It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
I guess everything depends on who the new actor is and on our responses to his films, but most of all it will depend on the business model EON and others are going to adopt for the Bonds. With the way things are going right now, it strikes me as inconceivable that we should be counting on more than one film every three or so years.
But realistically, I think 5. No way Eon is going to invest all that money and PR in an actor and let him go after 3.
I agree. Admittedly, our sample size isn't huge but they got Connery, Moore, Craig and to a lesser extent Brosnan back for more
Even Lazenby was also offered a seven-picture deal and Dalton's contract extended into the mid-'90s. I've got a feeling they aren't eager to let someone go once the actor has firmly stepped into Bond's shoes.
At that rate we should only get 4 more films between 2022 and 2052. Therefore it would seem the next Bond actor should only stay for 1 or 2 films.
I expect to be dead before #7 is done.
I wish they'd go back to that.
Given the fact that it seems to take Eon half a decade to make one Bond film now I'm not overly hopeful about a return to that practice any time soon. Perhaps the Amazon takeover will mean more pressure will be exerted on Eon to produce Bond films more regularly though? Here's hoping!
I am not so sure about that. To be fair to EON they have had a lot of bad luck during the Craig era. I don't think it would be unrealistic for them to turn out a film every three years, or perhaps, in some cases, two.
Correct. The 2007/2008 Writer’s Guild strike, the perpetual re-negotiations with MGM/Sony/whoever, a false start, a certain virus, ... It would be wrong to hold Craig or EON solely responsible for only five films in a little under 20 years.
I specifically recall Mendes saying that he couldn't officially work on what became SF because of the money troubles.
To be positive, had it not been for the financial troubles of MGM, and presuming Craig still did five, we probably would have had closer to the three-year film cycle that emerged during the relatively financially stable Brosnan years, so:
Bond 23 2011
Bond 24 2014
Bond 25 2017
Now Bond 26, if featuring a new actor and following the DAD-CR pattern, would be in 2021, which may have been impacted *during production* by the pandemic, which is more upheaval than NTTD got. And we'd be "treated" to endless articles: "Is the new Bond cursed?"
So we're one just film behind.
Alternately, let's say Craig was happy to finish his run with a better Bond 24. Then it would be Bond #7 and:
Bond 25 2018
Bond 26 2020
In a lot of ways, we are lucky that NTTD was in the can just before the pandemic hit hard. We're not lucky in that we haven't seen it, but we know a Bond film is there waiting for us like a Christmas present.