How long is a reasonable hiatus?

edited May 2017 in Bond 25 Posts: 219
I'm in no particular hurry. I'd rather a great Bond every 4 years than a decent one every 2 years. There are increased production costs, stunts and so on which may delay writing. However, this is not a matter of production time. Instead, it's always the politics on whether the actor is going to do another Bond film or not.

I'm open-minded and I see both sides of the coin. Craig is very talented, he's built a career as Bond and it would be hard to replace him. However, it's really immature to just spend years in hiatus not informing anyone what is going on or even if he is signed up to do another one.

The hiatuses are longer and it seems like with every new Bond film, "Bond is back". It would pain me to see Craig in his next film as an old man.
«134567

Comments

  • JamesBondKenyaJamesBondKenya “We are thrilled to delay B25”
    Posts: 2,539
    It depends. If they want to make a multi picture story arc then they have to be making them every 2 years. If they are standalone then 3 years is fine but 4+ is very annoying and it seems like we're going to have another one of those
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    It depends. If they want to make a multi picture story arc then they have to be making them every 2 years. If they are standalone then 3 years is fine but 4+ is very annoying and it seems like we're going to have another one of those
    100% in agreement. There are extenuating circumstances this time around, but nevertheless you are on the money with your assessment imho.

    To quote Stromberg:
    "Hurry, Commander! I'm not renowned for my patience!"
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 13,002
    Waiting 4 years to get a new Top 5 Bond film is a perfectly understandable opinion. While I would much prefer EON went back to the 2 years circle, as a 26 year-old person I am in a part of my life where I can afford to wait longer between films. However, I would hate to see constant longer gaps for hardcore fans like @Birdleson (I hope you don't mind me mentioning you, Birdleson), who are much older than me, and thus longer gaps will considerably limit the amount of new outings they will witness. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd chose shorter gaps.
  • Posts: 219
    It depends. If they want to make a multi picture story arc then they have to be making them every 2 years. If they are standalone then 3 years is fine but 4+ is very annoying and it seems like we're going to have another one of those

    I agree. Quantum of Solace came at just the right time to be a convincing sequel. However, if it's going to take 12 years to make a trilogy, people are not going to care unless it's acclaimed like the Godfather.

    I don't mind waiting at all, but the present situation at MGM is too chaotic. They're trying to build a second Blofeld trilogy on top of a film that didn't have a strong story to begin with. Craig is getting older, and so are his considered successors. Craig's tenure is approaching - if not surpassing - the length of Moore's.
  • Posts: 219
    Waiting 4 years to get a new Top 5 Bond film is a perfectly understandable opinion. While I would much prefer EON went back to the 2 years circle, as a 26 year-old person I am in a part of my life where I can afford to wait longer between films. However, I would hate to see constant longer gaps for hardcore fans like @Birdleson (I hope you don't mind me mentioning you, Birdleson), who are much older than me, and thus longer gaps will considerably limit the amount of new outings they will witness. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd chose shorter gaps.

    When I think of things like this, I'm happy Roger Ebert lived long enough to see Skyfall, the Bond film he always wanted.

    I'm 25. I have a while to go. I became a Bond fan 4 years ago, so Spectre was the only release I anticipated.

    There is a potential idea of having a Bond television series for more regular installments. However, EON established Bond as too much of a big-shot action hero to be confined to a TV soap.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken I'm gonna use this to clarify that Dalton is tied with Craig
    Posts: 1,637
    I think the only way for them to do the whole "Bond forced out of retirement" thing, with Craig doing one more, the only way for it to really be effective is if there is a four or five year gap. The movie will try to give the impression that he's been gone for a while but if they had made the film this year, it wouldn't have felt like it.

    A big contributing factor as to why Logan worked so well was because the film takes place 12 years in the future but it had also been, what, five years since The Wolverine?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    It's rather tiresome, given that was already done before with TDKR, so I'd rather they not go there (i.e. leaving a time gap between stories but with a direct continuity element). Predictable doesn't begin to describe it.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    edited May 2017 Posts: 6,846
    Waiting 4 years to get a new Top 5 Bond film is a perfectly understandable opinion. While I would much prefer EON went back to the 2 years circle, as a 26 year-old person I am in a part of my life where I can afford to wait longer between films. However, I would hate to see constant longer gaps for hardcore fans like @Birdleson who are much older than me, and thus longer gaps will considerably limit the amount of new outings they will witness.

    WTF.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 13,002
    Waiting 4 years to get a new Top 5 Bond film is a perfectly understandable opinion. While I would much prefer EON went back to the 2 years circle, as a 26 year-old person I am in a part of my life where I can afford to wait longer between films. However, I would hate to see constant longer gaps for hardcore fans like @Birdleson who are much older than me, and thus longer gaps will considerably limit the amount of new outings they will witness.

    WTF.

    What is your problem this time?
  • Posts: 10,503
    I think that was a little joke between friends ?
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,846
    I think that was a little joke between friends ?

    Perhaps you're right.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 16,295
    The proper hiatus length? The time it takes to deliver a great Bond film, no?
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 13,002
    I think that was a little joke between friends ?

    Perhaps you're right.

    Perhaps, @Mendes4Lyfe, you shouldn't lose your mind at every opportunity. If you had calmly read my post, you'd have understood I said I don't want longer gaps, because for the older fans like Birdleson, those will limit the amount of new films they'll see. And as much as I can't wait for Aidan Turner not to be the next Bond so you'll stop your constant fanboying about him, I definitely am looking forward to many more reviews from @Birdleson. Which is why I said I want shorter gaps.
  • TheSharkFromJawsTheSharkFromJaws Amity Island Waters
    Posts: 127
    I'd prefer two years between each but I'm pretty satisfied with three. Consistently going 4 years or more is not exactly the most appealing thing.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,846
    I'd prefer two years between each but I'm pretty satisfied with three. Consistently going 4 years or more is not exactly the most appealing thing.

    Yes, that's rational.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken I'm gonna use this to clarify that Dalton is tied with Craig
    Posts: 1,637
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's rather tiresome, given that was already done before with TDKR, so I'd rather they not go there (i.e. leaving a time gap between stories but with a direct continuity element). Predictable doesn't begin to describe it.

    Believe me, it isn't ideal to me either. But if Craig is going to do a swansong, how else can they approach it given how SPECTRE ended?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    It's rather tiresome, given that was already done before with TDKR, so I'd rather they not go there (i.e. leaving a time gap between stories but with a direct continuity element). Predictable doesn't begin to describe it.

    Believe me, it isn't ideal to me either. But if Craig is going to do a swansong, how else can they approach it given how SPECTRE ended?
    Therein lies the big problem. Most know where I stand on this by now. Time for a change.

    However, if he's back, I'd say just ignore it and go in a different direction with a compelling new narrative, like they did with SF but without the drama. They don't necessarily need to do the 'old dog' thing again. Just a passing mention of Madeline is all that's necessary also. They kept it vague enough that one could assume he didn't leave the service but was taking a holiday.

    The less I hear about Blofeld or anything that reminds me of SP the happier I will be, especially if we have to wait until 2019 for the next entry.
  • BirdlesonBirdleson San Jose, CAModerator
    Posts: 26,082
    Not a joke, @DaltonCraig007 is correct, I've complained about it myself. When I was growing up, form birth until I was 27 years old, you could count on a new Bond film every one to two years.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I think many of us are sickened by these long waits that have plagued us post-Cubby (whatever the reasons may be).

    -15 official entries by the 25th anniversary (up to and including TLD).

    -Only 8 in the next 25 years (up to and including SF)

    Now ask yourselves. Which set do you prefer? For me it's the first 15.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited May 2017 Posts: 13,002
    If Craig does Bond 25 in 2019, that's 5 films for him in 13 years. Which, if applied to Moore, would have done 4 films instead of his current tally of 7.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited May 2017 Posts: 23,883
    James Bond is the longest running franchise for a reason. It's because the franchise has survived the actors & the actor changeovers. I think the actors have been somewhat replaceable (even though they all bring their own individual take, and some are more successful than others) because the production team has historically stuck to a certain template & structure and given the audience what they wanted on a consistent & regular basis. In a nutshell, that is solid action thrillers which are a definite product of their time, but which are also timeless entities & which adhere to a certain consistent formula. Some succeed better than others, but it's the consistency that is key. Like an old shoe, consumers know what to expect.

    These days, Disney are doing something similar with the Marvel adaptations and with SW. They are delivered regularly, which keeps interest up. People know what to expect when Cap or Iron Man is in the frame.

    That's different from many other franchises, which seem to be more defined by their 'specific concept' and which don't have 'legs' like Bond. An example is LOTR vs. the Hobbit franchise. Think also of any other franchise that has been rebooted, like Jack Ryan etc. Even sure things like Batman are severely impacted by reboots, sometimes negatively.

    If they continue with this longer 3-4 year gap between films (with direct continuity), then they run the risk of changing the long term expectations of the audience. Moreover, actors can do fewer films, and so each actor's tenure becomes more isolated and compartmentalized in comparison to the past (purely due to the increased passage of time). There is less spillover between actors, and each tenure becomes more standalone & distinct.

    I'm not sure if that's a good thing for the long run health of the franchise, especially when the time comes for an inevitable changeover.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,846
    bondjames wrote: »
    James Bond is the longest running franchise for a reason. It's because the franchise has survived the actors & the actor changeovers. I think the actors have been somewhat replaceable (even though they all bring their own individual take, and some are more successful than others) because the production team has historically stuck to a certain template & structure and given the audience what they wanted on a consistent & regular basis. In a nutshell, that is solid action thrillers which are a definite product of their time, but which are also timeless entities & which adhere to a certain consistent formula. Some succeed better than others, but it's the consistency that is key. Like an old shoe, consumers know what to expect.

    These days, Disney are doing something similar with the Marvel adaptations and with SW. They are delivered regularly, which keeps interest up. People know what to expect when Cap or Iron Man is in the frame.

    That's different from many other franchises, which seem to be more defined by their 'specific concept' and which don't have 'legs' like Bond. An example is LOTR vs. the Hobbit franchise. Think also of any other franchise that has been rebooted, like Jack Ryan etc. Even sure things like Batman are severely impacted by reboots, sometimes negatively.

    If they continue with this longer 3-4 year gap between films (with direct continuity), then they run the risk of changing the long term expectations of the audience. Moreover, actors can do fewer films, and so each actor's tenure becomes more isolated and compartmentalized in comparison to the past (purely due to the increased passage of time). There is less spillover between actors, and each tenure becomes more standalone & distinct.

    I'm not sure if that's a good thing for the long run health of the franchise, especially when the time comes for an inevitable changeover.

    Yes, and we already see the results. Many fans expecting the next Bond actor to take up the mantle of Craig, and to look and act like him. The next guy will be most likely be completely different of course, just like Craig was a complete departure from Brosnan.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    In an ideal world, we'd have a regular Bond schedule. Of course, we don't live in one of those.

    Longer gaps are not ideal, but you can hardly blame the current slate of films for purposefully taking their time. QoS was an as scheduled follow-up to CR, but faced massive production issues due to the writer's strike; it could've actually been delayed if EON decided. After that MGM had their bankruptcy and we didn't see Bond again until SF. And now, we've got the distribution issues and EON's future with a particular studio (or studios) up in the air as negotiations carry through.

    None of these issues are EON's fault, things happen to shake up productions in the film industry and contracts run out, throwing you into times of uncertainty. They don't enjoy not making films on a more consistent basis, they've just had horrid luck in the past ten years with getting more films off the ground. The one thing I think they could be taken to task for is waiting for Mendes between SF and SP, but beyond that I don't see much logic in blaming them for the above.

    Personally, I think three year gaps aren't crossing lines. I don't know how I feel about two year gaps, as that almost feels like too much of an output from a series that has gone so long there is a worry of repeating oneself. I'm not the type to moan and groan about a wait, as I don't find it productive. It'll happen when it can happen, as has always been the case.
  • Posts: 965
    The amount of years between films is not so much the issue for many but rather the fact we don't know for sure what is happening with the next entry. That's what is frustrating for me. I love Craig and would be devastated if he didn't do at least one more. But WTH? For him to not say anything and act like a child and be so demure about returning, just leaving us all hanging... it's lame and unprofessional.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 It was this or the priesthood.
    Posts: 28,232
    The_Reaper wrote: »
    The amount of years between films is not so much the issue for many but rather the fact we don't know for sure what is happening with the next entry. That's what is frustrating for me. I love Craig and would be devastated if he didn't do at least one more. But WTH? For him to not say anything and act like a child and be so demure about returning, just leaving us all hanging... it's lame and unprofessional.

    I don't see this. There's a lot going on we don't see, and you don't exactly share all that in interviews when you're the lead actor. Especially if Dan was negotiating money for a return, or was waiting out a script to see if the story was worth a return. Of course he's not going to confirm anything, or rush to say, "Yeah, I'm back." It's very easy to shoot him down and blame him for a lot of things, but it's not logical. He's always waited for the script, why would he change his tune for what could be his last adventure?

    Because we live in a technologically powered world people think they are owed by these franchises to know everything that happens with them, and that's a bad tradition to have set in. Back when TMWTGG was leading into TSWLM after the big gap, I don't think Cubby worried about informing the public every month about where the production was at for three years. They just got on with it, and trusted people not to be so impatient or to misunderstand their intent. Back in the 70s, people knew patience.

    I like that the Bond team just go away and let us hear things when there's actual news to take in. They won't tweet, "Still waiting on distribution," or "Dan needs a script, we're working on it," for two years when they're just repeating themselves. There's a process to it, and they're getting it done.

    So many want Nolan doing a Bond film, and if he was the director this is exactly how he'd run his ship. He'd release nothing, say nothing, and just shoot the damn film. I much prefer this method than those run by franchises like Star Wars or Marvel that do a bit too much talking with little to say. Creating hype and over-sharing on a film aren't things I want to see Bond take on.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 4,726
    I won't fall on my sword, but every two years is the ideal.

    It's their job. To make Bond films.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 13,002
    [So many want Nolan doing a Bond film, and if he was the director this is exactly how he'd run his ship. He'd release nothing, say nothing, and just shoot the damn film. I much prefer this method than those run by franchises like Star Wars or Marvel that do a bit too much talking with little to say. Creating hype and over-sharing on a film aren't things I want to see Bond take on.

    Nolan managed to do Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight and Inception all within 2 year gaps of each other. So sure, he is secretive, but he gets the job done quickly.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe S.A.R.A.H.Moderator
    Posts: 10,325
    I won't fall on my sword, but every two years is the ideal.

    It's their job. To make Bond films.

    Unless they pull in the scope, I can't see a two year gap between films ever occurring again. There's no reason why they can't do it in 3 (or 4 if the lead role needs to be recast).
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe JK ROFLing
    Posts: 6,846
    3 years is perfect. 2 years is fast, and 4 years is slow. Let's just sum it up like that.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 16,295
    I fully agree.
Sign In or Register to comment.