Quality control in James Bond

Absolutely_Cart

I noticed that the number of 007 movies per decade has been on decline, from 6 to 5 to 3.

Assuming a 3 year cycle for Bond-25, that makes 3 films this decade.

In a series with 23 films, quality control is more important than ever. Two excellent films would do more for the series than 5 merely good ones. We already have breadth - now we need quality. Out of Fleming material and into original stories, IMO, it's important to think it through.

Gassy Man

Um, no. I don't think the quality is better now than, say, in the 60s. They just take a lot longer to make movies.

MooseWithFleas

Hard to believe they use to release a film every year! In today's age, you could theoretically pull this off by filming a 2 part entry back to back. Would be interesting if the producers considered this in the near future.

I don't think two year release gaps are unreasonable though. CR-QoS was 2 years and this was during the writer's strike as well. The 90's and 00's were also effected by financial situations between LTK and GE, then again between QoS and SF.

Absolutely_Cart

I think with massive budgets and extensive special effects today, making a film is more involved.

Also, I'm not saying movies today are better. The 2000's only had 3 movies, and 2 of them were seen as failures. The 1990's only had 1 "classic" of 3 movies: Goldeneye. I'm saying, however, that trying to go for 5+ movies a decade won't be good.

I'm just saying that with 23 films, we don't need a ton more films. We need just a few classic-to-be films for the series to maintain its cultural relevance and for the good-to-bad movie ratio to be more favorable.

chrisisall

Gassy Man wrote:

Um, no. I don't think the quality is better now than, say, in the 60s. They just take a lot longer to make movies.

Contemporary legal negotiations, comittee rewrites, post production CGIfests, corporate marketing & target release date decisions all take time.
They used to just make MOVIES.... 8-)

Absolutely_Cart

Daniel Craig had to spend an entire day in a wind tunnel just for the skydiving scene in QoS. That, and he had to train for days to prepare for it. And that's just 1 minute of the movie.

Gassy Man

chrisisall wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

Um, no. I don't think the quality is better now than, say, in the 60s. They just take a lot longer to make movies.

Contemporary legal negotiations, comittee rewrites, post production CGIfests, corporate marketing & target release date decisions all take time.
They used to just make MOVIES.... 8-)

Yep. It is the clumsy, slow-pokiness of the filmmakers that drags things out.

Gassy Man

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Daniel Craig had to spend an entire day in a wind tunnel just for the skydiving scene in QoS. That, and he had to train for days to prepare for it. And that's just 1 minute of the movie.

Was it really worth it? Not a scene that stands out in my mind as remarkable, especially since other movies have done similar things already -- Schwarzenneger's Eraser, for instance. They could save a lot of time and money investing in better writers and giving the actors something to do rather than act as stuntpeople.

welshboy78

I guess the actors (e.g, Daniel Craig) nowadays also demand / require to have a career outside of Bond nowadays.

I could be wrong here etc but how many non Bond films did Moore make whilst he was 007?

Barbel

About 14 or 15, IIRC. Some were big-budget (eg Escape To Athena, Sea Wolves), some not (Naked Face, That Lucky Touch). Some did well, some didn't.

Moore Than

welshboy78 wrote:

I could be wrong here etc but how many non Bond films did Moore make whilst he was 007?

Roger Moore appeared in twelve non Bond films while he was 007. Those films include Gold, Shout at the Devil, The Wild Geese and The Sea Wolves.

Barbel

+ 2 TV movies = 14.

welshboy78

Fair few then - busy man!

Guess nowadays the whole process is more complex / bloated

Thunderpussy

It has been suggested before but many companies make two
Films back to back. To save money and speed up the production times.
Might work for the Bonds ?

always shaken

Thunderpussy wrote:

It has been suggested before but many companies make two
Films back to back. To save money and speed up the production times.
Might work for the Bonds ?

Two Bond films back to back, no way ,I wouldn't be able to afford to keep up with the clothing, )

Thunderbird 2

There is an underlying element to all this that has not been directly addressed. When Sir Sean and Sir Roger were playing Bond, many more films in general were being made, or substantial portions of them were made in the UK. The biggest production drive in recent years besides Bond for local production and casting were the Happy Potter films. Actors and production personell have to go where the work is, when the work is. Perhaps the new Star Wars will help a bit. Even so, its reasuring that for the most part the Bond films are still made in the UK because most of the industry has moved on to survive or just shut down.
Add to that the competition is so much tougher both inside the genre and out, and the audience expects so much, no wonder they take their time. Twilight, Hunger Games and Bourne will all be forgotten but by a select few. Each Bond has go carry the legacy of being watchable for decades, as each of its predacessors have. (Except CR-67 and perhaps NSNA, and QoS.) That is a lot of pressure to live up to for everyone involved. The fact they do it so well is admirable.

Thunderpussy

+1, The Bonds have such a history behind them, compared to a one off
Or short series of films. It's almost like a much loved old football team.
Each new actor is almost like a new big striker, who's told about its
History and told not to to do anything to hurt the institution. ) Hence
Why recently Daniel Craig said it would be good to stop playing Bond
At some stage, as he could get sh*t faced drunk again ! )

MooseWithFleas

With the exception of LALD-TMWTGG, Bonds haven't done 1 year cycles since the first four films. Two years is still manageable today, but three years gives the producers a year to scout and recruit high profile actors. In the 60s, many of the villains were not high profile actors. I don't believe they were casting many academy award winning/nominated actors back then.

To appeal to the higher end actors/actresses, more time has been dedicated to the development process to ensure a quality script/director/etc to entice the big names to sign on.

That being said, if you remove the financial hiatuses of the past two decades, you can still turn out 4 film decades (2020, 2023, 2026, 2029) and I still wouldn't rule out two year gaps given the right circumstances.