How many films would you predict Bond #7 will make?

Whirlybird_FanWhirlybird_Fan Sydney, Australia
I will say 3, with an option for a fourth.
«13

Comments

  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    3. That way we will have 7 Bond actors who have done 1-7 films each
  • I think 3 too, with a few years in between them
  • Posts: 631
    Two
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 13,879
    Four films and two games would be nice.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    Hard to say. If you had asked me in 2001 how many F&F films Vin Diesel would do, I'd have said "one, the sequel", and I would have been wrong in more than one way. Now they're squeezing these films out like overripe oranges and Vin Diesel is in all but a few of them.

    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.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 5,921
    For symmetry, I'd love to see 3.

    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.
  • w2bondw2bond is indeed a very rare breed
    Posts: 2,252
    echo wrote: »
    For symmetry, I'd love to see 3.

    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
  • GadgetManGadgetMan Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 4,247
    Maybe EON would bring back James Bond will return in Nobody Lives for Ever, for example. If this style returns in the next era, Bond 7 might do 6, as it would signal EON's confidence for the next era.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    w2bond wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    For symmetry, I'd love to see 3.

    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.
  • Posts: 9,730
    3 or 8 as each actor has done a different number of films
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    I don't know about predicting numbers but I'd certainly like them to do the same amount as Craig. Four to five films. That's depending on them being good in the role of course, which I dearly hope they are.
  • DeerAtTheGatesDeerAtTheGates Belgium
    Posts: 524
    As others have said, I’m going for a safe 3, with a possible 4th one depending on a few factors. We all know Bond 26 will take a while to get off the ground, but like with CR and QOS, I think they’ll want to establish a new Bond pretty quickly, so I can see that second film happening pretty quickly after Bond 26. If we were to assume EON gets to run their productions as freely as they do now, and Amazon has bought MGM and by Bond 27 have found a good rhythm and method to develop films, then they’ll allow EON a few more years in between Bond 27 and Bond 28. Depending on audience reactions, this might be the point where EON creatively does some course correction (see TSWLM and recently SF). And then my guess is we’ll get a similar situation that we were in with Craig, a lot of “Will he, won’t he”, waiting around and eventually a 4th film. A 5th one might go down the same way, but as films have become more fleetingly, and with Amazon probably wanting a quicker turnaround in between films and renewal (or avoiding any staleness) of the formula, I don’t think we’re going to get a 5th, or maybe not even a 4th.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,104
    1 film they misfire with casting and the film is a flop so #7 gets sacked, Bond #8 makes 4 movies.
  • Posts: 15,785
    Three on the optimistic side of things, but truthfully, I believe only one.
  • Posts: 207
    I think the spaced out release dates are here to stay, so I'm going to say only 2 or 3.
  • edited August 2021 Posts: 15,785
    The first 30 years of the franchise brought us 16 films between 4 actors. The next 30 years brought us 8 more films divided by 2 actors (9 if we get NTTD).

    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.
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,006
    Amazon will demand consistency. I’d guess every 2-3 years will see a new Bond film - so I’m going with 6.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    If the series continues at the same rate it has lately, I'd say three, four max.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Two, maybe. Six years apart, and the actor will want out. Three if it's four years apart.
    I expect to be dead before #7 is done.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Not a red herring
    Posts: 539
    As a rule I think a new actor should be introduced in every decade, which was the case until the 2010s.
  • Posts: 15,785
    As a rule I think a new actor should be introduced in every decade, which was the case until the 2010s.

    I wish they'd go back to that.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    As a rule I think a new actor should be introduced in every decade, which was the case until the 2010s.

    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!
  • Posts: 7,500
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    I think the spaced out release dates are here to stay, so I'm going to say only 2 or 3.

    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.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,449
    jobo wrote: »
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    I think the spaced out release dates are here to stay, so I'm going to say only 2 or 3.

    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’m going to contrast the realism pessimism of this thread and put my faith that potentially casting slightly younger and having financial troubles sorted will give us 6 Bond films with the next actor.
  • I think it will be 4 films for Bond #7. Hopefully Amazon's relationship with EON will improve chances of more frequent Bond films - hopefully at most every 3 years between films, if not 2.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited August 2021 Posts: 5,921
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    jobo wrote: »
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    I think the spaced out release dates are here to stay, so I'm going to say only 2 or 3.

    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:

    CR 2006
    QoS 2008
    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.
  • Posts: 12,506
    Depending on Amazon's influence? I will go 3? Happily would take more though!!!!! :-bd :))
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Given how long it takes to get them out these days, I'll go with Not Enough :D
  • They'll have the next Bond film out in 2062 for the 100th anniversary and call it quits after that.
Sign In or Register to comment.