^ totally and I believe Craig made some headlines for sharing his opinion that there's nothing wrong with a gay or female spy lead - why does it have to be Bond?
but do ay of these actually take more than two years to make?
Purvis & Wade say they worked with Mendes on a draft for 'nearly a year' which was delivered in December 2010; this is after the previous draft by Peter Morgan. So yeah, it seems to take longer than two years.
Wasn't Richard Maibaum working on Bond scripts almost permanently in the sixties, seventies and eighties, rather like a staff writer? He wasn't used for YOLT because he was working on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. He contributed to all but YOLT, LALD and MR - the latter virtually a remake of his own ideas for TSWLM - so there was, as I choose to describe it, the semblance of a production line in place. The ideas and the writing was continuous, allowing others to come and contribute, or even take scripts away and doctor them, as Mankiewicz did with DAF and TMWTGG, or Paul Dehn with GF. Maibaum too was not an award winner by any means, but he understood his trade and could deliver without fuss a workable, budget-able script to a schedule. His early career was on American television, so he knew all about time and money constraints. That sort of ethic, which basically says we'll work together quickly and efficiently to make the best product we can simply isn't the case any more. The pace is slower and the pressure, I feel is off. Removing the 'deadline' element allows writers, producers and directors and anyone else involved to drift. I honestly do not believe there was any plan about where to take James Bond after Daniel Craig quit. Eon had to beg him to return after a reasonable farewell in SP because they had no plan and it is happening again. Any competent business would never allow a situation to evolve where they do not know how to extend and expand their merchandise - yet that is what is happening with Eon. Screenwriters can work fast and creatively under pressure, but there is none. If we even have a sniff of OO7 before the year is out I will be surprised.
To address the original post, Craig left the franchise in similar shape as Brosnan--significantly better but also exhausted. Die Another Day was a great financial success but signaled the exhaustion of the Brosnan-era formula. You couldn't take that approach any further.
The same can be said for No Time to Die: A financial success but also the exhaustion of the Craig era's formula, a literal and figurative dead end. From 2006 to 2021 Bond lost the love of his life, found the love of his life, quit and rejoined the service so often he should have had a revolving door, dealt with guilt and trust issues, had a kid, and died. What's left?
NTTD is also comparable to Moonraker. The latter was an enormous commercial success, but again exhausted the formula. The series had no other option but to change course, since there was no way of topping what had been done. The same holds for NTTD. Both films left the series in good financial shape but artistically exhausted.
It is unlikely that the producers will find another Daniel Craig. Whoever the next Bond is, he'll be a very different man. And Bond's cinematic competition is much different in 2023 than in 2006; the filmmakers will need to appeal to moviegoers who were babies at the time of Casino Royale. That film's success raised the Bond films' prestige, from trashy action films to prestige thrillers. Arguably the prestige element grew to overtake the thriller one to a detrimental degree. Perhaps future entries should concentrate more on producing really exciting and effective thrillers, the sort that drew audiences to Bond in the first place. They don't need to be devoid of human emotions and dramatic elements, but they should arise naturally from the story, instead of being increasingly contrived attempts to give Bond more personal stories.
So we should all be grateful to Craig for taking the series to its greatest ever commercial and critical successes. And we should also be grateful to see him go. There's nothing left for him to do with James Bond.
^ "Perhaps future entries should concentrate more on producing really exciting and effective thrillers, the sort that drew audiences to Bond in the first place. They don't need to be devoid of human emotions and dramatic elements, but they should arise naturally from the story, instead of being increasingly contrived attempts to give Bond more personal stories."
My guess is that the Sony leaks caused Eon to overcompensate when it comes to secrecy. They might or might not have a plan. Who knows? They do seem unusually “unlucky,” if you consider writers strikes, lead actor injuries, distributor chaos, pandemics, hiring marquee directors and then parting ways after months of work together…
Contrast Eon with Marvel or Star Wars which take fan service to the extreme. Kevin Feig is making noise about movies that won’t appear until 2026! Yes, Marvel is a huge machine, but I think it can’t help but create (unreasonable?) expectations for James Bond.
perhaps taking four years between Die Another Day and Casino Royale wasnt such a bad idea, and maybe they are deliberately leaving a long pause to let the next actor create a fresh impression.
The switches to Lazenby, Moore and Dalton may have been too sudden, they all had problems being accepted as the new Bond (it took Moore three films to truly claim the role), and the six year gap may actually have helped Brosnan as audiences had almost forgotten Bond movies were still being made in the 80s, we all celebrated the series return. Craig benefited very much from the sense his first film was a hard break from what went before, and the longer than usual gap contributed to that.
Which is to say if a new Bond actor did debut within two years of Craigs last film he would inevitably be seen as a pale imitation, whereas after four years or so we'll have more of an open mind
^ To defend Moore. He was accepted from the start. He just didn't get to play the big Bond we want until TSWLM because that was the first decent film he got.
There seems to be a common consensus that DAD signalled an "exhaustion" of formula that had to change. While I don't disagree on the general ebb and flow of Bond - starting off semi-seriously before gradually ascending into over-the-top high-octane nonsense, then crashing back down to earth - the notion EON had no choice but to completely wipe the slate clean seems like revisionist history to me.
To clarify, CR is one of my absolute favourite entries in the series and I'm glad we ultimately got what we got. Having said that, there's no reason a FYEO style course correction couldn't have taken place in the Brosnan-era without entirely rebooting the franchise.
Many like to act as if DAD was an utter failure, but critical reception upon release was nowhere near as scathing as often suggested. As you already stated, the film was a huge financial success and continued the upward trend of each successive Brosnan outing taking more at the box office than the previous.
This is pure conjecture but I personally believe had EON not wrangled the rights to Casino Royale, they would've most likely pressed ahead with a fifth Brosnan. This version of B21 would conceivably have pressed ahead with a similar tonal shift as what we ultimately got with CR - a pivot to post-Bourne gritty realism, but more delicately balanced with the existing formula and returning Brosnan-era MI6 regulars.
It's interesting to ponder where the franchise would be today had Brosnan's fifth come to pass - would we still be in the same classic continuity today? Or would Hollywood's 21st century reboot obsession have eventually rubbed off on Barbara and Michael irrespective of whether they had an existing text to adapt?
Admittedly, it's difficult to judge the situation dispassionately, to quote M. I grew up in the late-90s so Pierce was unquestionably the Bond of my childhood, though Dalton is my personal favourite. I absolutely adore Craig's first two outings but resent the direction they took the films post-Mendes, and some of the narrative choices EON signed off on as supposed stewards have me increasingly baffled.
Personally, I think the franchise is in dire straits creatively and beyond my own biases, which I fully acknowledge, I know very few people my own age who know of or have any interest in Bond, and those who *are* familiar view it as something their dad / grandad likes. These increasingly long gaps only serve to amplify how culturally irrelevant the series risks becoming, so here's hoping they get their act together and 'Phase 3' of Bond actually makes an effort to engage audiences younger than 50.
^ @kristopherm3 an excellent post. I also agree about the first two Craig films being great and then post that - meh.
I do think that the total-reboot and different direction of Bond starting as a non-00 and the arc of Vesper, Spectre etc. as a master stroke and they got it so right in CR, elements of it in QoS (but didn't progress SPECTRE enough here) and in Skyfall. However it all just got bogged down by the other mopey stuff that has plagued Craig's tenure.
I am not sure your opinion about Bond being in dire straits is down to an age (I share it and am 33) - I think it's more down to how much one is a fan of the pre-Craig and maybe more specifically pre-Brosnan Bond films.
I think Skyfall is one of the very best Bond films, up there with Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me and Casino Royale; and Spectre has lots of nice ideas which don’t quite coalesce into a complete movie, but is fun nonetheless.
there’s so much relentless negativity I wanted to share that.
as always the folks who really liked Craig's filmsgenerally stay silent while those who didnt like them write epics and keep posting variations. I know I'm guilty of that, I find it much easier to compose a cynical thought rather than a positive thought (and then people accuse me of being sarcastic when I do try to be positive!). So lets see more arguments Craig has left the series in a better position than it was in 2002
some positives from me: these first two I already said upthread
the series is still round, which was not necessarily a given in 2002. Thats seriously an achievement in itself.
the series has a critical and artistic respect it did not have in 2002
and another point I did not think of before
Craig has vastly expanded the lexicon of what a Bond film can be. Repetition of formula was the biggest problem with the Brosnan films, and their attempts to do something new usually seemed halfhearted and incomplete. Craig dared do genuinely new things, both expanding the possibilities, and setting precedent the next fellow can take things even further
Yes I think the Brosnan films were running out of steam; we could have had maybe one more and it would have done well I'm sure, but then they'd be wondering where to go and I think audiences would be tiring slightly. Instead we got a Bond who many people regard as the best ever (I think that's especially true of younger folk) and reinvigorated it for another 15 years, which is no mean feat. Yes, we're at a crossroads again now, but keeping it popular and healthy for 15 years is a job well done.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,656MI6 Agent
With sweeping and irrefutable conclusions on who’s “the best,” it’s like the Second Coming indeed! To quote Peter Venkman, it’s “Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Comments
^ totally and I believe Craig made some headlines for sharing his opinion that there's nothing wrong with a gay or female spy lead - why does it have to be Bond?
"Better make that two."
Ms Broccoli has said a few times that Bond won't become a woman.
but do ay of these actually take more than two years to make?
Purvis & Wade say they worked with Mendes on a draft for 'nearly a year' which was delivered in December 2010; this is after the previous draft by Peter Morgan. So yeah, it seems to take longer than two years.
Wasn't Richard Maibaum working on Bond scripts almost permanently in the sixties, seventies and eighties, rather like a staff writer? He wasn't used for YOLT because he was working on Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. He contributed to all but YOLT, LALD and MR - the latter virtually a remake of his own ideas for TSWLM - so there was, as I choose to describe it, the semblance of a production line in place. The ideas and the writing was continuous, allowing others to come and contribute, or even take scripts away and doctor them, as Mankiewicz did with DAF and TMWTGG, or Paul Dehn with GF. Maibaum too was not an award winner by any means, but he understood his trade and could deliver without fuss a workable, budget-able script to a schedule. His early career was on American television, so he knew all about time and money constraints. That sort of ethic, which basically says we'll work together quickly and efficiently to make the best product we can simply isn't the case any more. The pace is slower and the pressure, I feel is off. Removing the 'deadline' element allows writers, producers and directors and anyone else involved to drift. I honestly do not believe there was any plan about where to take James Bond after Daniel Craig quit. Eon had to beg him to return after a reasonable farewell in SP because they had no plan and it is happening again. Any competent business would never allow a situation to evolve where they do not know how to extend and expand their merchandise - yet that is what is happening with Eon. Screenwriters can work fast and creatively under pressure, but there is none. If we even have a sniff of OO7 before the year is out I will be surprised.
I know and I agree with her.
To address the original post, Craig left the franchise in similar shape as Brosnan--significantly better but also exhausted. Die Another Day was a great financial success but signaled the exhaustion of the Brosnan-era formula. You couldn't take that approach any further.
The same can be said for No Time to Die: A financial success but also the exhaustion of the Craig era's formula, a literal and figurative dead end. From 2006 to 2021 Bond lost the love of his life, found the love of his life, quit and rejoined the service so often he should have had a revolving door, dealt with guilt and trust issues, had a kid, and died. What's left?
NTTD is also comparable to Moonraker. The latter was an enormous commercial success, but again exhausted the formula. The series had no other option but to change course, since there was no way of topping what had been done. The same holds for NTTD. Both films left the series in good financial shape but artistically exhausted.
It is unlikely that the producers will find another Daniel Craig. Whoever the next Bond is, he'll be a very different man. And Bond's cinematic competition is much different in 2023 than in 2006; the filmmakers will need to appeal to moviegoers who were babies at the time of Casino Royale. That film's success raised the Bond films' prestige, from trashy action films to prestige thrillers. Arguably the prestige element grew to overtake the thriller one to a detrimental degree. Perhaps future entries should concentrate more on producing really exciting and effective thrillers, the sort that drew audiences to Bond in the first place. They don't need to be devoid of human emotions and dramatic elements, but they should arise naturally from the story, instead of being increasingly contrived attempts to give Bond more personal stories.
So we should all be grateful to Craig for taking the series to its greatest ever commercial and critical successes. And we should also be grateful to see him go. There's nothing left for him to do with James Bond.
^ "Perhaps future entries should concentrate more on producing really exciting and effective thrillers, the sort that drew audiences to Bond in the first place. They don't need to be devoid of human emotions and dramatic elements, but they should arise naturally from the story, instead of being increasingly contrived attempts to give Bond more personal stories."
Here here!!
"Better make that two."
You think Eon are not a competent business? Something tells me their annual reports would show that not to be the case.
No, but as a competent business, I would expect them to have a plan !!!
My guess is that the Sony leaks caused Eon to overcompensate when it comes to secrecy. They might or might not have a plan. Who knows? They do seem unusually “unlucky,” if you consider writers strikes, lead actor injuries, distributor chaos, pandemics, hiring marquee directors and then parting ways after months of work together…
Contrast Eon with Marvel or Star Wars which take fan service to the extreme. Kevin Feig is making noise about movies that won’t appear until 2026! Yes, Marvel is a huge machine, but I think it can’t help but create (unreasonable?) expectations for James Bond.
perhaps taking four years between Die Another Day and Casino Royale wasnt such a bad idea, and maybe they are deliberately leaving a long pause to let the next actor create a fresh impression.
The switches to Lazenby, Moore and Dalton may have been too sudden, they all had problems being accepted as the new Bond (it took Moore three films to truly claim the role), and the six year gap may actually have helped Brosnan as audiences had almost forgotten Bond movies were still being made in the 80s, we all celebrated the series return. Craig benefited very much from the sense his first film was a hard break from what went before, and the longer than usual gap contributed to that.
Which is to say if a new Bond actor did debut within two years of Craigs last film he would inevitably be seen as a pale imitation, whereas after four years or so we'll have more of an open mind
^ To defend Moore. He was accepted from the start. He just didn't get to play the big Bond we want until TSWLM because that was the first decent film he got.
"Better make that two."
This is a very good post, and of course I agree.
There seems to be a common consensus that DAD signalled an "exhaustion" of formula that had to change. While I don't disagree on the general ebb and flow of Bond - starting off semi-seriously before gradually ascending into over-the-top high-octane nonsense, then crashing back down to earth - the notion EON had no choice but to completely wipe the slate clean seems like revisionist history to me.
To clarify, CR is one of my absolute favourite entries in the series and I'm glad we ultimately got what we got. Having said that, there's no reason a FYEO style course correction couldn't have taken place in the Brosnan-era without entirely rebooting the franchise.
Many like to act as if DAD was an utter failure, but critical reception upon release was nowhere near as scathing as often suggested. As you already stated, the film was a huge financial success and continued the upward trend of each successive Brosnan outing taking more at the box office than the previous.
This is pure conjecture but I personally believe had EON not wrangled the rights to Casino Royale, they would've most likely pressed ahead with a fifth Brosnan. This version of B21 would conceivably have pressed ahead with a similar tonal shift as what we ultimately got with CR - a pivot to post-Bourne gritty realism, but more delicately balanced with the existing formula and returning Brosnan-era MI6 regulars.
It's interesting to ponder where the franchise would be today had Brosnan's fifth come to pass - would we still be in the same classic continuity today? Or would Hollywood's 21st century reboot obsession have eventually rubbed off on Barbara and Michael irrespective of whether they had an existing text to adapt?
Admittedly, it's difficult to judge the situation dispassionately, to quote M. I grew up in the late-90s so Pierce was unquestionably the Bond of my childhood, though Dalton is my personal favourite. I absolutely adore Craig's first two outings but resent the direction they took the films post-Mendes, and some of the narrative choices EON signed off on as supposed stewards have me increasingly baffled.
Personally, I think the franchise is in dire straits creatively and beyond my own biases, which I fully acknowledge, I know very few people my own age who know of or have any interest in Bond, and those who *are* familiar view it as something their dad / grandad likes. These increasingly long gaps only serve to amplify how culturally irrelevant the series risks becoming, so here's hoping they get their act together and 'Phase 3' of Bond actually makes an effort to engage audiences younger than 50.
^ @kristopherm3 an excellent post. I also agree about the first two Craig films being great and then post that - meh.
I do think that the total-reboot and different direction of Bond starting as a non-00 and the arc of Vesper, Spectre etc. as a master stroke and they got it so right in CR, elements of it in QoS (but didn't progress SPECTRE enough here) and in Skyfall. However it all just got bogged down by the other mopey stuff that has plagued Craig's tenure.
I am not sure your opinion about Bond being in dire straits is down to an age (I share it and am 33) - I think it's more down to how much one is a fan of the pre-Craig and maybe more specifically pre-Brosnan Bond films.
"Better make that two."
I think Skyfall is one of the very best Bond films, up there with Goldfinger, Spy Who Loved Me and Casino Royale; and Spectre has lots of nice ideas which don’t quite coalesce into a complete movie, but is fun nonetheless.
there’s so much relentless negativity I wanted to share that.
thanks @emtiem
as always the folks who really liked Craig's films generally stay silent while those who didnt like them write epics and keep posting variations. I know I'm guilty of that, I find it much easier to compose a cynical thought rather than a positive thought (and then people accuse me of being sarcastic when I do try to be positive!). So lets see more arguments Craig has left the series in a better position than it was in 2002
some positives from me: these first two I already said upthread
and another point I did not think of before
Yes I think the Brosnan films were running out of steam; we could have had maybe one more and it would have done well I'm sure, but then they'd be wondering where to go and I think audiences would be tiring slightly. Instead we got a Bond who many people regard as the best ever (I think that's especially true of younger folk) and reinvigorated it for another 15 years, which is no mean feat. Yes, we're at a crossroads again now, but keeping it popular and healthy for 15 years is a job well done.
Just on the negativity. The flip side to this has been non-fans (me) listening to adoring fans treating Craig as the second coming.
I am not holding back. Craig's tenure is not my cup of tea.
"Better make that two."
Buy you a drink, hmd?
Well, that’s kind of what fans are: they like things 😄
Welcome to the forum, Bianca!
Hur mår ni?
With sweeping and irrefutable conclusions on who’s “the best,” it’s like the Second Coming indeed! To quote Peter Venkman, it’s “Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!”