didn't have as much to worry about technically with shots - from a complexity stand point... nowadays you would shoot a simple conversation 7 ways to sunday - then, you'd probably use no more than 3 shots... all in all, they'd probably spend 2-3 months filming... where now you can spend 4-5 months filming.. depending of course.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,350
    Golden Gun appeared at Chrsitmas 1974, 18 months after the release of LALD.
    Gosh, can you imagine getting Bond24 for Summer 2013??? That would certainly make me happy. But I think the sequel status quo these days for big blockbusters is a minimum 2 years.

    That was the plan for Quantum only 18 months after the last one which of course became the standard two years. I think it could be done - just look at Harry Potter - you'd just have to be working on two films at once from a very early stage.
  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Golden Gun appeared at Chrsitmas 1974, 18 months after the release of LALD.
    Gosh, can you imagine getting Bond24 for Summer 2013??? That would certainly make me happy. But I think the sequel status quo these days for big blockbusters is a minimum 2 years.

    That was the plan for Quantum only 18 months after the last one which of course became the standard two years. I think it could be done - just look at Harry Potter - you'd just have to be working on two films at once from a very early stage.
    Exactly....

    They did this with Back to the Future 2 and 3 way back in the day...

    they were pretty much starting principal photography for part 3, as the shooting was wrapping up on part 2.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    Besides the various comments above, once they hit Thunderball, the films got bigger, with longer shoots and logistical issues.

    I saw a CBC interview from the fall of '65 with Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli. At that point they were still talking as if On Her Majesty's Secret Service would be the next movie. But that involved winter locations. To keep to the one-a-calendar year schedule, they would have needed to begin filming Bond 5 in early 1966.

    As it was, even after going with You Only Live Twice instead, they still managed to start filming in mid-1966. But there was no way to make a Christmas '66 release and YOLT involved more special effects than the previous Bond films to date.

    I forget the specific dates, but the shooting schedule for OHMSS was very long, in part because of all the ski and related sequences.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    I could also imagine that since these days there is a lot more competition they want to take their time here and there to check with current fashions, and to build up appetite in the audience. If there was a Bond film every year, for sure many fans would be happy, but I believe the majority of the audience are ordinary cinema-goers, and not Bond nerds, and the ordinary cinema-goer might just forget once in while that there is a Bond film if it appears on a constant basis. I don´t think the current schedules are helping much to generate steam, but at least each film can be presented as some kind of comeback, and that is one very successful way to attract more people than in the past ;-) .
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Golden Gun appeared at Chrsitmas 1974, 18 months after the release of LALD.
    Gosh, can you imagine getting Bond24 for Summer 2013??? That would certainly make me happy. But I think the sequel status quo these days for big blockbusters is a minimum 2 years.

    That was the plan for Quantum only 18 months after the last one which of course became the standard two years. I think it could be done - just look at Harry Potter - you'd just have to be working on two films at once from a very early stage.
    The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were filmed at the same time, along with Enter The Matrix. The Lord of the Rings movies were all filmed at the same time, as well.
  • JBFan626JBFan626
    Posts: 1,497
    Golden Gun appeared at Chrsitmas 1974, 18 months after the release of LALD.
    Gosh, can you imagine getting Bond24 for Summer 2013??? That would certainly make me happy. But I think the sequel status quo these days for big blockbusters is a minimum 2 years.

    That was the plan for Quantum only 18 months after the last one which of course became the standard two years. I think it could be done - just look at Harry Potter - you'd just have to be working on two films at once from a very early stage.
    The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were filmed at the same time, along with Enter The Matrix. The Lord of the Rings movies were all filmed at the same time, as well.
    This approach would have certainly worked with Quantum as it being intended to be a direct sequel. In fact, I think the producers botched the opportunity here. I believe Martin Campbell would have still been on board, if production began immediately after. The ending of CR is set up as if they already had a story for the sequel. Why not just keep running with the Mr. White/Quantum arc and explore that further? Instead the writers sidetrack into this pointless water shortage/Dominic Greene story line.

    The 60's Bond films were running on momentum. The more I'm thinking of it, the shorter the gaps the better--keep the steam rolling for the series in it's current state so that you really create a true "era" of Bond.

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited October 2011 Posts: 15,690
    IMO, less is more. Less action scenes, less globetrotting, less budget... Tighter films could be released every year. I can picture a string of 3 FRWL-type films being released in 2014-2015-2016. If EON came to their senses and stopped making huge blockbusters everytime, but smaller films, it would be a huge success. I don't mean indie films with no-budget, but it is my belief the budget of the films can be reduces by a good margin, without losing the epic scope. I'd love for Craig to end with 3 lower budget FRWL-esque outings released 3 years in a row. Then for Bond #7 you'd make a a huge comback with a bigger budget.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    That´d be a great thing. If there´s going to be a vote in favor of the idea, count me in!
  • CaptainFlandryCaptainFlandry
    Posts: 26
    Cubby had a hit and decided to exploit it!
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    It was fun when there were one year between then it turned to two and now...Michael Wilson who is pushing 70 was really beat after QoS and maybe that is why we have to wait four years instead of the standard two. I think DaltonCraig 007 hit it on the head, less globe trotting, tighter schedules, it was easier then than now.
    smaller budgets and egos
  • JWESTBROOKJWESTBROOK
    Posts: 5,745
    It was fun when there were one year between then it turned to two and now...Michael Wilson who is pushing 70 was really beat after QoS and maybe that is why we have to wait four years instead of the standard two.
    The production of Bond 23 was not by reason of factual evidence, held back by Wilson's age.
  • AlexanderWaverlyAlexanderWaverly
    Posts: 2,115
    It was fun when there were one year between then it turned to two and now...Michael Wilson who is pushing 70 was really beat after QoS and maybe that is why we have to wait four years instead of the standard two.
    The production of Bond 23 was not by reason of factual evidence, held back by Wilson's age.
    Also, Wilson complained about being exhausted after TWINE and Die Another Day...he has a bit of a history saying that after a Bond movie has been released..

    The main reason for the delay in Bond 23 was MGM's financial difficulties and bankruptcy.
  • tqbtqb
    Posts: 1,022
    anyone here have any ideas on how i could meet Babs or Wilson?
  • SkyfallSkyfall
    Posts: 20
    I don't know where else to put this:
    I am rewatching Thunderball for the first time in a while and had a couple of questions:

    Why is Bond's hat missing when he returns for it after the M scene?

    Why does Bond punch Felix for almost saying 007 and then say it in front of the thug anyway (while explaining why he hit Felix)?

    PS I find it humorous that it was an actual plot point that, because they kept switching Felix, the audience can't recognize him. So they build suspense around him. How does that make any sense. Even though he isn't the same actor, shouldn't we technically still "recognize" him. This, I guess, explains why Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond in OHMSS. The actor changes occur in universe as well ;)

    PSS What is with the editing in this movie? Not just the fights. Terrible match on actions throughout. For instance, Bond taking his hat off in the Q scene, or Q talking before his mouth begins moving.
  • Geo_BayGeo_Bay
    Posts: 44
    To be honest in recent times when a Bond film has come out after just 2 years it has been shockingly bad. QOS and TND for example were rushed out to make money and ended up being a joke.

    I would rather wait 3 or 4 years for an awsome picture, rather than have a quick fix that is poor.

    Having said that DN, FRWL and GF are on my list of best films and they all came out within 3 calander years.
Sign In or Register to comment.