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
Comments
Yep, that’s about the difference. There’s faith in the EoN team, and likely why Amazon isn’t pushing them to speed things up— which is the smartest thing to do.
Plus I think that Bond’s Pop Culture status has increased since 95 as well thanks to both Brosnan and Craig’s tenure. Simply put he’s in a much better spot compared to where he was back in 89 after LTK. EON have gone through more than enough “reinventions” to have a grasp on how the process should be done.
Or TSWLM...or DAF...
What's old is new again.
Yes, I think in terms of reputation, Bond is in a similar place as after YOLT, where the major source of pressure is matching what came before, and finding an actor who will be able to follow someone who has become the defining image of the character for an entire generation.
I think that’s the challenge for anytime they recast Bond however. What’s more difficult for EON would be finding creative ways to set Bond #7’s era apart from not only Craig’s but the other actors as well. Not to mention finding different storytelling directions to go down.
Yeah, I can see that. I think it'll be easier this time round though. Back then Sean Connery was James Bond, and the idea of anyone else in the role probably wasn't easy to imagine. As popular as Craig was as Bond, fans and the general public have had 60 years of seeing different actors take the role, and everyone has different favourites.
I agree it'll be easier, but I think it's a similar situation in the sense of it being about living up to recent success, as opposed to the TSWLM or GE, which were more about proving the character and the franchise could survive when many had written it off as outdated, or that its best years were behind it.
I guess there's an element of that now with changing attitudes and whether Bond is too 'problematic' for the 21st century, but those types of criticism are nothing new, and the commercial and general critical success of NTTD prove that this isn't too much of an issue at the moment.
LALD or TSPWLM are more important.
Care to elaborate?
The series could have disappeared without Connery.
Now we have 6 Bonds and it's no longer a problem.
No, @George_Kaplan, despite several requests, @DEKE_RIVERS chooses not understand that this forum asks its members to actually have a point rather than drop a one- or two-sentence statement without nuance or deeper explanation. He prefers to throw a bold statement in our face, hoping that we will then beg him for more wisdom. He will soon discover that even this community's patience is not endless. For now, we're just calling it spam.
Deeper explanation? We all already know the importance of TSWLM.
I agree. They're coming off a relatively successful era with a popular Bond. But there is room to do something different and, for many, improve upon the previous films (subjective as that is).
And yeah, as you said those criticisms are nothing new. I suppose the good thing about Bond as a character is that he's a bit of a b*stard at times anyway, so you can keep a lot of his 'problematic qualities' without having to soften the character too much. That's the route they seem to go usually anyway.
....and the importance of GoldenEye.
We had 16 movies and 4 Bonds before GE.
The longest gap between films during that span was 2.5 years. 6.5 separated LTK and GE with the former underachieving from a financial perspective. Not to mention the issues that plagued EON and MGM in that span. They needed GE to be a hit
Yeah, the franchise was dead but it was already a 30 year old franchise.
It doesn't matter now, we have Planet of the Apes movies that no one asked for. I guess Bond can't be dead forever
What?
I mean, it's all about remakes and sequels now.
It's the time the creatives need to tell the story they want to tell. That has value. If you rush that process, you'll be able to see it in the final production (examples: QOS and SP-- both needed more time to develop the "right" story, especially the latter film (and I say this as a fan of Quantum, and I'm now warming to Spectre)).
Whether a gap is six months, or six years, they need the time to be happy with the direction they want to go in. So time, yes, has value and will play a role in the finished product...
But once things are established, using time/gap, then the film will sink or swim on the execution.
But never underestimate the importance of gaps between projects ...
Very well said. The last two gaps we had between eras resulted in some of the best installments of the series yet. If they take another few years to "course correct" or change directions or simply use the time to ensure they come up with exactly what audiences are after (whether we knew it or not), then I'm all for it.
Yes, I'm aware. I'm sure that has something to do with what you're saying, but I'm not sure what it is based on your follow-up comments either.
Without Moore's success, Bond would have been Connery's Dirty Harry or something like that.
That's why I think LALD or TSWLM were more important than GE.
But...They are going to make another Bullitt movie, so...who knows?
They made Pink Panther movies without Peter Sellers too.
I mean I understand that both LALD and TSWLM were huge watershed moments for the franchise, but in what way does that make those movies more “important” than GE?
Hell's bells, Lazenby probably had one of the hardest jobs in cinema, period.