Bond 26 (1 Viewer)

[Joe Wong]

I think, if the film studio (EON, MGM-UA, Sony, Amazon, whoever owned it in the day) behind Bond could have it their way, they would release once every 2 years, for box office and for continuity.

Heck, even the early Connery films were roughly 1 year apart (Dr. No in 1962 to Thunderball in 1965). And then the Moore-Dalton era averaged about 2 years between each other (9 films from 1973-1989). Brosnan’s 4 films came out in the span 1995-2002.

Really, it’s been Craig’s tenure that has been stretched, with 5 films from 2006-2021 or averaging almost 4 years between each film after Casino Royale.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Those were jokes? Wow, such hilarity.

Whether or not you find the comments amusing, the point remains that Nolan movies do include moments of levity.

It's dry humor. Sorry there aren't the bad puns and campy moments apparently you desire.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think, if the film studio (EON, MGM-UA, Sony, Amazon, whoever owned it in the day) behind Bond could have it their way, they would release once every 2 years, for box office and for continuity.

Heck, even the early Connery films were roughly 1 year apart (Dr. No in 1962 to Thunderball in 1965). And then the Moore-Dalton era averaged about 2 years between each other (9 films from 1973-1989). Brosnan’s 4 films came out in the span 1995-2002.

Really, it’s been Craig’s tenure that has been stretched, with 5 films from 2006-2021 or averaging almost 4 years between each film after Casino Royale.

IMO 3 years between films would make sense.

2 years - like the model most of us grew up with - seems a little oversaturated in today's market, but 4+ feels too long.

Especially given that each Bond has a limited "age window".

Unless they start to hire actors in their 20s.

 

[ScottRE]

Personally, I prefer they build a hunger. We have so much oversaturation with other properties, it's refreshing to see at least one production company take it's damned time before giving us another. But once they start back up, keep the momentum going. Every three years is the longest they can wait.

Besides, after the finale of the last one, they need to make sure people understand this isn't a continuation from the Craig era.

But either way, we keep getting peppered with "the next Bond actor" announcements.

I miss the Cubby Era, TBH. From Dr. No through Licence to Kill, they were more of less the same feel even when they would alternate between serious, funny, over the top and grounded. And you could count on them showing up every couple of years like an old friend. They were FUN. And that's the key to the Bond series for me. Fun. The Brosnan's were pretty okay at approximating that but the Craig's - much as I enjoyed most of them - were less Bond and more Bourne. As for Christopher Nolan, he makes amazing films but I have yet to walk out of one thinking "man was THAT a great time!" A great film? Sure, but he's not one I see making "fun" movies. He doesn't seem like the right fit.

I just hope they stick to the character as created, for the most part. Change the people and world around him to make it more relevant but don't recreate the character to do so.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I really think if Eon / MGM / Amazon want to differentiate Bond from the zillion other imitators out there, they should try doing period pieces set in Fleming’s original 1950s/early 60s era. It would give them an opportunity to go back to secret handshakes and codes and all the things that cell phones and computers make unnecessary in today’s world, and they could perhaps focus more on spycraft with slightly lower stakes than the recent films have played for.

 

[Edwin-S]

Whether or not you find the comments amusing, the point remains that Nolan movies do include moments of levity.

It's dry humor. Sorry there aren't the bad puns and campy moments apparently you desire.

You can claim those examples are dry humor, but don't assume what kind of humor I think is funny.

 

[ScottRE]

I really think if Eon / MGM / Amazon want to differentiate Bond from the zillion other imitators out there, they should try doing period pieces set in Fleming’s original 1950s/early 60s era. It would give them an opportunity to go back to secret handshakes and codes and all the things that cell phones and computers make unnecessary in today’s world, and they could perhaps focus more on spycraft with slightly lower stakes than the recent films have played for.

That may appeal to old folks like us who like the classic films, but while Bond was conceived in the 50's and 60's (books and films respectively), they don't consider James Bond's adventures to be a period piece. He is supposed to be cutting edge. Perhaps Bond has had his day. But what a day! I watched FRWL last night and there's an element of paranoia and danger in that film which was missing going forward. Great stuff.

I - would - really enjoy an Amazon Prime TV series based on the books set during the period. Judicially tweaked to leave out the more offensive social attitudes of the day but otherwise keeping them more faithful than the films were.

 

[Tommy R]

As one of the few on this board who really loved the Craig era, I just don’t really care what they do next. They want to just do another new Bond in new movies, fine. An Amazon series that does either modern or period stories, either based on the books or not, fine. Don’t make any more indefinitely, fine.

I’ll see whatever they put out with an open mind, but we have 25 films, a few un-official entires, the original Fleming books and a seemingly never ending flow of other books written by various authors. I’m not going to feel particularly excited for any hyped-up direction they try to feed us until a final product is out, not until it blows my socks off.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

That may appeal to old folks like us who like the classic films, but while Bond was conceived in the 50's and 60's (books and films respectively), they don't consider James Bond's adventures to be a period piece. He is supposed to be cutting edge.

Absolutely. But I think it would be an interesting approach to take. The success of shows like Mad Men show that there’s an audience willing to watch material that doesn’t have a contemporary setting. I think the Bourne films and the M:I films and the Fast & Furious films and others have out-Bonded Bond to a certain extent, so if they want to give the audience something to differentiate Bond from any of the other thrillers and action movies coming out today, the best thing would be to go back to an era that has some more mystique than what a modern spy movie can offer.

So much of what Bond does in those earlier films - at least the 60s and 70s, if not a little later too - is just made irrelevant by smartphones and GPS tracking. They now take so long making each Bond film that it seems someone is beating them to the punch each time when it comes to the villain’s motivations and plans. Instead of trying to keep up with the contemporary, I say try something different, at least as a one-off, and see what happens.

I think a modern audience would enjoy a 50s or 60s set film made with modern attitudes and pacing that was set in Fleming’s time but not burdened with the attitudes of Fleming that haven’t always dated well.

No Time To Die was by no means a bad film but it cost a spectacular amount of money to create and it was already dated by the time it hit theaters. Keeping up with the cutting edge has reached a point of diminishing returns, I think.

Honestly, with all due respect to the Broccoli family, I think some fresh blood is needed - definitely in the writing staff but it wouldn’t hurt to add another producing voice that could bring a new perspective, while retaining the independence that had been the Broccolis’ advantage for so many years. They were ahead of the curve for so many years until suddenly they weren’t.

 

[ScottRE]

Absolutely. But I think it would be an interesting approach to take. The success of shows like Mad Men show that there’s an audience willing to watch material that doesn’t have a contemporary setting. I think the Bourne films and the M:I films and the Fast & Furious films and others have out-Bonded Bond to a certain extent, so if they want to give the audience something to differentiate Bond from any of the other thrillers and action movies coming out today, the best thing would be to go back to an era that has some more mystique than what a modern spy movie can offer.

So much of what Bond does in those earlier films - at least the 60s and 70s, if not a little later too - is just made irrelevant by smartphones and GPS tracking. They now take so long making each Bond film that it seems someone is beating them to the punch each time when it comes to the villain’s motivations and plans. Instead of trying to keep up with the contemporary, I say try something different, at least as a one-off, and see what happens.

I think a modern audience would enjoy a 50s or 60s set film made with modern attitudes and pacing that was set in Fleming’s time but not burdened with the attitudes of Fleming that haven’t always dated well.

No Time To Die was by no means a bad film but it cost a spectacular amount of money to create and it was already dated by the time it hit theaters. Keeping up with the cutting edge has reached a point of diminishing returns, I think.

Honestly, with all due respect to the Broccoli family, I think some fresh blood is needed - definitely in the writing staff but it wouldn’t hurt to add another producing voice that could bring a new perspective, while retaining the independence that had been the Broccolis’ advantage for so many years. They were ahead of the curve for so many years until suddenly they weren’t.

That's why I think streaming/TV is a better home for Bond at this point. They could do exactly what you're suggesting, take their time developing it and not have to rely on huge budgeted stunts, set-pieces and effects. Just watching Dr. No and From Russia in succession showed me that, while dated, they still hold up at excellent spy adventures but are leaner than most of the series. Leaner, dangerous and Bond feels like an actual character rather than a figure we watch going from point to point.

I give the Craig films credit for humanizing him to a degree (which Brosnan's also did to a lesser extent) but at the same time, No Time To Die was like watching your favorite Uncle doing soooo well before his disease finally takes him. Nothing like that last 15 minutes before the credits to make me depressed.

Yes, it's time for new blood but not scattershot, one and done producers. An ongoing character series needs someone with some kind of vision to keep it alive, at least that's how I feel about it. Yeah, Purvis and Wade are excused, they may leave thank you. I have lots of respect for the Broccoli and Wilson, but neither of them are Cubby. And while he had his faults as a producer, he knew when to change it up. Even when his wacko out space adventure made a zillion bucks, he still changed direction for the next film.

 

[Sam Favate]

I really think if Eon / MGM / Amazon want to differentiate Bond from the zillion other imitators out there, they should try doing period pieces set in Fleming’s original 1950s/early 60s era. It would give them an opportunity to go back to secret handshakes and codes and all the things that cell phones and computers make unnecessary in today’s world, and they could perhaps focus more on spycraft with slightly lower stakes than the recent films have played for.

This was Quentin Tarantino’s idea for the series, and if rumors are to be believed, it is also Christopher Nolan’s idea.

I think it’s a great idea. Not only do you get the nostalgia for the older crowd, not only do you separate yourself from the young imitators (Bourne, etc.), but it lends something to the story for Bond to be a WWII vet, juggling political situations as the post-war world is taking shape. That’s all part of what Fleming intended, IMO.

I like the Craig movies, mostly. The first and last are tremendous films. But they were a reaction to the Bourne movies, which I think is a no-no. James Bond should have imitators, not be the imitator.

 

[Worth]

…James Bond should have imitators, not be the imitator.

It was once, but hasn’t been as far back as Live and Let Die.

 

[Lord Dalek]

I'd argue that the increasingly absurdist tone of the films from the later half of the 1960s was just Bond imitating The Avengers (to the point of even having Bond marry Miss Peel).

Not like there's anything wrong with with that.

 

[Matt Hough]

As I read that article in The Hollywood Reporter, I was kind of shocked they had done NO work on the next Bond. Not even preliminary plot ideas, potential casting, picking a villain. Nothing. Maybe their hearts just aren't in it any more.

 

[Baenwort]

Or give up on the Chinese market and have Bond be a Afghanistan war vet (Perhaps of Indian decent but born in Britian) and set the movie all over SE Asia and Central Asia with China taking thevplace of Russia.

Remove the gadgets as they all have Chinese made chips and aren't trusted and Bond having to do without the tech as it is all compromised and those he works with have to do it all in person as both sides have hacked and set up firewall other such jargon that means if you take your tech into their side they will find you instantly due to triangulation of the foriegn signal but you can't trust the locally produced equipment.

Update and keep current but find a reason (by setting it slightly future and worst case conspiracy stuff) to justify the throw back feel.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

As I read that article in The Hollywood Reporter, I was kind of shocked they had done NO work on the next Bond. Not even preliminary plot ideas, potential casting, picking a villain. Nothing. Maybe their hearts just aren't in it any more.

I think the pandemic release delay really threw them. From what I understand, No Time To Die cost a fortune (even by Bond standards) and the nearly 2 year release delay caused significant problems with their workflow.

Although the film was finished before the pandemic set in, they allegedly had to do a bunch of minor but time consuming CGI tweaks because of the multitude of contracts they had with product placement - their advertisers had contracted them to be using current products so little things like watches, for instance, had to be digitally updated to be the current model rather than ones from two years earlier. Another publication asserted that a gadget that Bond was set to use had been a prototype when the film was scripted but became commonplace in the time between the originally scheduled release and actual release so references to that being cutting edge had to be trimmed. That sort of thing. And since Eon partly finances the films out of pocket based on money they raised, each time the movie got delayed they had to pay interest on that money since the release was in limbo and they had no grosses with which to pay their creditors. For a supposedly finished movie, it was apparently a behind the scenes nightmare to delay it.

And then when the movie was released, it sort of became obvious why the producers felt the need to hold it, since the McGuffin wound up being a potentially world-ending virus. They knew they couldn’t just release it as soon as theaters reopened or put it out as a $50 pay-per-view - it would have been tone deaf to do so.

So I think they spent a lot of that delay just trying to maintain the viability of their asset. And then, once the movie came out, MGM sold to Amazon, and Amazon probably doesn’t care. Bond is just a rounding error on Amazon’s balance sheet compared to a crown jewel in MGM’s.

I think they also felt that while No Time To Die was in limbo, they couldn’t do any work on a follow-up then or it would make it seem like the unreleased movie was already yesterday’s news. And perhaps they simply didn’t have any financial resources to dedicate to moving forward with all of their money tied up in the unreleased film.

Whether or not any of that is the actual reason, who knows? They’ve had a very relaxed approach to making the films after Quantum, and I think that hurt the series. They squandered years of potential productivity with Craig - in the end he did make it to five films, but it took 15 years. Connery did six films in 9 years (and Eon actually made seven films in that period). Moore did seven films in 12 years.

I think most discouraging about the Craig era was how they kept returning to Purvis and Wade. It was like each time out they’d get above average behind the scenes talent involved and then at some point get cold feet about doing something unique and would then come back to the same writing team that would once again provide the same stale, been there done that approach that had been done before. And as a result I don’t think the films themselves feel as special or unique as they once did.

I don’t think the Broccolis need to be exiled to the Sahara but maybe some kind of emeritus role would be more appropriate. They ended the Craig era in a way that means the next film is neither part of the legacy of the first 20 films, nor part of the Craig continuity, and if they’re going to have a wide open future I really think it makes sense to not just throw more opportunity at Purvis & Wade. They weren’t Richard Maibaum. They’re not irreplaceable. It could even be reasonably argued that the best things in Bond movies with their names on it weren’t even contributed by them. It is desperately past time to move on.

 

[Malcolm R]

I think most discouraging about the Craig era was how they kept returning to Purvis and Wade. It was like each time out they’d get above average behind the scenes talent involved and then at some point get cold feet about doing something unique and would then come back to the same writing team that would once again provide the same stale, been there done that approach that had been done before. And as a result I don’t think the films themselves feel as special or unique as they once did.

Didn't they supposedly clash with Danny Boyle because he wanted Bond to die? Then that's where they went anyway.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Didn't they supposedly clash with Danny Boyle because he wanted Bond to die? Then that's where they went anyway.

That was the reason that leaked although they all denied it at the time - and given that that’s how the film they made ended, I think that gives some credibility to the idea that the issue was something else.

I think Boyle, given his experience and pedigree is used to more control over his projects than the Broccolis were willing to give him and my unofficial guess is that when push came to shove, he wasn’t prepared to give up years of his life making a film he wasn’t in control of, and the Broccolis had an issue with letting go of that control even when the person they hired had the resume to justify it.

For years, the working method for the Broccolis has been to pick locations that Bond hasn’t been seen at before or for a long time, design action sequences, hire the second unit to go out and shoot them, and then tailor the rest of the film’s story around that. And that method worked for them until it didn’t. But I’m sure that’s why they love Purvis & Wade, because those guys would go along with that and write whatever nonsense they were asked to that would make those pieces fit together. But that’s not how Danny Boyle works. That’s not how someone like Christopher Nolan works. And if they want to be making A-list films in the 21st century, it’s time to go back to hiring the best writers available and letting them write the script first.

 

[Jake Lipson]

He is supposed to be cutting edge.

He can still be cutting edge in a period piece. If they wanted to do a period piece, Bond could still have the best tech in that time period available to him. The advances in modern day technology can be applied to making a period piece. X-Men: First Class and Days of Future Past were excellent and exciting contemporary action films that were made as period pieces. Both were well-received with audiences and critics. Of course, then things went way downhill with the next two. But those two stand as proof that this kind of thing can be done and audiences will respond to it if it's good.

Didn't they supposedly clash with Danny Boyle because he wanted Bond to die?

That was the rumor as to why Danny Boyle left the project. I think the ending of No Time to Die proves that exact rationale to be false. However, Boyle did leave the project due to unspecified creative differences. The script Boyle was going to use was co-written with one of his regular collaborators and was not used for the film we ended up getting.

Daniel Craig also said in an interview that he asked Barbara Broccoli if Bond could die at the end of his run after Casino Royale premiered, and she agreed to the idea at that time. So this is what the Craig version was always working toward regardless of who the director was going to be for his final film.

They’ve had a very relaxed approach to making the films after Quantum, and I think that hurt the series.

I think part of this is because of the response to Quantum. They insisted on shooting it without a finished script while the WGA was on strike in order to make a predetermined release date. They ended up making the date, but the movie they ended up with wasn't very good. Its flaws were magnified because it was a direct sequel to Casino Royale, which was well-received.

Now, 15 years on from Quantum, it doesn't matter anymore that it met the release date. But the movie remains and it's lousy. I understand the pressure to meet the release date at the time, but it would have been beneficial for the brand in the long term if the movie had been better. Because Bond is Bond, they know these movies are going to be watched for years to come as part of this long-running legacy series.

I think taking time between Quantum and Skyfall ended up benefiting the latter, but I see your point.

They squandered years of potential productivity with Craig - in the end he did make it to five films, but it took 15 years.

The first Bond movie I ever saw was Die Another Day, and then it was rebooted. I'm very fond of Craig in the role because his era was "mine" and I grew up on them. So I'm probably biased in favor of the recent films in the way that folks from previous generations are attached to the ones that came out when they were younger. With respect to the older films, and without making any judgments as to the others' quality, the Craig ones just mean the most to me because they were new when I was growing up.

That being said, I always felt like there was a weird gap in the storytelling of the Craig films. Casino Royale specifically went with a young Bond and makes clear that it is his first mission, and Quantum picks up literally minutes later. Then, in Skyfall, Craig is being told he's too old for this and should retire. Skyfall was released four years after Quantum. Quantum takes place in 2006 because it is right after Casino Royale, then six years have passed between that story and Skyfall.

Even as a big fan of the Craig era, I always felt it was kind of odd that there are stories missing in there. We see Craig's Bond at the beginning of his career for two films, and then he's suddenly too old and over the hill. There isn't a film or films in which we see him in his prime. This wouldn't be quite as noticeable if the films were telling individual, independent stories like most of the pre-Craig era. But it is noticeable because the filmmakers made the choice to have them be a continuing story with serialized connective tissue between the missions.

 

[Sam Favate]

I think most discouraging about the Craig era was how they kept returning to Purvis and Wade. It was like each time out they’d get above average behind the scenes talent involved and then at some point get cold feet about doing something unique and would then come back to the same writing team that would once again provide the same stale, been there done that approach that had been done before. And as a result I don’t think the films themselves feel as special or unique as they once did.

Yes, absolutely. Those are perhaps the worst writers ever involved in the series' 60+ year history, and yet they kept using them. They're responsible for overlong, convoluted plots that don't make sense when you think about them. I have a harder time accepting P&W's complicated stories (going back to The World Is Not Enough) than I do James Bond in space.

Broccoli and Wilson seem to have aimed to keep Bond "cutting edge," but if that's really what they want, they need to let to let younger people make the decisions.

As I've said repeatedly, I think the Bond series needs an infusion of humor (not unlike the Moore films) and a lot less sadism. Sean Connery is still the ideal, mixing humor and danger at the right measure.