How important is a regular release schedule?

In light of some of the reaction to Bond being delayed seemingly to accommodate Sam Mendes....

Much as I love many of the Bond's of the 70's and 80's once the series had exhausted the solid foundation of Fleming's source material the ability to just keep knocking out the films regularly is imho extremely questionable and certainly has consequences for consistency. Outside the 60's longer breaks produce, what might be seen as more consistent results or at least more universally acknowledged results, TSWLM, GE, CR (even if it is not for me), Skyfall etc. Whereas the relentless pressure of schedule forces seems to undermine many other productions; ie TMWTGG, TND, QoS are examples I would suggest while even TWINE and DAD are examples of films whose scripts have some great ideas but simply aren't developed well enough to realise their true potential. Then there is the 80's which gave us some great films but even to a fan like me are weighed by degrees of staleness.

Whatever interval you may be indulging it seem inevitable there will always be compromises in a too heavily defined schedule but even a loose one can offer some serious compromises. Given Bonds success and prestige hasn't it earned the right to be left to arrive when it's ready rather than when it's expected?

Personally I find enjoyment in all the Bond films, so churning them out every 2nd year would be great. Longer gaps don't necessarily mean better films. The Spy Who Loved me came out after a 3 year gap, which was the first 'longer' break in the series, and I find that to be one of the weaker instalments. FRWL, GF and TB all came out within a year - and though they had source material - they are considered some of the strongest. Sure, GE, CR and SF all prove popular with audiences, and they did have a bigger gap, but so did DAD, and it's probably the weakest Bond film to date. So many things contribute to a film being good, bad and anything in between - the time to make it isn't necessarily the be-all-and-end-all of a project.

My top 5 are TND, FRWL, OHMSS, DN and TWINE - all were made under the two years.

I think quality supercedes a regular release schedule anyday...the 4 yr gap between QOS and Skyfall provided some pent-up anticipation...something you won't get when you know a new Bond is due every other year.

Then again, as much as Skyfall was a blockbuster success...I still thought it was lacking.

I never win. :affraid:

What should be happening is that while one Bond film is in production, the next film should have a draft. Obviously the writer(s) get paid through the development funding of the next Bond film, and it's not like the production companies would not pay a franchise that has lasted over 50 years.

That's true, however the producers prefer to work on one film at a time, see how it all pans out before they begin working on a draft for the next film. The only way they could realistically go with the every other year route is if they start to seriously look into the continuation novels. That would at least give them something to start with right after working on a Bond film.

Have they ever elaborated on why they never looked to the continuation books?

I'd rather the producers spend a little extra time getting a film right than pumping out regular entries.

Yeah, like DAD and TSWLM?

As Fields said, a longer gap is no guarantor of quality. Barring unforeseen financial or legal hurdles eating up valuable time, there's no reason why a two year gap woud produce a subpar Bond film. I'd rather the producers got back into the habit of biennial releases. Craig could've been doing his sixth film in 2016 rather than his fourth (and unless they want to make AVTAK-Rog look fresh and youthful, it will most certainly have to be his last).

It's not about every two years not guaranteeing a quality film, it's that the producers are clearly not comfortable going at that kind of pace and would rather focus one film at a time and see how it pans out before moving on to the next and that kind of method means they're likely to start a new trend of having a Bond film every three years instead of two.

And I think that's a wise move. It gives them the time to consider what worked and what didn't, and adjust accordingly before they commit to the next film.

Lazy bastards, basically. We need to resurrect Cubby with some voodoo shit.

Cubby had the benefit of having Ian Fleming's works to make adaptations, that's all been used up now. Mike and Babs only have ideas to work with and for them that requires more time to make coherent stories.

Also bear in mind that during Cubby's time, there were only a few aveunes to judge the success of a film. EON could either go by critical consensus or by box office takings or a combination thereof. It was really a quantitative approach that allowed the producers to easily determine the success of the film with a numerical value.

But in today's day and age, with instant access to information, everything has changed. There is much more scope for cinema-goers to contribute their thoughts on the film, and while EON (probably) aren't sitting on the forums and anonymously pouring over our every word, they'd be foolish to ignore the way the everyday person can be a part of the process. It's much more qualitative now, and while it's harder to determine the success of the film with a qualitative structure, when you do it properly, you actually get something much more representative of the film's reception.

Python wrote:

Cubby had the benefit of having Ian Fleming's works to make adaptations, that's all been used up now. Mike and Babs only have ideas to work with and for them that requires more time to make coherent stories.

Cubby didn't rely on Fleming's works anymore than the current crop do from 1971 onwards.

It's a double edged sword. Building up anticipation is great, but if the film doesn't actually deliver, it can kill Bond for a generation. That can mean less dvd sales, less video game sales etc into the future, all the ancillaries that increase EON's vast wealth and ability to produce the franchise as an ongoing series.

This might seem silly but it's important to remember how bi-annual releases allowed generations of young boys to grow up with a particular Bond actor as a regular part of their pop culture diet through their childhood/early adolescence. It's this identification with a particular string of Bond films/actors that usually lead to them seeking out the other films. This is probably more important now than it ever was previously due to the decreasing reach and significance of the films airing on television. Few people are going to become Bond fans in the future by catching Goldfinger on a Saturday night.

Regular film releases, provided they provide the main things Bond is known for - excitement, action, sex and glamour - even if they're not the best films, are key to keeping the franchise/brand going into the future.

It's important for the brand going forward.

Vesper wrote:

Python wrote:

Cubby had the benefit of having Ian Fleming's works to make adaptations, that's all been used up now. Mike and Babs only have ideas to work with and for them that requires more time to make coherent stories.

Cubby didn't rely on Fleming's works anymore than the current crop do from 1971 onwards.

Fair enough, but my point still stands with the fact that they at least provided Cubby enough with just an idea on what to do next, whether it's the settings, premises or characters. They didn't have to start from scratch like the current runners have.

Vesper wrote:

Regular film releases, provided they provide the main things Bond is known for - excitement, action, sex and glamour - even if they're not the best films, are key to keeping the franchise/brand going into the future.

It's important for the brand going forward.

The problem with this statement is that any direction can conceivably be called forward, and the Bond franchise has fallen into this trap before: the films have simply kept doing what they had always done, convinced that because it had worked before, it would work again. The end result was space lasers, Robocop suits and DNA transplants.

Going forward is important. But actually knowing where you want to be should also be a priority, lest you drift two hundred miles off course.

Python wrote:

Have they ever elaborated on why they never looked to the continuation books?

Money. John Gardner put it best when they asked him why Cubby wouldn't film his books:

"He owned the character rights and didn't need to pay for any books. He could get people within his organisation to write stuff for him at no extra charge."

They would have to pay the author (or in the case of Amis and Gardner, their estates) for the work and then pay for a screenwriter to adapt it. Why waste the money when you could just pay the screenwriter to come up with an original idea.



As for the release schedule. I would really love a return to the other year schedule, but it might not be the best idea.

I wouldn't mind a 3 year gap to give them more time. Not that that guarantees a better film, but it seems to me that the extra time has worked better for them since the 1990's. GE, CR, and SF have been the strongest films since 1995, all made after a large gap of time. TND, TWINE, and QOS were all very weak efforts. Anything longer than 3 years would be too much though.

Considering Michael G. Wilson's constant mention of the films being exhausting, it's hard to say what they will do. On one hand Wilson seems to want longer gaps. The company wants every other year. However, the fact they hired Logan to write 24 and 25 is a potential sign they are looking towards a shorter release schedule. The script for 25 can be started before 24 even starts filming if that's how they wanted giving them plenty of time to get it ready. Not a rush job like TND or QOS.

There's stuff that was in the 80s Bonds that was arguably plundered from Gardner's books ... I'm currently reading Nobody Lives Forever and the closing chapters are set in the Florida Keys; coincidence that Licence To Kill begins there? And in another (not sure of which one offhand), Bond and the girl are 'deathtrapped' in an elevator ... again, just coincidence that this also happens in AVTAK?

Oh yeah, there's a ton of stuff taken from the Gardner books. Especially AVTAK, there are so many you have to think there's no chance it was accidental.

Some I can remember:

License Renewed:

-Meeting an industrialist at Ascot who turns out to be the villain and then attends one of his parties.
The fight scene in the cargo hold was used in TLD. Car ejecting tear gas was used in TND.

The elevator deathtrap was from For Special Services and used in AVTAK. The plot is similar to Goldeneye. And the death of the female villain is quite similar to Elektra in TWINE.

Ice palace from Icebreaker in DAD. Snow mobile chase in the arctic ended up in AVTAK.

Role of Honor has numerous. The airship fight at the end was used in AVTAK. The whole plot involves computers and using them for evil, much like Zorin. The training simulator scene ends up in Die Another Day. The villain has a game simulator with soldiers in his home, much like the villain in TLD.

Jet fighter scene from Win, Lose, or Die happens in TND.

Bond chases a bad guy into an old Venetian building where his female partner dies in Death Is Forever, much like Casino Royale.

Of course, some of these ideas are very common such as a jet fighter chase, so....

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Vesper wrote:

Regular film releases, provided they provide the main things Bond is known for - excitement, action, sex and glamour - even if they're not the best films, are key to keeping the franchise/brand going into the future.

It's important for the brand going forward.

The problem with this statement is that any direction can conceivably be called forward, and the Bond franchise has fallen into this trap before: the films have simply kept doing what they had always done, convinced that because it had worked before, it would work again. The end result was space lasers, Robocop suits and DNA transplants.

Going forward is important. But actually knowing where you want to be should also be a priority, lest you drift two hundred miles off course.

Because two of those films didn't happen to be to your personal taste doesn't really make that statement problematic. Both of those films were well received at the B.O. and the producers were more than capable of self-correcting afterwards. It also doesn't actually neutralise the fact that there are many (on this forum and generally) to whom those films were either their first Bond experience or their personal favourite films, and without which they wouldn't have gotten into Bond films at all.

So it's okay to make bullshit because it will do well at the box office, and the problems can be addressed at the next film?

Isn't that the problem with Hollywood these days? Producers assume that the quality of the film doesn't matter because people will pay money to see it if they hype it up enough, and a sequel is a foregone conclusion.

I'd much prefer it if EON spent a little extra time consciously trying to make a good film, rather than simply rushing to meet a deadline. Does it guarantee a good film? No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt.

I guess opinion is more evenly split that I originally thought.

While I do acknowledge that certain that were films rushed ahead did come out all-right, I'd still have to suggest inevitably they were not all they could be as a result, similarly Bond is always visible in terms of repeats and penetration to other media so I can't believe an extra years absence on the big screen has much impact to its exposure (and would suggest the evidence is actually to the contrary).

Given Bond's history and the gaps that have been unnaturally forced upon it - it remains a puzzle to me as to why more stories and scripts aren't in an advanced state and just waiting to be developed, I'd imagine plenty of fans are fronting their ideas, whether invited or not. Likewise actually taking options out on some of the non-Fleming novels or works (Express cartoons) must surely bring something worthwhile and be well within the financial capability of the Bond franchise....though having only read Fleming's and Amis' Bonds I was surprised to see the comments of plagiarism that may have taken place.

lachesis wrote:

Given Bond's history and the gaps that have been unnaturally forced upon it - it remains a puzzle to me as to why more stories and scripts aren't in an advanced state and just waiting to be developed,

Which is what I was alluding to in one of my posts. 51 years of the cinematic Bond guarantees an audience - regardless of the film's quality. They make money, so the companies behind the Bond films shouldn't hesitate granting development funding to the current Bond film and the next one. They'll make their money back in a shorter amount of time.

To me it's not important at all how regular the films come out today. What I fear, really fear, is a film so abysmal that it kills off my own particular interest in Bond's fate. I know well enough in the long run nothing will be able to quench the general public's thirst for new adventures of Bond every few years. But my own dedication to the field could well find an end if the quantity-over-quality approach should again become the rule.

I'd say that a regular release schedule is vitally important and something that the Bond producers must try more and more to aim for.