Rounding up the previous 8 (MWTGG - LTK), the old guard didn't average all that much better. Nostalgia softens the criticisms but Any 8 Bond films in a row is a mixed bag.
They all make money, but they sure don't nail it every time.
Sure, that's your opinion about Marvel not nailing it every time. But in reality, I can't think of many films in the marvel franchise that haven't been received warmly.
Iron Man 2, The Incredible Hulk, Age of Ultron, and both Thor movies got middling reviews. That's a full third. Uh oh, turns out your reality is actually just your opinion!
Thor, Iron Man 2, and Age of Ultron are all in the 70s on rotten tomatoes, I'd say that's a pretty decent review average. Certainly better than poor reviews. That leaves Thor 2 and the Hulk film, which are the only 2 films in the franchise with reviews in the 60s. That's only 2 out of 15. So the reality is that most Marvel films are reviewed well -{ It's also a better strike rate than most franchises out there.
I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that the Marvel model hasn't been a huge success. But, as other studios are finding out, it is not that easy to replicate. And, personally, I don't think it is the right model for the Bond franchise.
But I agree that something needs to happen at EON to shake things up. IMHO, there are ways to do that without throwing the baby out with the bath water or diluting the brand. If handled correctly, the right strategy could increase the brand value, protect EON from the problems its partners are having, and inject some creativity into the legacy of Bond.
I've always been a big fan of the idea of mini-series on Netflix or the like, set in the 1960s and based on the novels. That would be one way to fill in the gaps between films, bring in new fans and help EON find new talent.
Another way to explore the world of Bond would be to copy Marvel's "One Shot" idea: 10 to 15 minute films that explore the exploits of other 00s. Again, these could keep fans interested and help EON find talent (and maybe develop new characters that would be worthy of their own full length feature films in the future).
An animated film based on one of the excellent graphic novels could also be an option. The audience for such a product may be more limited, but with the right creative team there is a lot of potential to tell great Bond stories using a different medium.
The feeling I get from EON and Craig is that they're just bored of Bond in general. Allowing others to play in the sandbox with different toys could snap them out of that.
Subjectively, I really enjoyed three of the last four Bond films, with only Spectre failing to impress me. I readily acknowledge that the writing could have been better in all four, but the good has outweighed the bad in my view.
Objectively, two of those films were among the best-reviewed films of their respective year. All four were commercially successful. Craig has been a very popular Bond on the whole, and his films have featured a lot of high-end talent, both in front of and behind the lens. Those are facts.
EON doesn't always get it right, but they care about Bond on more than just a financial level. Indeed, they've resisted the current trend of brand dilution in the name of profit. A major studio with creative control would not necessarily follow this model. Further, all remaining vestiges of the classic character would likely be scrubbed away in the name of political correctness by a studio in full control (some may argue that this has already occurred, but I disagree. Craig's films are more self-aware, but have not betrayed the essence of the character). To echo others in this thread, I would be very careful what you wish for. Shaking up an otherwise steady franchise out of the desire for more content would be short-sighted.
Subjectively, I really enjoyed three of the last four Bond films, with only Spectre failing to impress me. I readily acknowledge that the writing could have been better in all four, but the good has outweighed the bad in my view.
I second this, Spectre was the first of Craig's film where it felt like his tenure was running out of steam. So perhaps this new norm of a 3-4 year gap between films was not only intentional but necessary.
I still think SPECTRE could have been the ultimate if they had put in more effort and thought.
It might've been if it didn't get bogged down by so much like the urine tint, atrocious score, ridiculous brothers idea, etc. I'll be pretty disappointed if Bond 25 involves Bond's past somehow or he goes on another personal mission off the grid.
I want new Bond films at least once every two years
these four year + gaps are very bad for the series, they seem to know less and less about how to make a Bond movie each time they finally get back to work
I too am envious of the success of Marvel Studios films
as well as coming out three films per year, they have some really big actors committed for years on end: in addition to Downey, there's Samuel Jackson, Scarlet Johansen, and Gwyneth Paltrow all eager and ready to make yet another superhero installment when I'm sure they have more artistically rewarding projects they could be working on
I think one of the problems with these newest Bond movies is they've given Craig far too much power, the people who own the franchise just sit around for years at a time waiting for him to show an interest again, and then they give him an executive producer credit ... they need a Bond actor who appreciates the job (which Brosnan did seem to do)
and of course I also like the tight plotting of the Marvel movies, which is easier when there's such a rapid schedule ... you can argue Bond doesn't need all that continuity, but we know these Bond writers are making it up as they go along, after the cameras start rolling ... that's no way to make movies worth remembering five minutes after leaving the theatre ... as someone said above, Broccoli Sr knew what film was coming next before the latest film was finished postproduction, and already had his team working on the locations and whatnot
there's also the X-Men franchise as a good example of how to do a series, that's actually a separate franchise from Marvel Studios, also with big stars who stay committed, rapid schedule, and fairly tight plotting
and by the way, I liked Thor: it was one of the few where I actually liked the CGI better than the acting, and as an old Jack Kirby fan, I mean that as a compliment: they successfully brought Kirby's Asgard to life
these four year + gaps are very bad for the series
There is no evidence to support this. The gaps are frustrating for fans, but it hasn't hurt the series in any tangible way. What bothers me more than the gap is the lack of information about the next film, such as when we can expect it. But again, that's just an inconvenience.
If only MGM could be nice enough to sell their Bond rights to EON. I bet that would end the delays. But MGM won't do that unfortunately.
I would be happy if MGM just sold their Bond rights to another production company with more financial stability. Unfortunately, with what a Bond film costs these days, EON really needs to partner with another company. If MGM sold their Bond rights to Warner Bros, Warners has deep enough pockets to distribute Bond themselves and would probably not need a third party.
I want new Bond films at least once every two years
these four year + gaps are very bad for the series, they seem to know less and less about how to make a Bond movie each time they finally get back to work
I too am envious of the success of Marvel Studios films
as well as coming out three films per year, they have some really big actors committed for years on end: in addition to Downey, there's Samuel Jackson, Scarlet Johansen, and Gwyneth Paltrow all eager and ready to make yet another superhero installment when I'm sure they have more artistically rewarding projects they could be working on
I think one of the problems with these newest Bond movies is they've given Craig far too much power, the people who own the franchise just sit around for years at a time waiting for him to show an interest again, and then they give him an executive producer credit ... they need a Bond actor who appreciates the job (which Brosnan did seem to do)
and of course I also like the tight plotting of the Marvel movies, which is easier when there's such a rapid schedule ... you can argue Bond doesn't need all that continuity, but we know these Bond writers are making it up as they go along, after the cameras start rolling ... that's no way to make movies worth remembering five minutes after leaving the theatre ... as someone said above, Broccoli Sr knew what film was coming next before the latest film was finished postproduction, and already had his team working on the locations and whatnot
there's also the X-Men franchise as a good example of how to do a series, that's actually a separate franchise from Marvel Studios, also with big stars who stay committed, rapid schedule, and fairly tight plotting
and by the way, I liked Thor: it was one of the few where I actually liked the CGI better than the acting, and as an old Jack Kirby fan, I mean that as a compliment: they successfully brought Kirby's Asgard to life
I also feel that the Babs/Daniel love-in has not been entirely positive.Too much influnce vested in the lead actor. Don't believe Mendes was a good fit (probably against the tide) but with Mendes came Newman (disaster) However it's a mixed bag as Skyfall was a good Bond film, just sat strangely in the arc, we never got the fully formed Bond we were promised before getting the Warhorse being dragged out to sea...I think the relationship is a negative if Babs is still really waiting for her Darcy...
Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
The 4 year gaps are bad. People keep going on about how CR and SF were excellent due to the gaps, but what about the first 16 films? They made a tonne of money too. It worked then, and it was never broken, and never a need to fix it. Gaps don't guarantee better films. My favourite films in the series came after 2 year gaps. It's all opinion I know. CR is right at the bottom of my list, although I know it's popular. SF is great. But look at DAD, hated by most.
Just bloody make films every 2 years, or at the very least, every 3 years. But 4+ years is too much IMO, it's just not the way bond should be! 1962-1989 spawned 16 films, why can't they be regular like the old days again? Longer gaps mean bugger all in terms of quality IMO.
I really hope we get news soon. It is really annoying me, and if we got news, it would finally stop all this blind speculation too, which is frustrating, as I click on an updated post to see possible news, and instead all it is, is yet more blind speculation. And now people are boring me with Marvel talk
EON, just make a bloody film, and DC, just come back for one more, the back-and-forth talk and rumors could have equated to making a film by now, time-wise.
They can take longer today for a number of reasons. The Broccoli family is rich enough from years and years of Bond films to not be driven as much by immediate profit -- though greed knows no boundaries. At the same time, there are far, far more revenue streams today than ever before, meaning the Bond film collection will continue to draw significant revenue even if newer films don't come to market as quickly. I'd prefer every two years, but since it's even more about the money than ever before, so long as the business deals that are inked result in the profit goal, it doesn't matter as much to the suits/skirts that it takes longer and longer.
The Bond films have never benefited simply from a hiatus. What they've benefited from is a commitment to doing something fresh and quality -- that generally comes not from taking more time but from assembling talent that sees an opportunity to do so. After all, the first three Bond films -- among the best -- were only made a year or so apart. Casino Royale reinvigorated the series because they selected a bonafide actor to play Bond, went back to a Fleming story for the plot, found a director who'd earned his chops and sought to make a film about Bond rather than a Bond movie, and upped their game with the production. Its follow ups suffered because this combination in total was not present.
The biggest problem with dragging out the Bond films is that the actors aren't getting any younger. But CGI technology allows even that to be dealt with, and while replacing Craig might upset some fans, there has always been someone waiting in the wings. It's now been nearly 11 years since Craig made his debut, meaning the 18-year-olds who discovered him as Bond are closing on 30. A new generation is following on their cusp, and introducing a new Bond to them to grow up with for the next 10-15 years would not be outside of standard marketing procedure. While Craig could and should have had 6 or 7 films in his tenure instead of 4 or 5, that's as good or better a run than Brosnan or Dalton.
Finally, Bond has no real competition right now to spur them on. There are franchises, of course, but the Batman series, which seem to inspire Craig's Bonds, have ended their run, and even the current spate of so-called action films have steered clear of being direct competition, the closest being the Mission: Impossible dreck. They can take their time without fear that something else will steal their thunder. As they contemplate the potential global profit -- and the travails of making a film that won't offend audiences outside the UK -- they can also look to see what is on the horizon that might be the next big fad and ride that fad's coattails.
...what about the first 16 films? ... it was never broken, and never a need to fix it...
to be precise, they did feel the need to fix it with Diamonds are Forever, The Spy Who Loved Me, and For Your Eyes Only. Each one of those was a deliberate change of direction after perceived failures in the previous entries. But They achieved each of these within two years (I think actually three for Spy). And aside from bringing Connery back, or changing directors, they kept the same creative team largely in place. They managed to change the style of storytelling without replacing everybody or slowing down the pace of production.
but I don't really understand the dependency on larger outside film companies. Someone was mentioning MGM above. Did Brocolli & Saltzman have more complete control back in their day? If so what changed that has put the kids in such a more dependent position?
...there are far, far more revenue streams today than ever before, meaning the Bond film collection will continue to draw significant revenue even if newer films don't come to market as quickly...
this is a good point, I'm sure they make far more money every year off repackaging the old dvds than they do from a new film, and those dvds seem to have almost as many cover variations now as the paperbacks.
In fact, the franchise is almost analogous to an aging rock band like the Rolling Stones, for whom there's really no need to put out a new album nobody really cares about when copies of Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street are still flying off the shelves.
Cubby must be rolling in his grave over these stupid long gaps between Bond films. Unacceptable. The four years between QOS and SF should have made a 2-year gap between SF and SP mandatory.
Or is it a case of treat em mean keen em keen
Let's face it we all enjoy the 12 month build up through to opening and beyond. It's just we hate this cold turkey and the lean periods in between.
We are moaning but we are not voting with our feet just yet.
It is what it is and I am sure the reasons are valid whatever they may be - just makes this site all the more valuable to share the cold turkey with other like minded people
Cheers :007)
My name is Bond, Basildon Bond - I have letters after my name!
Yes and no, though. For instance, I saw Skyfall and Spectre exactly once in the theaters. I saw Casino Royale three times. In this respect, they made less money off of me personally. I do own the blu-rays of each, but they came as a set, so I paid a flat fee for all of them. While it may seem like making fans hold out longer just makes them more eager, it may also create ennui so that when the film is finally released, the momentum is lost, as well as potential revenue.
Yes and no, though. For instance, I saw Skyfall and Spectre exactly once in the theaters. I saw Casino Royale three times. In this respect, they made less money off of me personally. I do own the blu-rays of each, but they came as a set, so I paid a flat fee for all of them. While it may seem like making fans hold out longer just makes them more eager, it may also create ennui so that when the film is finally released, the momentum is lost, as well as potential revenue.
I agree with that. The momentum from Skyfall was lost with a 3 year gap when Spectre came out. On the other hand, a long gap can help the series if it's coming after a film with a poor reception. The long gao following QOS probably helped SF.
Yes and no, though. For instance, I saw Skyfall and Spectre exactly once in the theaters. I saw Casino Royale three times. In this respect, they made less money off of me personally. I do own the blu-rays of each, but they came as a set, so I paid a flat fee for all of them. While it may seem like making fans hold out longer just makes them more eager, it may also create ennui so that when the film is finally released, the momentum is lost, as well as potential revenue.
I agree with that. The momentum from Skyfall was lost with a 3 year gap when Spectre came out. On the other hand, a long gap can help the series if it's coming after a film with a poor reception. The long gao following QOS probably helped SF.
I don't think the 3 year gap hurt at all. Skyfall came off a sub-par QOS and was the most successful Bond ever. Because it was great In most eyes. Also, 50 year anniversary etc..
Spectre made 880 million. A huge success. If Bond put up those numbers every time out, the studio would be extremely happy. It would have made even more if it was better critically received.
The 4 year gaps are bad. People keep going on about how CR and SF were excellent due to the gaps, but what about the first 16 films? They made a tonne of money too. It worked then, and it was never broken, and never a need to fix it. Gaps don't guarantee better films. My favourite films in the series came after 2 year gaps. It's all opinion I know. CR is right at the bottom of my list, although I know it's popular. SF is great. But look at DAD, hated by most.
Just bloody make films every 2 years, or at the very least, every 3 years. But 4+ years is too much IMO, it's just not the way bond should be! 1962-1989 spawned 16 films, why can't they be regular like the old days again? Longer gaps mean bugger all in terms of quality IMO.
I really hope we get news soon. It is really annoying me, and if we got news, it would finally stop all this blind speculation too, which is frustrating, as I click on an updated post to see possible news, and instead all it is, is yet more blind speculation. And now people are boring me with Marvel talk
EON, just make a bloody film, and DC, just come back for one more, the back-and-forth talk and rumors could have equated to making a film by now, time-wise.
I disagree. Two year gaps in today's film business is extremely fast. The only time you see that in movie franchises is typically when they have an established story to go off of already, or are planned out years ahead of time. James Bond is very different then most film franchises. For the most part there is very little story linked to each other. Even the most recent films dont require you to watch the previous ones.
James Bond is so different. You need a new story, new villian, new exotic places to film, etc. Not to mention the way films are done are so different then when Bond films were being done every 1-2 years. Films are more expensive. Require more people. Take longer to film, longer to come together, the special effects and the post editing process is much more time consuming. Plus, the early Bond films had alot of sourcematerial to go after.
I just don't think its realistic at all to have new Bond movies in 2 year gaps. But i will agree 4 years is a long wait between. I think 3 is the sweet spot.
JG007Manchester , United KingdomPosts: 276MI6 Agent
I think being realistic we're looking at a November 2018 release. Although the no news is driving us all up the wall, when they finally do a press release I would think they may give us more of an insight as to the holdups thus far. I do think the distribution rights have a big effect on things so far. As far as we're aware there still has been no official word on who has got them?..
I reckon it'll be September time when we hear something. I'd be happy on an Adele return also. Maybe they will reveal that too at the press release. As long as they're shooting from september and crack on with it , we'll be in line for November 2018.
I do think a story has either been signed off or is in the finishing touches stage.
If it turns out that Craig is not returning, I could see EON pushing things back to a 2019 release date.....a little more breathing room between Bonds to ease the transition.
Why we wait for Bond 25 we should check out American Assasin in Sept. trailer looks brilliant I loved all of Vince Flynn's books and after he very sadly died of cancer Kyle Mills doing a brilliant job
Anthony
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I'd be delighted with a Bond in '18 at this point...based on past history, that would mean rolling out some announcements this fall: lead actor(!!), director & DP, perhaps some supporting cast, etc. But of course a distribution deal would precede that.
Here's hoping.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
Thor, Iron Man 2, and Age of Ultron are all in the 70s on rotten tomatoes, I'd say that's a pretty decent review average. Certainly better than poor reviews. That leaves Thor 2 and the Hulk film, which are the only 2 films in the franchise with reviews in the 60s. That's only 2 out of 15. So the reality is that most Marvel films are reviewed well -{ It's also a better strike rate than most franchises out there.
But I agree that something needs to happen at EON to shake things up. IMHO, there are ways to do that without throwing the baby out with the bath water or diluting the brand. If handled correctly, the right strategy could increase the brand value, protect EON from the problems its partners are having, and inject some creativity into the legacy of Bond.
I've always been a big fan of the idea of mini-series on Netflix or the like, set in the 1960s and based on the novels. That would be one way to fill in the gaps between films, bring in new fans and help EON find new talent.
Another way to explore the world of Bond would be to copy Marvel's "One Shot" idea: 10 to 15 minute films that explore the exploits of other 00s. Again, these could keep fans interested and help EON find talent (and maybe develop new characters that would be worthy of their own full length feature films in the future).
An animated film based on one of the excellent graphic novels could also be an option. The audience for such a product may be more limited, but with the right creative team there is a lot of potential to tell great Bond stories using a different medium.
The feeling I get from EON and Craig is that they're just bored of Bond in general. Allowing others to play in the sandbox with different toys could snap them out of that.
Just my two cents!
Objectively, two of those films were among the best-reviewed films of their respective year. All four were commercially successful. Craig has been a very popular Bond on the whole, and his films have featured a lot of high-end talent, both in front of and behind the lens. Those are facts.
EON doesn't always get it right, but they care about Bond on more than just a financial level. Indeed, they've resisted the current trend of brand dilution in the name of profit. A major studio with creative control would not necessarily follow this model. Further, all remaining vestiges of the classic character would likely be scrubbed away in the name of political correctness by a studio in full control (some may argue that this has already occurred, but I disagree. Craig's films are more self-aware, but have not betrayed the essence of the character). To echo others in this thread, I would be very careful what you wish for. Shaking up an otherwise steady franchise out of the desire for more content would be short-sighted.
these four year + gaps are very bad for the series, they seem to know less and less about how to make a Bond movie each time they finally get back to work
I too am envious of the success of Marvel Studios films
as well as coming out three films per year, they have some really big actors committed for years on end: in addition to Downey, there's Samuel Jackson, Scarlet Johansen, and Gwyneth Paltrow all eager and ready to make yet another superhero installment when I'm sure they have more artistically rewarding projects they could be working on
I think one of the problems with these newest Bond movies is they've given Craig far too much power, the people who own the franchise just sit around for years at a time waiting for him to show an interest again, and then they give him an executive producer credit ... they need a Bond actor who appreciates the job (which Brosnan did seem to do)
and of course I also like the tight plotting of the Marvel movies, which is easier when there's such a rapid schedule ... you can argue Bond doesn't need all that continuity, but we know these Bond writers are making it up as they go along, after the cameras start rolling ... that's no way to make movies worth remembering five minutes after leaving the theatre ... as someone said above, Broccoli Sr knew what film was coming next before the latest film was finished postproduction, and already had his team working on the locations and whatnot
there's also the X-Men franchise as a good example of how to do a series, that's actually a separate franchise from Marvel Studios, also with big stars who stay committed, rapid schedule, and fairly tight plotting
and by the way, I liked Thor: it was one of the few where I actually liked the CGI better than the acting, and as an old Jack Kirby fan, I mean that as a compliment: they successfully brought Kirby's Asgard to life
"You forgot the first rule of Mass Media Elliot! Give the people what they want!!!"
"I never miss..."
"Time to face gravity!"
Leaving out the movies prior to 1990, as that was a completely different outfit...
Movies after two-year gaps: TND, TWINE, QoS
Movies after three-year gaps: DAD, SPECTRE
Movies after four year gaps: CR, SF
So your best case scenario is a Bond film every year? That hasn't happened since the '60s and it's an unrealistic expectation in 2017.
There is no evidence to support this. The gaps are frustrating for fans, but it hasn't hurt the series in any tangible way. What bothers me more than the gap is the lack of information about the next film, such as when we can expect it. But again, that's just an inconvenience.
I would be happy if MGM just sold their Bond rights to another production company with more financial stability. Unfortunately, with what a Bond film costs these days, EON really needs to partner with another company. If MGM sold their Bond rights to Warner Bros, Warners has deep enough pockets to distribute Bond themselves and would probably not need a third party.
I also feel that the Babs/Daniel love-in has not been entirely positive.Too much influnce vested in the lead actor. Don't believe Mendes was a good fit (probably against the tide) but with Mendes came Newman (disaster) However it's a mixed bag as Skyfall was a good Bond film, just sat strangely in the arc, we never got the fully formed Bond we were promised before getting the Warhorse being dragged out to sea...I think the relationship is a negative if Babs is still really waiting for her Darcy...
Just bloody make films every 2 years, or at the very least, every 3 years. But 4+ years is too much IMO, it's just not the way bond should be! 1962-1989 spawned 16 films, why can't they be regular like the old days again? Longer gaps mean bugger all in terms of quality IMO.
I really hope we get news soon. It is really annoying me, and if we got news, it would finally stop all this blind speculation too, which is frustrating, as I click on an updated post to see possible news, and instead all it is, is yet more blind speculation. And now people are boring me with Marvel talk
EON, just make a bloody film, and DC, just come back for one more, the back-and-forth talk and rumors could have equated to making a film by now, time-wise.
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
The Bond films have never benefited simply from a hiatus. What they've benefited from is a commitment to doing something fresh and quality -- that generally comes not from taking more time but from assembling talent that sees an opportunity to do so. After all, the first three Bond films -- among the best -- were only made a year or so apart. Casino Royale reinvigorated the series because they selected a bonafide actor to play Bond, went back to a Fleming story for the plot, found a director who'd earned his chops and sought to make a film about Bond rather than a Bond movie, and upped their game with the production. Its follow ups suffered because this combination in total was not present.
The biggest problem with dragging out the Bond films is that the actors aren't getting any younger. But CGI technology allows even that to be dealt with, and while replacing Craig might upset some fans, there has always been someone waiting in the wings. It's now been nearly 11 years since Craig made his debut, meaning the 18-year-olds who discovered him as Bond are closing on 30. A new generation is following on their cusp, and introducing a new Bond to them to grow up with for the next 10-15 years would not be outside of standard marketing procedure. While Craig could and should have had 6 or 7 films in his tenure instead of 4 or 5, that's as good or better a run than Brosnan or Dalton.
Finally, Bond has no real competition right now to spur them on. There are franchises, of course, but the Batman series, which seem to inspire Craig's Bonds, have ended their run, and even the current spate of so-called action films have steered clear of being direct competition, the closest being the Mission: Impossible dreck. They can take their time without fear that something else will steal their thunder. As they contemplate the potential global profit -- and the travails of making a film that won't offend audiences outside the UK -- they can also look to see what is on the horizon that might be the next big fad and ride that fad's coattails.
but I don't really understand the dependency on larger outside film companies. Someone was mentioning MGM above. Did Brocolli & Saltzman have more complete control back in their day? If so what changed that has put the kids in such a more dependent position?
this is a good point, I'm sure they make far more money every year off repackaging the old dvds than they do from a new film, and those dvds seem to have almost as many cover variations now as the paperbacks.
In fact, the franchise is almost analogous to an aging rock band like the Rolling Stones, for whom there's really no need to put out a new album nobody really cares about when copies of Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street are still flying off the shelves.
Let's face it we all enjoy the 12 month build up through to opening and beyond. It's just we hate this cold turkey and the lean periods in between.
We are moaning but we are not voting with our feet just yet.
It is what it is and I am sure the reasons are valid whatever they may be - just makes this site all the more valuable to share the cold turkey with other like minded people
Cheers :007)
I agree with that. The momentum from Skyfall was lost with a 3 year gap when Spectre came out. On the other hand, a long gap can help the series if it's coming after a film with a poor reception. The long gao following QOS probably helped SF.
I don't think the 3 year gap hurt at all. Skyfall came off a sub-par QOS and was the most successful Bond ever. Because it was great In most eyes. Also, 50 year anniversary etc..
Spectre made 880 million. A huge success. If Bond put up those numbers every time out, the studio would be extremely happy. It would have made even more if it was better critically received.
I disagree. Two year gaps in today's film business is extremely fast. The only time you see that in movie franchises is typically when they have an established story to go off of already, or are planned out years ahead of time. James Bond is very different then most film franchises. For the most part there is very little story linked to each other. Even the most recent films dont require you to watch the previous ones.
James Bond is so different. You need a new story, new villian, new exotic places to film, etc. Not to mention the way films are done are so different then when Bond films were being done every 1-2 years. Films are more expensive. Require more people. Take longer to film, longer to come together, the special effects and the post editing process is much more time consuming. Plus, the early Bond films had alot of sourcematerial to go after.
I just don't think its realistic at all to have new Bond movies in 2 year gaps. But i will agree 4 years is a long wait between. I think 3 is the sweet spot.
I reckon it'll be September time when we hear something. I'd be happy on an Adele return also. Maybe they will reveal that too at the press release. As long as they're shooting from september and crack on with it , we'll be in line for November 2018.
I do think a story has either been signed off or is in the finishing touches stage.
-{
Here's hoping.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
it's 2019....which sounds as ridiculous as 2017 but sadly it's the truth....no respect for the fans anymore.... 8-)