Where does Bond go after Craig?

1656657659661662688

Comments

  • Posts: 4,230
    James Bond had diminishing returns too but the secret is to continue making movies.

    Until each course correction/new approach gave them those hits needed. It’s not just a case of continuing to make movies but making the right ones.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    bondywondy wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I think Nolan is out of the frame. He is directing a new film for summer 2026 release. He won't be available until 2026 and that's assuming Eon are prepared to pay his fee (which will be huge!) and to allow him to write the screenplay. It's probably not worth Eon's time pursuing Nolan.

    Jennifer Salke, the global head of Amazon MGM Studios:
    “The global audience will be patient. We don’t want too much time between films, but we are not concerned at this point.”

    Amazon are prepared to wait. This may backfire on them if Eon have no release date in mind. Just my opinion but I think Amazon are a tad naive to adopt a 'wait and see' approach. If you buy MGM and half of the Bond franchise you should have a long term strategy in place when you want the next Bond film to be made. For example: Bond 26 must be made by 2027 or we (Amazon) sue Eon Productions/Danjaq for 'unreasonable delay.' That would be a more sensible approach, perhaps.

    I'm surprised a company as dynamic as Amazon is so casual regarding Bond. But, on the other hand, I guess a long wait/delay is Eon not rushing things. They want to get it right. But not rushing can become not bothering if it drags on for years! 🤭





    To be fair, we don’t know that they’re not working on a long term strategy. The film industry is in a precarious place right now and blockbusters are no longer the reliable cornerstone that keeps the structure from falling apart. While frustrating, I don’t mind the wait if it means that EON/MGM/Amazon are using this time to think strategically about the brand. I’ve said before that a bad film or terribly received film is more dangerous to the future of Bond (or any brand at that level) than no film.

    EON keeps the Bond-cards close to the vest. This allows them to maintain significant control, but it also helps to inoculate the franchise from the toxicity of modern fandom. Sometimes the audience doesn’t need to see behind the curtain. Standing up a multi-million dollar production that employs a thousand people around the world is complicated and sometimes messy. That’s the business but fandom as whole doesn’t understand this.

    Broccoli isn’t an automaton that spits out Bond films every two years. She is a highly involved creative producer; one of the most successful and lauded independent producers working at the highest levels in film, stage and television. Let her recharge. Let her do other things so that she can bring as fresh perspective when crafting the next Bond film.

    Post of the year, @Burgess … well said. Every.Single.Word.

    It’s just the way of this industry, and the way Broccoli navigates it with her partners is especially crafty. She’s an excellent producer and has continued to protect the brand as well as see that it evolves (while keeping all the traits that makes Bond, Bond). This is an especially complex thing to do and why we have witnessed the death of other film series (the producers just repeated the same old, same old, watering down their product until it was paper thin with diminishing returns).

    Great post!


    Bond 25 was originally scheduled for release October 2019.
    "Bond 25" is scheduled to arrive in UK cinemas on 25 October 2019 and open in US cinemas two weeks later.

    In a few weeks time it will be five years since No Time To Die was finished and ready to be released. If Bond 26 is out in October 2026 it will be the longest gap ever. Seven years. Eight years if Bond 26 is October 2027.

    However... I accept Amazon are impossibly wealthy so they can wait and wait. Amazon can wait forever! But it would be a counterintuitive policy to wait and wait.

    Except it was released in 2021. The 2019 date was for the Danny Boyle film which never happened. Why are you trying to conflate the gap with a nonexistent film?
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,124
    I think telling us to be patient might even be a hint that they're close to finishing plans for Bond 7's direction. Also, it could mean that Amazon has seen something and are impressed with EON's progress.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    If I have to give Barbara Broccoli any criticism, it would be that I wish she gave a more transparent answer to what’s going on with Bond. For example, if she feels she needs to take a break from Bond before kickstarting a new run, just say that. “We’re taking a hiatus to recharge our batteries before committing to a new era for Bond”. Fair enough! Eon is not obligated to make five films a decade. They can take their time, I’ve said since NTTD that I’m super patient.

    My attitude would be a little different if this were happening within an actor’s run. Say BOND 26 comes out, three years pass and there’s no talk of what’s next, and it’s looking like it’ll be six years between an actor’s debut and a second installment. That would be concerning. Even with the gap between SF and NTTD, we were already getting news of a Bond 25 in 2017 with Craig confirming it’s his final film and the deal with Universal, then the 2019 release date announcement.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 10 Posts: 5,970
    The thing is patience is easy really when it comes to waiting for the next film, what irks my patience more is this consistent negativity that seems to be particularly palpable, which more often than not shortens my visits here, and it's not what I come here to discuss over and over again.

    Again, EON's own patience isn't something to be frightened of.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The thing is patience is easy really when it comes to waiting for the next film, what irks my patience more is this consistent negativity that seems to be particularly palpable, which more often than not shortens my visits here, and it's not what I come here to discuss over and over again.

    Again, EON's own patience isn't something to be frightened of.

    @Denbigh — preach. You perfectly summed up my feelings.

    And I am fully aware I’m more the fool for responding. I truly am an idiot, lol. And I never feel good about responding to the negativity. I’m slowly learning, but I’m a work in progress, lol
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The thing is patience is easy really when it comes to waiting for the next film, what irks my patience more is this consistent negativity that seems to be particularly palpable, which more often than not shortens my visits here, and it's not what I come here to discuss over and over again.

    Again, EON's own patience isn't something to be frightened of.

    Frankly I find it a lot easier here than on social media which is just swarmed with negativity.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 10 Posts: 5,970
    peter wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The thing is patience is easy really when it comes to waiting for the next film, what irks my patience more is this consistent negativity that seems to be particularly palpable, which more often than not shortens my visits here, and it's not what I come here to discuss over and over again.

    Again, EON's own patience isn't something to be frightened of.
    And I am fully aware I’m more the fool for responding.
    Not at all @peter, sometimes being EON's defence attorney is necessary 😉
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The thing is patience is easy really when it comes to waiting for the next film, what irks my patience more is this consistent negativity that seems to be particularly palpable, which more often than not shortens my visits here, and it's not what I come here to discuss over and over again.

    Again, EON's own patience isn't something to be frightened of.
    Frankly I find it a lot easier here than on social media which is just swarmed with negativity.
    True, but with James Bond, I sometimes actually find (uncharacteristically so I admit) social media more positive, especially when it comes to this current break between films or maybe I've just been lucky in what I've seen...
  • Posts: 1,396
    The problem is that there is nothing positive to say unless we make up the news.

    I have one. Aaron Taylor-Johnson will be the next Bond. ;)
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited October 10 Posts: 5,970
    The problem is that there is nothing positive to say unless we make up the news.
    But we don't have to do that either. No news is just that, no news. It's not positive or negative.

    In the meantime, we can discuss the endless hypothetical possibilities of, as the title says, where does Bond go after Craig? The actors, the writers, the directors, the cinematographers, the story itself. The what could be as opposed to what will be or when we'll actually get it, because it's kinda wasted until that news trickles through and we'll just go around in circles.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Not at all @peter, sometimes being EON's defence attorney is necessary 😉

    Genuine 😂 😂 😂
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,336
    peter wrote: »
    @bondywondy ... But Amazon purchased all of MGM and their titles. It's not a tactical blunder, and it's not like buying a building and leaving it vacant:

    MGM isn't just Bond.

    It's thousands of hours of content that they're capitalizing on via their ownership and can now stream on their platform.

    They've been busy producing new tv series with the IP, remaking films or rebooting films from the MGM library.

    They're very much benefiting from the merger/ownership since they can now exploit all kinds of IP. They're incredibly busy.

    As for Cubby's and Harry's output:

    They started with having in place the Fleming titles.

    The landscape for making films sixty, fifty and forty years ago was far different and wayyyyyy less saturated than it is today.

    And there were issues with filming that stalled productions: the gap between 1989- 1995!

    I suppose one could say that BB is a nepo-baby (why didn't you mention her half brother?!!), but the children of Cubby are talented producers. There's no denying they've continued to evolve the brand and have even elevated it (anyone who thinks Cubby would be disappointed with their thirty years at the helm should really examine why they think this way!).

    It's conjecture, at best, to assume that without Bond, BB wouldn't be a producer!! This is the life she was given, and she's been utterly successful at it! We can only judge the person with what she's done in her professional life, and not make assumptions about a life she's never lived!

    NO TIME TO DIE (I think that's the title), was delayed because of a pandemic...

    No matter when the film was made, it was released in 2021 (like any film that gets delayed, their release date is the official date of the last film), and therefore it's only been three years since the last Bond film.

    I am of the firm opinion that once they get the new era underway (Oct 2027 release date), that the films will be released on a three year schedule.

    James Bond will return...

    Seconded.

    In addition to having their pick of Fleming novels, Cubby and Harry were operating at the end of the studio system. Studios and producers could easily control and manipulate stars, directors, and writers. That all fell apart, deservedly so, by the late '60s.

    Why do you think Connery became so angry with Cubby and Harry in the first place?

    He was pushing against a production system that no longer exists, and that Barbara and Michael could not replicate today, even if they wanted to.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    Anyone arguing that they should return to how production was done in the 1960s aren’t serious people. That was a completely different time with completely different systems in place. Connery getting that salary in 1971 was considered very high back in the day, but even with inflation adjusted that doesn’t compare to what some big stars make today.

    To go back to making films annually, they’d have probably buy up the continuation novels so they have ready to adapt material and find an actor that is desperate enough to be willing to endure Bond productions year round with little opportunities in between.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Anyone arguing that they should return to how production was done in the 1960s aren’t serious people. That was a completely different time with completely different systems in place. Connery getting that salary in 1971 was considered very high back in the day, but even with inflation adjusted that doesn’t compare to what some big stars make today.

    To go back to making films annually, they’d have probably buy up the continuation novels so they have ready to adapt material and find an actor that is desperate enough to be willing to endure Bond productions year round with little opportunities in between.

    Very good point about the actor. The James Bond actor needs a break from these films too, to stretch his muscles on stage or in other films.
    echo wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @bondywondy ... But Amazon purchased all of MGM and their titles. It's not a tactical blunder, and it's not like buying a building and leaving it vacant:

    MGM isn't just Bond.

    It's thousands of hours of content that they're capitalizing on via their ownership and can now stream on their platform.

    They've been busy producing new tv series with the IP, remaking films or rebooting films from the MGM library.

    They're very much benefiting from the merger/ownership since they can now exploit all kinds of IP. They're incredibly busy.

    As for Cubby's and Harry's output:

    They started with having in place the Fleming titles.

    The landscape for making films sixty, fifty and forty years ago was far different and wayyyyyy less saturated than it is today.

    And there were issues with filming that stalled productions: the gap between 1989- 1995!

    I suppose one could say that BB is a nepo-baby (why didn't you mention her half brother?!!), but the children of Cubby are talented producers. There's no denying they've continued to evolve the brand and have even elevated it (anyone who thinks Cubby would be disappointed with their thirty years at the helm should really examine why they think this way!).

    It's conjecture, at best, to assume that without Bond, BB wouldn't be a producer!! This is the life she was given, and she's been utterly successful at it! We can only judge the person with what she's done in her professional life, and not make assumptions about a life she's never lived!

    NO TIME TO DIE (I think that's the title), was delayed because of a pandemic...

    No matter when the film was made, it was released in 2021 (like any film that gets delayed, their release date is the official date of the last film), and therefore it's only been three years since the last Bond film.

    I am of the firm opinion that once they get the new era underway (Oct 2027 release date), that the films will be released on a three year schedule.

    James Bond will return...

    Seconded.

    In addition to having their pick of Fleming novels, Cubby and Harry were operating at the end of the studio system. Studios and producers could easily control and manipulate stars, directors, and writers. That all fell apart, deservedly so, by the late '60s.

    Why do you think Connery became so angry with Cubby and Harry in the first place?

    He was pushing against a production system that no longer exists, and that Barbara and Michael could not replicate today, even if they wanted to.

    The studio system was treacherous. And yes, Cubby and Harry were brutal to the man who made them multi-millionaires. Cubby maybe softened in his old age, but he was ruthless when it came to paying people….
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    peter wrote: »
    Anyone arguing that they should return to how production was done in the 1960s aren’t serious people. That was a completely different time with completely different systems in place. Connery getting that salary in 1971 was considered very high back in the day, but even with inflation adjusted that doesn’t compare to what some big stars make today.

    To go back to making films annually, they’d have probably buy up the continuation novels so they have ready to adapt material and find an actor that is desperate enough to be willing to endure Bond productions year round with little opportunities in between.

    Very good point about the actor. The James Bond actor needs a break from these films too, to stretch his muscles on stage or in other films.

    Even Cubby had to relent. We saw him switch from releasing a movie every 12 months to 18 months, then finally to 24 months starting with TSWLM. He saw how things deteriorated with Connery then adapted to give Moore the space any star deserves.

    The Harry Potter films were originally supposed to be released every 12 months. That method was so grueling on everyone that the studio agreed to switch to an 18 month cycle instead. Granted, the close proximity of release was primarily done to keep the actors close to the age of their characters.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited October 10 Posts: 6,336
    Connery was a serious actor. He wanted to work with Hitchcock, so he figured out a way. He wanted artistic films, so he cut a deal to do that in exchange for doing DAF.

    And he knew his worth, which is why he got even richer with NSNA. And he should have; he was the entire draw!

    Despite his problematic views on women, without Connery and his first six films, I don't think cinematic Bond would have lasted, period.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,219
    echo wrote: »
    Connery was a serious actor. He wanted to work with Hitchcock, so he figured out a way. He wanted artistic films, so he cut a deal to do that in exchange for doing DAF.

    And he knew his worth, which is why he got even richer with NSNA. And he should have; he was the entire draw!

    Despite his problematic views on women, without Connery and his first six films, I don't think cinematic Bond would have lasted, period.

    Absolutely. The way I see it (and I could be wrong), Connery was just rough, old, and unknown enough to get people excited for his Bond. Once they were hooked, they would follow his Bond for a long time. And they did. Connery's rise to stardom coincided with Bond's rise to stardom. Though it's impossible to predict what would have happened if another guy had gotten the part, I'm pretty confident that Connery's importance cannot be easily overstated. It wasn't just he alone who made Bond happen, but he played a huge part in it nevertheless. If only Cubby and Harry had been smart enough to keep him happy...
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,662
    peter wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The thing is patience is easy really when it comes to waiting for the next film, what irks my patience more is this consistent negativity that seems to be particularly palpable, which more often than not shortens my visits here, and it's not what I come here to discuss over and over again.

    Again, EON's own patience isn't something to be frightened of.

    @Denbigh — preach. You perfectly summed up my feelings.

    And I am fully aware I’m more the fool for responding. I truly am an idiot, lol. And I never feel good about responding to the negativity. I’m slowly learning, but I’m a work in progress, lol

    I know how you feel @peter I'm a giant work in progress as well. As I've said before, we're lucky to have a lot of Bond material outside the movies. I know a lot of fans just want Fleming's books and EON's movies, but, there are a lot of time-killers with the comics, continuation novels and video games. Some of the other characters who have all that are Sherlock Holmes, Superman, Batman and Mario. Bond will always have a future. We'll probably get more news when we least expect it (Like IFP with Double-00s and The Q Mysteries). Amazon with Bond is probably like Disney with Star Wars: they know they have a guaranteed money maker, it would sit around for long. However, EON and Amazon are possibly learning from Disney and Lucasfilm, so that they don't rush things, and fire people continually. So, I'd rather have EON and Amazon have more of a plan than the others had. We know they both can make quality productions, so let's give them a chance.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,193
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Connery was a serious actor. He wanted to work with Hitchcock, so he figured out a way. He wanted artistic films, so he cut a deal to do that in exchange for doing DAF.

    And he knew his worth, which is why he got even richer with NSNA. And he should have; he was the entire draw!

    Despite his problematic views on women, without Connery and his first six films, I don't think cinematic Bond would have lasted, period.

    Absolutely. The way I see it (and I could be wrong), Connery was just rough, old, and unknown enough to get people excited for his Bond. Once they were hooked, they would follow his Bond for a long time. And they did. Connery's rise to stardom coincided with Bond's rise to stardom. Though it's impossible to predict what would have happened if another guy had gotten the part, I'm pretty confident that Connery's importance cannot be easily overstated. It wasn't just he alone who made Bond happen, but he played a huge part in it nevertheless. If only Cubby and Harry had been smart enough to keep him happy...

    Terence Young certainly didn’t play down how important Connery was. He’d be asked what it was that made DN become the hit it did and he said “I can give you three reasons: 1. Sean Connery. 2. Sean Connery. 3. Sean Connery.” Of course the filmmakers shouldn’t be discounted, but Connery and his undeniable magnetism was the secret weapon.

    Same could be said of Daniel Craig, an actor doesn’t look like your conventional movie star. I remember my mom was skeptical of the guy, even going as far as to say “there’s no such thing as a blond James Bond”. 20 mins into the movie my mom is in love with Craig’s Bond, by the end of it he’s the best Bond ever.

    The CraigNotBond folks like to crack about how Barbara was in love with Craig, but there’s no denying that Craig was an immensely popular Bond and arguably redefine the character for a new generation. I wouldn’t blame her for taking this hiatus if it was to help distance Craig from whoever the guy is.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,854
    Craig is and was superb.

    And no less it's what they give the Bond character to do. That's really what carries the day and the film, even over the latest actor in the role. Beyond that the filmmakers read the current state, and coming out of pandemic conditions they managed it pretty masterfully. Now the pretty erratic successes of film releases are something that rightly give pause. And assessment. And alignment of conditions warranting start of production as the producers have weathered in the past.

    Unusually sunny this week here outside DC.
  • Posts: 1,396
    Anyone arguing that they should return to how production was done in the 1960s aren’t serious people. That was a completely different time with completely different systems in place. Connery getting that salary in 1971 was considered very high back in the day, but even with inflation adjusted that doesn’t compare to what some big stars make today.

    To go back to making films annually, they’d have probably buy up the continuation novels so they have ready to adapt material and find an actor that is desperate enough to be willing to endure Bond productions year round with little opportunities in between.

    It's funny because Marvel makes movies all the time and they have the actors working a lot.

    It's not the system, it's EON. Bond may be too big for a family business.

    2 or 3 years for a sequel is not "hurrying".

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited October 11 Posts: 15,152
    I for one am glad EON aren’t like Marvel.
    Spewing out movies on a regular basis.But at a cost. I’m trying to think of a recent movie from Marvel that has been a hit, outside of Avengers, Spider-Man or Guardians Of The Galaxy.
    At least with EON being a family business, they actually care about what happens. Sure they’re a business and are in it to make money. But they don’t just put a movie out for the sake of it.
    Unlike Marvel, no Bond film has ever been a flop.
    Some might take longer to recoup there money, but never a flop.
    I think Bond remains in very good hands at EON.
  • edited October 11 Posts: 350
    bondywondy wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I think Nolan is out of the frame. He is directing a new film for summer 2026 release. He won't be available until 2026 and that's assuming Eon are prepared to pay his fee (which will be huge!) and to allow him to write the screenplay. It's probably not worth Eon's time pursuing Nolan.

    Jennifer Salke, the global head of Amazon MGM Studios:
    “The global audience will be patient. We don’t want too much time between films, but we are not concerned at this point.”

    Amazon are prepared to wait. This may backfire on them if Eon have no release date in mind. Just my opinion but I think Amazon are a tad naive to adopt a 'wait and see' approach. If you buy MGM and half of the Bond franchise you should have a long term strategy in place when you want the next Bond film to be made. For example: Bond 26 must be made by 2027 or we (Amazon) sue Eon Productions/Danjaq for 'unreasonable delay.' That would be a more sensible approach, perhaps.

    I'm surprised a company as dynamic as Amazon is so casual regarding Bond. But, on the other hand, I guess a long wait/delay is Eon not rushing things. They want to get it right. But not rushing can become not bothering if it drags on for years! 🤭





    To be fair, we don’t know that they’re not working on a long term strategy. The film industry is in a precarious place right now and blockbusters are no longer the reliable cornerstone that keeps the structure from falling apart. While frustrating, I don’t mind the wait if it means that EON/MGM/Amazon are using this time to think strategically about the brand. I’ve said before that a bad film or terribly received film is more dangerous to the future of Bond (or any brand at that level) than no film.

    EON keeps the Bond-cards close to the vest. This allows them to maintain significant control, but it also helps to inoculate the franchise from the toxicity of modern fandom. Sometimes the audience doesn’t need to see behind the curtain. Standing up a multi-million dollar production that employs a thousand people around the world is complicated and sometimes messy. That’s the business but fandom as whole doesn’t understand this.

    Broccoli isn’t an automaton that spits out Bond films every two years. She is a highly involved creative producer; one of the most successful and lauded independent producers working at the highest levels in film, stage and television. Let her recharge. Let her do other things so that she can bring as fresh perspective when crafting the next Bond film.

    Post of the year, @Burgess … well said. Every.Single.Word.

    It’s just the way of this industry, and the way Broccoli navigates it with her partners is especially crafty. She’s an excellent producer and has continued to protect the brand as well as see that it evolves (while keeping all the traits that makes Bond, Bond). This is an especially complex thing to do and why we have witnessed the death of other film series (the producers just repeated the same old, same old, watering down their product until it was paper thin with diminishing returns).

    Great post!


    Bond 25 was originally scheduled for release October 2019.
    "Bond 25" is scheduled to arrive in UK cinemas on 25 October 2019 and open in US cinemas two weeks later.

    In a few weeks time it will be five years since No Time To Die was finished and ready to be released. If Bond 26 is out in October 2026 it will be the longest gap ever. Seven years. Eight years if Bond 26 is October 2027.

    However... I accept Amazon are impossibly wealthy so they can wait and wait. Amazon can wait forever! But it would be a counterintuitive policy to wait and wait.

    Except it was released in 2021. The 2019 date was for the Danny Boyle film which never happened. Why are you trying to conflate the gap with a nonexistent film?

    The film was intended to be released in October 2019. The film was delayed due to script changes and Boyle replaced. It went from October 25th 2019 to February 14th 2020 then moved a few times then delayed to September 30th 2021 due to Covid. The film was fully complete by early 2020 because it was going to be released in February of that year. If Bond 26 is in 2026 it's a six year gap (from NTTD being fully made at the start of 2020) or a seven year gap if Bond 26 is in 2027.

    I recall Cary Joji Fukunaga saying no reshoots were done during the long covid delay. The film was complete by early 2020. February 14th is Valentine's Day so it was a memorable date to release a Bond film. 😉
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    edited October 11 Posts: 2,124
    Anyone arguing that they should return to how production was done in the 1960s aren’t serious people. That was a completely different time with completely different systems in place. Connery getting that salary in 1971 was considered very high back in the day, but even with inflation adjusted that doesn’t compare to what some big stars make today.

    To go back to making films annually, they’d have probably buy up the continuation novels so they have ready to adapt material and find an actor that is desperate enough to be willing to endure Bond productions year round with little opportunities in between.

    It's funny because Marvel makes movies all the time and they have the actors working a lot.

    It's not the system, it's EON. Bond may be too big for a family business.

    2 or 3 years for a sequel is not "hurrying".

    I don't know...but I don't think you profoundly understand what @MakeshiftPython & @peter have been saying. Also, have you noticed that Marvel films aren't guaranteed box office draws anymore? Because like Disney - Star Wars, they kept releasing films after films, until people got tired. Surely @DEKE_RIVERS as a Bond fan, that isn't something you would want for James Bond.
  • Posts: 1,396
    Anyone arguing that they should return to how production was done in the 1960s aren’t serious people. That was a completely different time with completely different systems in place. Connery getting that salary in 1971 was considered very high back in the day, but even with inflation adjusted that doesn’t compare to what some big stars make today.

    To go back to making films annually, they’d have probably buy up the continuation novels so they have ready to adapt material and find an actor that is desperate enough to be willing to endure Bond productions year round with little opportunities in between.

    It's funny because Marvel makes movies all the time and they have the actors working a lot.

    It's not the system, it's EON. Bond may be too big for a family business.

    2 or 3 years for a sequel is not "hurrying".

    I don't know...but I don't think you profoundly understand what @MakeshiftPython & @peter have been saying. Also, have you noticed that Marvel films aren't guaranteed box office draws anymore? Because like Disney - Star Wars, they kept releasing films after films, until people got tired. Surely @DEKE_RIVERS as a Bond fan, that isn't something you would want for James Bond.

    I don't want Marvel system. My point is 2 or 3 years gaps are not "something of the past"

    No, that's not true. It's EON. They've gone from being the fastest producers in the business to being the slowest. ;)

    Maybe they are tired. Maybe they need a change.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,152
    The three year gap has been pretty much with us since DAD. Before that we had the two year gap which was a mainstay of the series from LTK, all the way back to YOLT.
    It was only the first four films that were released annually.
    So your argument kind of falls flat @DEKE_RIVERS
    But then you do like to stir up a storm don’t you.
  • edited October 11 Posts: 1,396
    The last one wasn't a 3 year gap. Sure, we can blame Craig, Covid or Boyle... and now? Who do we blame?

  • edited October 11 Posts: 4,230
    Marvel’s not the best comparison. It’s a big operation with various projects going at once. It’s not the same as Bond.

    A better comparison would be something like the MI series, which since 2011 has had 3, but more often 4 + year gaps. The next Batman film will be out four years after the previous one, and even if it hadn’t been pushed back by DC it still would have had a three year gap. Even John Wick had a three year gap between the first one, and a four year gap between the third and fourth ones. EON’s output during the Craig era was fine in that sense.

    I think one of the good things about Bond is that it is helmed by very specific people. It’s the old phrase used to describe EON that it operates like an independent film company which makes multi-milllion dollar movies. I don’t think you can take that away without sacrificing something with Bond. I think an alternative is very much a ‘be careful what you wish for’ thing.
    The last one wasn't a 3 year gap. Sure, we can blame Craig, Covid or Boyle... and now? Who do we blame?

    The writer/actor strike would have delayed them if they’d started straight after NTTD anyway. As it is it’s seemingly a conscious decision to not go straight into production.

    As I’ve said, it does seem there’s a long term plan there with them being involved more in the video game etc.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,152
    The last one wasn't a 3 year gap. Sure, we can blame Craig, Covid or Boyle... and now? Who do we blame?

    Who do we blame for what?
  • Posts: 1,396
    Benny wrote: »
    The last one wasn't a 3 year gap. Sure, we can blame Craig, Covid or Boyle... and now? Who do we blame?

    Who do we blame for what?

    For having the 3 longest years in History.
    ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.