Will the Producers Ever Listen to Fans? NO SPOILERS for 'NTTD'

OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
Although I have yet to see 'NTTD,' as I'm in the States, I have read a lot of SPOILER FREE reviews. In those reviews, I've noticed that there's a bit of gripe in regard to the "emotional" angles and continual insistence on "humanizing" Bond. I'm under the impression that the producers are unaware of the the fans' desire for a return to standalone missions, that are not linked to some kind of emotional backstory. Maybe they are, but the standalone films are harder to write. Who knows? I can't figure it out for the life of me.

I'm just curious as to why the producers think that we, the audience, care about a backstory or serializing a franchise that worked quite fine as it had for nearly 60 years. Bond is special intellectual property because of the formula. That's what we've all loved for so long. There's only so much deviation until it totally loses its face.
«134

Comments

  • DrinmanDrinman New York
    Posts: 39
    It’s a double edged sword. On one hand they’ve made Bond more commercially and critically successfully then it’s been since Bondmania of the 60’s. On the other hand they’ve neutered the character and sort of made him interchangeable with most other action heroes.

    Ironically I’ve found Craig at his most Bondian in CR which is supposed to be a proto-Bond movie.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    edited September 30 Posts: 4,368
    Like any art, it would be a disaster if they “listened to the fans”.

    I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.

    “Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.

    Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.
  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,447
    They do want to make films for the fans, but they need to consider a much wider audience than just hard core fans.
    So, in the 21st century with Marvel, DC, MI and F&F breathing down your neck how does Eon please everyone and keep Bond alive and relevant?
    It’s not easy.
    Personally I don’t mind what direction they take as long as they keep the fundamentals in place.
    Also worth remembering that Fleming wrote a story arc. And at least in the last 5 films we have had a consistent Leiter & Blofeld - as opposed to the ‘any free actor will do’ approach to these characters in the 60s.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 34,956
    While I'm of the camp that would love to return to some simple, standalone missions, it's pretty disingenuous to say that the directions the Craig era has gone are something no fans want - there are clearly lots of fans, on these forums included, who love what they've done and where they've taken the series as a whole. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, they're really making these films for general audiences, to maximize profit and returns, and tossing in cool little details and tidbits to appease us hardcore Bond fans.

    It's clear now that the Craig era is its own beast and that they wanted to try something different. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with those of us who wish to return to "simpler" times where the films were mostly standalone missions that were introduced and completed by the time the credits rolled.

    Only time will tell whether we get another self-contained timeline or we go back to the traditions and typical beats the films used to offer with the next era. But to assume that they "owe" us anything is a bit extreme, in my view.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Searching for No Time to Die in the "Favourite Bond Film" section...
    Posts: 2,066
    I love the Craig era and I love that they took this chance doing a reboot and then an interconnected set of films ABOUT Bond rather than a semi-disconnected run of films FEATURING Bond. Quality-wise, I think Casino Royale is one of the greatest films ever made, and SF and NTTD aren't that far in the rear of it.

    With that being said, I would like them to once again reboot Bond and let Craig's interpretation be what it is, and then just start making Bond movies again where, however many actors go on to play the part, we just accept that this is the same guy. I'm fine with redoing some of the older stories even, and if they want to try and set certain things up over time or even try to do something like the Blofeld Trilogy on screen, I'd also like that. But overall, I'd like a good run of the more serial-type films we got with the first 20. Maybe in a couple decades' time they can do another isolated set of films with the same actor to try and tell an overarching story.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,368
    I love the Craig era and I love that they took this chance doing a reboot and then an interconnected set of films ABOUT Bond rather than a semi-disconnected run of films FEATURING Bond. Quality-wise, I think Casino Royale is one of the greatest films ever made, and SF and NTTD aren't that far in the rear of it.

    With that being said, I would like them to once again reboot Bond and let Craig's interpretation be what it is, and then just start making Bond movies again where, however many actors go on to play the part, we just accept that this is the same guy. I'm fine with redoing some of the older stories even, and if they want to try and set certain things up over time or even try to do something like the Blofeld Trilogy on screen, I'd also like that. But overall, I'd like a good run of the more serial-type films we got with the first 20. Maybe in a couple decades' time they can do another isolated set of films with the same actor to try and tell an overarching story.

    Agree on all counts (except I haven't seen NTTD yet!); I have been thinking it might be kind of neat if they did an anthology of sorts; a few one-offs in a row, different actor, different director each time. It would be a cool way to see different takes on the character (Nolan, Tarantino's VO Bond, etc). Probably not practical if they keep releasing Bond films the way they are now, but I still think it would be a cool switch-up from the Craig era.
  • edited September 30 Posts: 404
    I think they like the circus around selecting THE James Bond too much to want to dilute things with a bunch of different Bonds in rapid succession. It’s an interesting idea, though.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Searching for No Time to Die in the "Favourite Bond Film" section...
    Posts: 2,066
    I love the Craig era and I love that they took this chance doing a reboot and then an interconnected set of films ABOUT Bond rather than a semi-disconnected run of films FEATURING Bond. Quality-wise, I think Casino Royale is one of the greatest films ever made, and SF and NTTD aren't that far in the rear of it.

    With that being said, I would like them to once again reboot Bond and let Craig's interpretation be what it is, and then just start making Bond movies again where, however many actors go on to play the part, we just accept that this is the same guy. I'm fine with redoing some of the older stories even, and if they want to try and set certain things up over time or even try to do something like the Blofeld Trilogy on screen, I'd also like that. But overall, I'd like a good run of the more serial-type films we got with the first 20. Maybe in a couple decades' time they can do another isolated set of films with the same actor to try and tell an overarching story.

    Agree on all counts (except I haven't seen NTTD yet!); I have been thinking it might be kind of neat if they did an anthology of sorts; a few one-offs in a row, different actor, different director each time. It would be a cool way to see different takes on the character (Nolan, Tarantino's VO Bond, etc). Probably not practical if they keep releasing Bond films the way they are now, but I still think it would be a cool switch-up from the Craig era.

    The only reason I don't want this is because, Craig aside, I don't think any actor generally gets to fully craft their Bond in one film and I want to see what an actor does with at least two or three (preferably more) turns in the role. For example I think Lazenby gets a whole whack of unfair stick for what is overall a surprisingly great performance because it's the only one we got from him, and he spends the entire middle act being dubbed by another actor. If he had gotten even just one more film, he would be regarded much more warmly.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,368
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 121
    I really like the points that everyone has made so far.

    I just always have Barbara Broccoli in mind, repeating how they want to keep the fans happy, yet they do everything to their own accord. I understand, I have no say in EON's business, but I bring them business, as we all do.

    I have never been a fan of Craig's iteration, but I will admit that 'Casino Royale' was his best outing and it felt the most in-sync with the films that preceded it. There are people that give a lot of credit to 'Skyfall,' but to me, Craig's tenure and story arc has been quite a hodgepodge effort. The producers know it too, but they'll never admit to it. As a matter of fact, it's not even a hidden thing, as they openly didn't know where they'd go after 'Casino.'

    It can be said that the most recent Bond films are a part of the current zeitgeist of a "lost identity." If we think about it, the Cold War fueled the plots of the classic Bond films and it never really ended. I think there is plenty of material for at least another decade of Bond films that don't have to be over-the-top to be exciting and good. The pen is mightier than the sword, as we all know, so good writing is truly what the franchise needs along with the return of the episodic entries.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,368
    The Craig era has definitely had it's challenges or qwirks with every outing, besides CR:
    QoS: Writers Strike.
    Skyfall: 50th Anniversary, departure from narrative arc.
    Spectre: Regained Spectre film rights, probably pressure to shoehorn Spectre in to the Quantum narrative they were building.
    No Time to Die: Pandemic.
    And it's very fair to not be a fan of the Craig era.
    Agree wholly with your last paragraph; the writing truly is what's going to make or break future Bond films, I think, and a return to episodic entries (even if it's just because that's what the Craig era wasn't), is needed as well.
  • Posts: 5,804
    Like any art, it would be a disaster if they “listened to the fans”.

    I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.

    “Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.

    Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.

    Exactly my thoughts, @NickTwentyTwo .. Plus, this is still a business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake... If they listened to the fans, which group should they listen to? The Moore fans? Connery? Laz? Broz?... My Dog, they'd make messes of their films... But somehow, through the ingenuity of the production team, they've survived the odd mis-fire and have more than not consistently given us films that fans and general audiences can love and/or appreciate on some level...

    They continue to pull in viewers, old and new.

    The franchise is 60 years old and still going strong! What other franchise has done that with films coming out every 1-5 years for the past 60 years? Star Wars?... Indy?... Die Hard?... No one has done what EoN has done.
  • PropertyOfALadyPropertyOfALady Colders Federation CEO
    Posts: 3,572
    The Craig era has definitely had it's challenges or qwirks with every outing, besides CR:
    QoS: Writers Strike.
    Skyfall: 50th Anniversary, departure from narrative arc.
    Spectre: Regained Spectre film rights, probably pressure to shoehorn Spectre in to the Quantum narrative they were building.
    No Time to Die: Pandemic.
    And it's very fair to not be a fan of the Craig era.
    Agree wholly with your last paragraph; the writing truly is what's going to make or break future Bond films, I think, and a return to episodic entries (even if it's just because that's what the Craig era wasn't), is needed as well.

    I was thinking about this last night: why didn't they have the rights to SPECTRE again?
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 121
    The Craig era has definitely had it's challenges or qwirks with every outing, besides CR:
    QoS: Writers Strike.
    Skyfall: 50th Anniversary, departure from narrative arc.
    Spectre: Regained Spectre film rights, probably pressure to shoehorn Spectre in to the Quantum narrative they were building.
    No Time to Die: Pandemic.
    And it's very fair to not be a fan of the Craig era.
    Agree wholly with your last paragraph; the writing truly is what's going to make or break future Bond films, I think, and a return to episodic entries (even if it's just because that's what the Craig era wasn't), is needed as well.

    I was thinking about this last night: why didn't they have the rights to SPECTRE again?

    Kevin McClory
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 121
    peter wrote: »
    Like any art, it would be a disaster if they “listened to the fans”.

    I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.

    “Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.

    Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.

    Exactly my thoughts, @NickTwentyTwo .. Plus, this is still a business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake... If they listened to the fans, which group should they listen to? The Moore fans? Connery? Laz? Broz?... My Dog, they'd make messes of their films... But somehow, through the ingenuity of the production team, they've survived the odd mis-fire and have more than not consistently given us films that fans and general audiences can love and/or appreciate on some level...

    They continue to pull in viewers, old and new.

    The franchise is 60 years old and still going strong! What other franchise has done that with films coming out every 1-5 years for the past 60 years? Star Wars?... Indy?... Die Hard?... No one has done what EoN has done.

    Technically, they could release a Bond film with unicorns, but as long as the brand is attached, it'll probably survive and do well. It's easy to give the producers a lot of credit, but their dad was truly responsible for the success of the franchise, so the groundwork had already been properly laid. 'Die Another Day,' 'QOS' and most of all, 'SPECTRE' are not very good entries by any means, but regardless, people get excited by the prospect of a new OO7 film and that's ONLY because of history.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,368
    Yep; they lost the rights before filming FYEO and got them back after filming SF. That’s why we got NSNA; McClory wanted to exercise his right to Spectre / Blofeld.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,368
    OOWolf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like any art, it would be a disaster if they “listened to the fans”.

    I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.

    “Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.

    Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.

    Exactly my thoughts, @NickTwentyTwo .. Plus, this is still a business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake... If they listened to the fans, which group should they listen to? The Moore fans? Connery? Laz? Broz?... My Dog, they'd make messes of their films... But somehow, through the ingenuity of the production team, they've survived the odd mis-fire and have more than not consistently given us films that fans and general audiences can love and/or appreciate on some level...

    They continue to pull in viewers, old and new.

    The franchise is 60 years old and still going strong! What other franchise has done that with films coming out every 1-5 years for the past 60 years? Star Wars?... Indy?... Die Hard?... No one has done what EoN has done.

    Technically, they could release a Bond film with unicorns, but as long as the brand is attached, it'll probably survive and do well. It's easy to give the producers a lot of credit, but their dad was truly responsible for the success of the franchise, so the groundwork had already been properly laid. 'Die Another Day,' 'QOS' and most of all, 'SPECTRE' are not very good entries by any means, but regardless, people get excited by the prospect of a new OO7 film and that's ONLY because of history.

    Can’t agree there; those films aren’t not very good entries by *any* means I don’t think, and I really don’t think people only get excited about new films only because of history.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,703
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    While I'm of the camp that would love to return to some simple, standalone missions, it's pretty disingenuous to say that the directions the Craig era has gone are something no fans want - there are clearly lots of fans, on these forums included, who love what they've done and where they've taken the series as a whole. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. At the end of the day, they're really making these films for general audiences, to maximize profit and returns, and tossing in cool little details and tidbits to appease us hardcore Bond fans.

    It's clear now that the Craig era is its own beast and that they wanted to try something different. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, just like there's nothing wrong with those of us who wish to return to "simpler" times where the films were mostly standalone missions that were introduced and completed by the time the credits rolled.

    Only time will tell whether we get another self-contained timeline or we go back to the traditions and typical beats the films used to offer with the next era. But to assume that they "owe" us anything is a bit extreme, in my view.

    It’s especially disingenuous because there’s this presumption that there are only fans that originated from the original 20 films, never taking into consideration there is a whole generation of Bond fans that were introduced to the franchise via Craig and were brought up on that.

    This OP is less representative of fans as a whole and more so of a very specific subset of fans that want to return to “the good old days” when EON was a sausage factory.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,056
    If EON listened to fans, they would have gotten rid of Purvis and Wade a long time ago. That’s one of the only reasons why EON should listen to fans. Other than the writing in recent films, it seems that EON is doing well with everything else, or learn from their mistakes.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,703
    OOWolf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like any art, it would be a disaster if they “listened to the fans”.

    I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.

    “Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.

    Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.

    Exactly my thoughts, @NickTwentyTwo .. Plus, this is still a business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake... If they listened to the fans, which group should they listen to? The Moore fans? Connery? Laz? Broz?... My Dog, they'd make messes of their films... But somehow, through the ingenuity of the production team, they've survived the odd mis-fire and have more than not consistently given us films that fans and general audiences can love and/or appreciate on some level...

    They continue to pull in viewers, old and new.

    The franchise is 60 years old and still going strong! What other franchise has done that with films coming out every 1-5 years for the past 60 years? Star Wars?... Indy?... Die Hard?... No one has done what EoN has done.

    Technically, they could release a Bond film with unicorns, but as long as the brand is attached, it'll probably survive and do well. It's easy to give the producers a lot of credit, but their dad was truly responsible for the success of the franchise, so the groundwork had already been properly laid. 'Die Another Day,' 'QOS' and most of all, 'SPECTRE' are not very good entries by any means, but regardless, people get excited by the prospect of a new OO7 film and that's ONLY because of history.

    It just sounds like you’re stubbornly trying to deny the accomplishments of Mike and Babs. Like, god forbid the idea that SKYFALL made new fans and that people saw SPECTRE due to the goodwill of its direct predecessor. Noooo, people only saw these Craig films because of Cubby’s run which ended over 30 years ago.
  • MurdockMurdock Mr. 2000
    Posts: 16,057
    when EON was a sausage factory.

    They moved on from selling quality sausage to selling mad cow disease riddled mince meat.
  • edited September 30 Posts: 5,804
    OOWolf wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Like any art, it would be a disaster if they “listened to the fans”.

    I honestly think that if they just tried to cater to what fans think they want, we’d have 25 Dr. No’s.

    “Producers are unaware of the fans desire to return to standalone missions”, fair enough, if you and several other fans want this, but you can’t possibly speak for “the fans” at large I don’t think, and you do throughout.

    Again, fair enough if the producers aren’t making the Bond films *you* want, but call it like it is.

    Exactly my thoughts, @NickTwentyTwo .. Plus, this is still a business with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake... If they listened to the fans, which group should they listen to? The Moore fans? Connery? Laz? Broz?... My Dog, they'd make messes of their films... But somehow, through the ingenuity of the production team, they've survived the odd mis-fire and have more than not consistently given us films that fans and general audiences can love and/or appreciate on some level...

    They continue to pull in viewers, old and new.

    The franchise is 60 years old and still going strong! What other franchise has done that with films coming out every 1-5 years for the past 60 years? Star Wars?... Indy?... Die Hard?... No one has done what EoN has done.

    Technically, they could release a Bond film with unicorns, but as long as the brand is attached, it'll probably survive and do well. It's easy to give the producers a lot of credit, but their dad was truly responsible for the success of the franchise, so the groundwork had already been properly laid. 'Die Another Day,' 'QOS' and most of all, 'SPECTRE' are not very good entries by any means, but regardless, people get excited by the prospect of a new OO7 film and that's ONLY because of history.

    It just sounds like you’re stubbornly trying to deny the accomplishments of Mike and Babs. Like, god forbid the idea that SKYFALL made new fans and that people saw SPECTRE due to the goodwill of its direct predecessor. Noooo, people only saw these Craig films because of Cubby’s run which ended over 30 years ago.

    I have nothing to add @MakeshiftPython ... Bang. On.!!!!!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython "I want you looking FABULOUS."
    Posts: 4,703
    Murdock wrote: »
    when EON was a sausage factory.

    They moved on from selling quality sausage to selling mad cow disease riddled mince meat.

    In your opinion.
  • StirredNotShakenStirredNotShaken Searching for No Time to Die in the "Favourite Bond Film" section...
    Posts: 2,066
    Regardless of however anyone feels right now OR after they've seen NTTD, it's wonderful for the series' longevity that all four of the first Craig films were massive hits at the box office. I hope NTTD can be as well, I'm just very concerned about the fact that it has to make some $900m worldwide in order to make ANY money, so to be a "huge" success it needs to clear at least the billion dollar range which only Skyfall has ever done. Nonetheless, the fact that all of the delays/issues in making and releasing Bond films had to do entirely with outside factors and not the success of the movies themselves is something everyone involved with the Craig era should be immensely proud of.
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 121
    Murdock wrote: »
    when EON was a sausage factory.

    They moved on from selling quality sausage to selling mad cow disease riddled mince meat.

    In your opinion.

    Clearly there are others with that same opinion.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 4,368
    OOWolf wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    when EON was a sausage factory.

    They moved on from selling quality sausage to selling mad cow disease riddled mince meat.

    In your opinion.

    Clearly there are others with that same opinion.

    Definitely! I think the disconnect is that you think it's the opinion of the vast majority of the fans (or all the fans, as per your OP), when I think box office numbers would disagree.

    I'm not saying good box office = good films, I'm saying some people definitely share your opinion but I think it's a smaller number than you think. Vocal minority and all that.
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    edited October 1 Posts: 121
    OOWolf wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    when EON was a sausage factory.

    They moved on from selling quality sausage to selling mad cow disease riddled mince meat.

    In your opinion.

    Clearly there are others with that same opinion.

    Definitely! I think the disconnect is that you think it's the opinion of the vast majority of the fans (or all the fans, as per your OP), when I think box office numbers would disagree.

    I'm not saying good box office = good films, I'm saying some people definitely share your opinion but I think it's a smaller number than you think. Vocal minority and all that.

    Well, then I apologize if it sounds like I'm speaking for the greater majority. I guess I'm just trying to elaborate on the opinion that Craig's run feels just a wee bit overrated. During Cubby's period, EON was capable of cranking out classics at the sausage factory, whereas, the modern EON needs double the time to deliver films with screenplays that are not very clever and laden with serious plot holes. 'Casino Royale' is the only relatively tight scripted entry during Craig's tenure, and that's greatly due to it being based on Fleming's classic novel.

    I suppose that I'm compelled to discuss this, based on the mixed reviews of 'NTTD.' Without having seen it, yet, I truly bet that the abominable 'SPECTRE' has tainted it. The producers knew that it was a mess and can guarantee that it's the only reason why 'NTTD' is supposed to be a direct sequel; they thought something so bad could somehow be justified.

    Lastly, where is the artistic integrity? 'Casino Royale' was supposed to set the tone for a more grounded run of films with Daniel Craig, and two films later, there are man eating Komodo dragons...
  • Posts: 484
    I don't think any franchise should yield to fan entitlement. We saw what happened with Star Wars.

    It was funny how in 2015 fans slated SP but praised The Force Awakens and Disney for supposedly having a direction. Come 2019 we realise the Star Wars sequel trilogy was ultimately pretty aimless and dispensable having been pulled in too many different directions.

    Bond may not be high art but it's still art and the producers and writers should tell the story they want to tell and not feel bound to give the 25th reiteration of what some fans enjoyed back in the 60s.

    Sure, it's a commercial cinematic franchise in which box office receipts determine the long term future but the film series has benefited from the course changes the producers themselves chose, the down to earth approach for FYEO, going with Craig and a reboot with CR.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 2,056
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    If EON listened to fans, they would have gotten rid of Purvis and Wade a long time ago. That’s one of the only reasons why EON should listen to fans. Other than the writing in recent films, it seems that EON is doing well with everything else, or learn from their mistakes.

    I also want to add that the fans won’t have so many art house movie directors working on the movies. EON hasn’t been able to get over that they don’t need them.
  • OOWolfOOWolf Savannah
    Posts: 121
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    If EON listened to fans, they would have gotten rid of Purvis and Wade a long time ago. That’s one of the only reasons why EON should listen to fans. Other than the writing in recent films, it seems that EON is doing well with everything else, or learn from their mistakes.

    I also want to add that the fans won’t have so many art house movie directors working on the movies. EON hasn’t been able to get over that they don’t need them.

    Exactly. I guess the average moviegoer hasn't paid attention to the fact that the same writers responsible for giving a poor send off for Brosnan, had never left.
Sign In or Register to comment.