Bond 26 in 2024?

Paperbill

At the 2:17 mark he mentions the next Bond movie in 2024.
Thoughts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_OvhfOW3Vc

HalfMonk HalfHitman

He has no idea.

Number24

I very much doubt he knows, but I think it's a realistic guess. I hope for 2023, I fear it'll be 2025, but 2024 doesn't seem unlikely to me.

walther p99

Number24 wrote:

I very much doubt he knows, but I think it's a realistic guess. I hope for 2023, I fear it'll be 2025, but 2024 doesn't seem unlikely to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bond went dormant beyond 2025. EON seems to be bored of their own franchise.

Number24

I don't think they're bored of Bond, but there are many things that can delay Bond26. There is of cource the casting of the next Bond, deciding the direction Bond movies will take, writer's strikes, developments about the ownership of the francise or mess like what we saw for NTTD. Yes, it's possible we'll have to wait beyond 2025, but I simply don't have the strenght now to take that possibiity in.

James Suzuki

2022, for the 60th anniversary! (I can dream big dreams)

Golrush007

I personally struggle to see how the gap between NTTD and Bond 26 could be a 'normal' gap (ie 2-3 years). It seems to take so long to come up with a Bond film these days, and with the added complication of a casting a new actor, probably some sort of reboot/new direction - I think even 2024 is probably optimistic. It's a sad thought for sure, and I hope that I may be proven wrong.

Number24

I think an optimsitic, but not impossible scenario, is Bond26 takes four (or five) years to make because of casting and direction like you say. Then they're back to making Bonds every two or three years. I think it's possible if they depart from the current thinking where Bond needs a arch and a major occurance in the series in every single movie (Origin story, personal revenge, M dies etc). If they realize 007 just do a mission and not not have and arch in most movies two/three year gaps may be possible. I suspect 3-4 year gaps is more likely, though.

Can EON keep having five year gaps between films? That's practically a new generation of cinema audience! With several Marvel and MI movies for each Bond the franchise really stay competitive?

HowardB

I would imagine it will be at least four years until Bond 26. If EON, et al can manage to stick to a three year time frame between films thereafter, they will have an eleven year window to do three more films (possibly four if they film two back to back, which might be more feasible with a younger Bond actor) while they still hold the exclusive rights. Of course a lot can happen after the release of Bond 25. EON could sell their Bond rights or MGM could be sold or merge with another company. Apparently, Netflix has made overtures regarding merging with or acquiring MGM......which if that were to happen could have some significant impact on the future of the Bond films, especially though what medium they are released. While Netflix has shown a willingness to spend huge amounts of money on a film (The Irishman was 160 million) I would personally be disappointed to not be able to see a Bond film in a proper theater.

Miles Messervy

walther p99 wrote:

Number24 wrote:

I very much doubt he knows, but I think it's a realistic guess. I hope for 2023, I fear it'll be 2025, but 2024 doesn't seem unlikely to me.

I wouldn't be surprised if Bond went dormant beyond 2025. EON seems to be bored of their own franchise.

I don’t know if it’s boredom so much as just being out of ideas. In fairness, it’s an old franchise, based on even older IP. We love the character, and most of us would probably be satisfied with EON just turning out formulaic films every couple of years (95-99 comes to mind). But I’m not sure that would keep the general populace engaged given all of the other options out there. Craig’s films have, on balance, been very well received. If NTTD is a hit, they’re going to have to decide how to keep that momentum going with a new lead. If the reaction is tepid, like with Spectre, they’re really going to need to do some soul searching. Either way, I think it takes them at least 4 years to turn it out.

Number24

I very much doubt Netflix Bond movies will be made without getting released in cinemas if the company buys the franchise. I haven't had the chance to watch the Irishman yet, but I suspect it's a high quality drama without huge action scenes and spectacle. Bond is a different genere that gains a lot from being shown on a big screen, while dramas can even function better in your living room watching it on TV.

Concerning Miles Messervy's post I agree Brosnan's Bonds had an aspect of sausage factory to them. They did however exepriment in some ways, such as the villan. In GE a former 00-agent was the villan, in TWINE a former Bond girl was the villan and in DAD bad writing was the villan and bad CGI was one of the henchmen. It's possible to experiment and still keep the mission-oriented format.

HowardB

I don't know how Netflix approaches these things in Europe, but in the US their "prestige" films have generally gotten a relatively short run in theaters before becoming available on demand. The Irishman surprisingly was only limited to theaters for about a week before being made available on demand. While The Irishman was a top notch production, it's no action spectacle. I would venture to guess that DeNiro and Pacino were paid a large chunk of change and reportedly, the digital de-aging process that was used on the actors was very, very expensive.

Number24

Perhaps the run in the theatres was to qualify The Irishman for the Oscars? Anyway, not giving a Bond film a full cinema run is wrong in several ways, including economically.

Mr Martini

Number24 wrote:

Perhaps the run in the theatres was to qualify The Irishman for the Oscars? Anyway, not giving a Bond film a full cinema run is wrong in several ways, including economically.

Its my understanding to qualify for an Oscar a American made movie only has to be shown in a movie theater located in Los Angelas County for 7 days straight.

Number24

I see. but I still think Bond is the type of movie that pretty much demands a wide cinema distribution.

Matt S

Number24 wrote:

I see. but I still think Bond is the type of movie that pretty much demands a wide cinema distribution.

It all depends on how NTTD does.

Number24

I don't see how. No matter how NTTD does, Bond movies will continue being very cinematic big action adventure movies. I don't see how the cinema reseption of NTTD will make future Bond movies best fit for limited cinema releases followed by streaming.

Paperbill

Unless the movie is DUD, it will do very well at the box office!

Number24

I don't see how one single movie in the series not doing well in cinemas will somehow make the Bond fims after not worthy of a wide cinema release. the Bond film will stille be spectacular action/adventure movies with a long history of cinema success. Not realesing future Bond films widely because of one dud would be bad business.

Mr Martini

Number24 wrote:

I don't see how one single movie in the series not doing well in cinemas will somehow make the Bond fims after not worthy of a wide cinema release. the Bond film will stille be spectacular action/adventure movies with a long history of cinema success. Not realesing future Bond films widely because of one dud would be bad business.

In my opinion, movie goers in the United States are wanting to watch movies at home. Movie theaters are trying everything they can to get peoples butts in the seats. If the next Bond movie doesn't do well at the box office, it might not be the fault of the movie theaters, but people not wanting to deal with the rude people who go to the theater, i.e. late arrivals, talkers and the worst type, cell phone users. Maybe in a future release they'll try a theater run and a streaming run see by side to see which does better. Future decisions could be made around the results of the side by side run.

Number24

The cinemas competing with streaming is a problem in many countries, my own included. Back when TV started becoming a serious competitor to cinemas the film companies responded by making big productions like Cleopatra, The Sound of Music and The Longest Day.
In the age of streaming and large flat screen TV's with very good sound systems we see the same thing happening with superhero films and other big spectacle movies like Mission Impossible, Frozen and Bond. This time it's even more difficult because of the ease of streaming and the quality of the images and sound you get at home. But I still don't think a limited cinema release followed by or parallel to streaming is the answer for the Bond franchise. Films like Bond are still much better at cinemas and limiting sales at the cinemas by releasing it in streaming services doesn't sound like a good idea.

Miles Messervy

I’d much rather watch a film at home than in the cinema. I only go to the cinema for Bond, and a select few other films that I really want to see. And I only go so I don’t have to wait to see them at home. In 10-15 years, cinemas might be gone. I’m a traditionalist in most regards, but I’m ok with this change.

Number24

My feelings are the exact opposite. Especially comedies are far better in a cinema. You laugh with other people even though most of them are total strangers. Sitting in front of the TV, often alone, only makes me chuckle a couple of times at best. The same goes for other generes to different degrees. There is also the huge screen and the total focus on the film experience - no phonecalls or other interuptions or destractions.

JTM

Number24 wrote:

My feelings are the exact opposite. Especially comedies are far better in a cinema. You laugh with other people even though most of them are total strangers. Sitting in front of the TV, often alone, only makes me chuckle a couple of times at best. The same goes for other generes to different degrees. There is also the huge screen and the total focus on the film experience - no phonecalls or other interuptions or destractions.

I’m generally the complete opposite of that. If it’s not one I want to see urgently, I rarely bother seeing a comedy on the big screen. If it’s a big budget action flick, something with lots of impressive special effects and/or one that has amazing cinematography I’ll take the time and spend the money to see at the cinema because the big screen makes A LOT of difference. If it’s just your average comedy (not action comedy) it doesn’t make much of a difference if I’m watching it in a cinema, on my home TV or on an iPad.

ToTheRight

I feel it's dwindling down to the point where anticipating the next Bond film may be like waiting for another DIE HARD or INDIANA JONES movie. It'll happen at some point, but speculating won't be as much fun as too much time will pass between entries.
I believe in one of those recent interviews (Variety perhaps) Michael said it could take years to replace Daniel.
I almost think after NTTD Barbara may want to focus on other films for awhile. Perhaps they won't want to go through the whole process of commencing another era with a new actor? Perhaps the next "era" will end up being one-offs where Bond is cast and the gap between films is long enough he needs a recast by the time another entry is planned?

Number24

Now you're making me cry ……

HowardB

ToTheRight wrote:

I feel it's dwindling down to the point where anticipating the next Bond film may be like waiting for another DIE HARD or INDIANA JONES movie. It'll happen at some point, but speculating won't be as much fun as too much time will pass between entries.
I believe in one of those recent interviews (Variety perhaps) Michael said it could take years to replace Daniel.
I almost think after NTTD Barbara may want to focus on other films for awhile. Perhaps they won't want to go through the whole process of commencing another era with a new actor? Perhaps the next "era" will end up being one-offs where Bond is cast and the gap between films is long enough he needs a recast by the time another entry is planned?

Considering that EON's 'The Rhythm Section' suffered the worst box-office opening ever, I think they might not be so inclined to have an inordinately long gap until the next Bond film. I would also take what Michael Wilson says with a grain of salt. Part of it could be that Wilson is really trying to play up the angle NTTD being Craig's last film....and remember Wilson is the guy who said he himself needed a long break after one of the films as he was tired......the truth is, Wilson is 78 and while I am sure he's as sharp as ever, is he not semi-retired or will most likely be retired before Bond 26?

Miles Messervy

I think it’s almost a guarantee that the next Bond will be a person of color. Otherwise, the media backlash could be crippling to the future viability of the franchise. I don’t go in for that sort of pandering, but as a business strategy it just makes too much sense. As a result, the pool of potential replacements for Craig is much smaller. That may very well lead to a longer search, or it could make the search much shorter.

On the other hand, I dread the prospect of Bond being dragged to the forefront of the culture wars (which will happen no matter who is cast at this point). Maybe EON dreads that as well, and will put the franchise on ice for 5-10 years to get some distance from these hyper-polarized times.

Barbel

Miles Messervy wrote:

I think it’s almost a guarantee that the next Bond will be a person of color. Otherwise, the media backlash could be crippling to the future viability of the franchise. I don’t go in for that sort of pandering, but as a business strategy it just makes too much sense. As a result, the pool of potential replacements for Craig is much smaller. That may very well lead to a longer search, or it could make the search much shorter.

On the other hand, I dread the prospect of Bond dragged to the forefront of the culture wars (which will happen no matter who is cast at this point). Maybe EON dreads that as well, and will put the franchise on ice for 5-10 years to get some distance from these hyper-polarized times.

Laurence Fox is the ideal choice, then.

Number24

(sorry, my original post was intended for a different thread )

While I don't think it's almost guaranteed the next Bond actor won't be white, I think there is a strong pressure to change Bond's colour and/or gender. It seems like many (perhaps especialy in America?) belive 47 year old Idris Elba is next. And when the News broke that Lashana Lynch will (likely) hold the 007 designation at least in parts of NTTD several of my friends thought Bond will be played by a black woman. Babs has said Bond will stay male, they have also said Bond can be of different ethnicity. I Wonder if other action franchises get the same pressure to change the gender and colour of tneir lead? Rambo, MI, Sherlock Holmes, Jack Reacher, John Wick ...do they get the same pressure? I know the comparisons aren't perfect. No other franchise has the history of james Bond and yet make film set in the present time, but I still think it's a valid question.