"EON's new normal"

Here comes, as promised, the entry on Bill Koenig's blog:

https://hmssweblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/10/eons-new-normal-cont-qs-comments-analyzed/

I agree with that analysis. I may not like it and in fact I absolutely have no understanding for this.
EoN is risking the franchise in my opinion with their recent "behaviour".

Bond 25 will see a four year gap to Spectre and again with the same actor to play Bond. After he's already been in the role since 2006. Somehow that seems not to be a good idea, but I guess for Barbara Broccoli the Bond franchise has become more of a hobby that generates a lot of work and then money.

That is my opinion and of course I could be wrong. But it sure looks like that to me.

Ironically I almost couldn't care less. I've kind of lost interest back in 2012 anyway after seeing Skyfall and the incredible waste of opportunities to continue the CR-QOS arc with more hard-hitting action. Instead we got drama on soap level and recycling of old Bond stories.

But nevertheless, I'll always be so grateful for all we've been given since 1962. This is enough for a lifetime.

It's certainly not the efficient production line it once was.

This poses the question: Do people grow less interested in Bond when the films are released more frequently (say, every 2-3 years) or when there are prolonged gaps? I suspect that, oddly enough, it's the latter.

The argument was that they can take their time to deliver the best product imaginable. 

Surely by now many can see that prolonged gaps don't equate to quality. They just got lucky with SF.

I am not sure, but I have a feeling that there are more serial film productions nowadays than in the earlier decades. In present-day cinema XY I, XY II, XY III etc. are more of a rule than an exception. Now there is much more competition going on with other productions which manage to deliver in a short span of time. This points to "Why is it only the Bond franchise that needs a long time to produce quality material?" This argument does not work anymore, IMO.

Mr Wint wrote:

Bond 25 will see a four year gap to Spectre and again with the same actor to play Bond. After he's already been in the role since 2006. Somehow that seems not to be a good idea, but I guess for Barbara Broccoli the Bond franchise has become more of a hobby that generates a lot of work and then money.

I agree. Craig will be past 50 and way too old to be 00-section material. But, on the other hand, Moore had the role for a long time, too and it did not ruin the franchise.

Roger Moore was....Roger Moore, he could get away with anything really. But even so, AVTAK has a reputation in my opinion that is mainly Sir Rog having been too old visibly in the film. It's kind of its legacy and EON is risking the same fate for Bond 25.

Well, nowadays the type of technology is in place (greenscreen and face-mapping, for example) that allows the actor playing Bond to be placed in what appears to be the middle of a dangerous situation more convincingly than the back-projection and 'Let's just hope nobody looks too closely at the stuntmen's faces' of Moore's day.

On the other point, the change in the regularity of the release schedule is certainly notable - between 62 - 89, there were 16 Bond films. Between 95 - 19, there will have been 9.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Well, nowadays the type of technology is in place (greenscreen and face-mapping, for example) that allows the actor playing Bond to be placed in what appears to be the middle of a dangerous situation more convincingly than the back-projection and 'Let's just hope nobody looks too closely at the stuntmen's faces' of Moore's day.

Are you saying that the advanced technology accounts for the prolonged time of production? This might definitely be the case, considering the additional timespan needed for digital postproduction which wasn't simply there in earlier film making.

I meant more that the technology could 'circumvent' the age of the actor playing Bond nowadays in a way that simply wasn't possible in Moore's day.