Is it 2004 already? Or is it 1968? Or…or…or…
It’s a change of actor, something they’ve done six times already. Come 2025 it’ll be stories about how the new guy is the first proper actor to play the role with the first Bond woman “as we call them now” who is, for the first time 
, truly his equal and the last guy just didn’t get it the way the new guy does “he’s the best since Connery!”
Because god forbid writing a new “hot take” rather than recycle the response from the sixties.
Well said!
Running a major franchise isn’t easy. Watching so many of the other big players flail around really makes me appreciate that Eon are one of the good ones.
What would you put as the music for the end?
OHMSS ending bothers me every time cause;
This is sad…this is sad…this is saaaaaadBAH DAH DAH DA DAHH DAHHHH
my neck hurts from how quick that music switched from a funeral march to a victory lap.
I don’t know, maybe hire one of the most famous film composers in the world and let him come up with something. Oh, wait…
my neck hurts from how quick that music switched from a funeral march to a victory lap
Granted. It’s almost like the producers lost faith in the last lap, worried about presenting a new Bond who’d already bailed on them and a script that might have dared too many new things and ended on a tragic note. So rather than wait for the reassuring “James Bond Will Return” at the very end of the credit roll, they try to catch all the people standing up and heading out with a musical message: “Sorry for the sad story. We promise to keep things fun and drama-free for at least the next decade.”
It’s an easier “rut” to get out of than the last one. Just as Roger Moore proved the series can thrive under a new lead actor, the Craig series proved you can make profound changes to Bond’s life story and then kill him off to undo it all and start over again for another go-round in yet another direction. I’d be the last person to suggest the Craig era was a total success artistically, but it has at least left us in a less restrictive, formula-bound place than it was before CR. And maybe next time they can attempt a new cycle with the “long game” actually mapped out beforehand.
All that said, I think it might be relevant to consider it from the producer’s POV and not ours as fans: making these films is not easy and Babs and Michael are not getting any younger. Consider the constant pressure of fan expectations, partnerships with a string of failed studios, a never-ending cycle of corporate takeovers, an ever-changing roster of executives to deal with, some helpful but many others not. There is a strong possibility this franchise could go off the rails at any point and IMO Babs and Michael’s job lately isn’t so much just looking for trouble as far ahead on the tracks as possible, but more like lying across gaps and holding the tracks up like that scene in Superman: The Movie.
So here we are; they’ve proven they can carry on Cubby’s legacy, bring Bond into the 21st Century and keep him as popular and profitable as ever. They’re coming off a film that earned big bucks and generally positive responses from critics and viewers. They’ve shown anyone who follows them how to balance nostalgia with chance-taking. Their favorite lead actor is done, their two best contacts at MGM have quit and Amazon looms over everything. It could well be the perfect moment to cash out, sell off the whole thing for head-spinning money and bow out on top. Then if Bond crashes and burns in other hands, they can enjoy their drinks on a beach somewhere while the world says, “This never would have happened if Eon were still making the films…”
I mean, what happens when they’re too old to go on? Is there a third generation of Broccoli kids coming up through the “producer” ranks? It’s gotta end sometime…
Maybe Zimmer’s “Home” theme with Billie Eilish humming.
But no need to reuse a theme song.
Where will they sell it?
To Disney?
Like How Lucas sold Star Wars, and look what happened to that.
I think EON can still do so much within the franchise, no need for it, they just need a new and fresh blood when it comes to the creative team, scriptwriters, directors,
If there’s a part that should be left off it should be Purvis and Wade imo, they’re losing their steam when it comes to new ideas and writing Bond Films, they should hire a new group of scriptwriters who has fresh ideas regarding the progression of the Bond Franchise.
EON selling the franchise is not the solution, we trust them the franchise, I’m comfortable that the franchise would still be in the good hands, because EON knows Bond, something that the other production team didn’t know, because what they know about Bond?
Like Disney does with Star Wars, they didn’t know about Star Wars, and it reflects on the outcome.
Let’s hope that the MGM-Amazon deal will bring Bond to a greater level though.
I’m just afraid because of what happened to Star Wars when they’ve sold it to Disney.
And one unique thing that makes the Bond franchise somewhat different was it was held as a family business, the Broccolis with Albert and now Barbara and Michael continuing his legacy.
It’s a family business, that’s what made them rich in the first place.
The Bond franchise already runs in their family.
Maybe Barbara’s son will hold the franchise next? Who knows?
They do seem to be placing David to take over his father’s position.
In classic The Sopranos or The Wire fashion, Jim has made the second-to-last episode the real bruiser.
Is it time for EON to get out? For me, it does feel that way. Could they successfully start a new era. Without a doubt. Recasting, and readjusting is what EON have successfully done. Either creatively or financially, history has proven it.
Was Laz the right choice? At the time, the answer was no, but decades later EON made a brilliant movie. Brozza, my cup of tea? No, but financially BANG!
Regardless of who management was (Cubby, Harry, Babs, Mike, whoever else, all get credit), EON have always been proved right so I don’t bet against them at just one more juncture where the franchise has to start a new chapter.
But I don’t think the challenges are creative (though ultimately that’s where any cracks might show). I do think that is an inflection point unlike the Harry and Cubby split or the Sony/Columbia partnership. The arrival of Amazon, into a marketplace that is unlike anything that has come before, is going to be a real test of EON’s next “creative” strategy and put real pressure on what the franchise is. I don’t think re-tooling and bringing out the next movie is going to be enough to survive. And I have no idea where EON stand on what their property is (now) and what it should be.
Does it seem like a time to get out? I wouldn’t blame them if they did but I can’t believe that they will. The non-Bond celluloid projects have been a mixed bag at best, so it’s not like there is a successful track to pivot to. It’s Bond or nothing. My question is, what will “Bond” be over the next 10-15 years?
I don’t think that Amazon is the problem here. Nor is the recent ouster of the relatively newly appointed MGM heads.
EON, for the first time in years, has a studio with big money for their prime brand. They won’t have to wait for financing to come through, or distribution deals to get nervous about.
Sure, influence will be something to deal with. But every other studio they had to work with tried to force them into their way of thinking, and EON managed to stay their course anyway.
And now they have one of the best situations to restart from ever.
Casting will be tricky but manageable. Everything else will fall into place.
April 29th -
If it is the end for EON it’s a great way to finish cyclically, referencing all that came before and book ending Doctor No perfectly. Creatively in a rut, perhaps Skyfall is the one recent film that falls into that trap. Spectre and NTTD, collectively, are pieces that seek to challenge what has gone before.
I think that the challenge will be the expectancy of frequency for new films… You have the money why isn’t there one every two years.
To bookend this, it’s also the perfect beginning for a new EON era of movies.
April 30-
Maybe the double of MR and TSWLM represents Sir Rogers best work? ( Aside from his work as a UNICEF ambassador ) I’m limiting this to professional work. Terrence Young never made a better group of films than DN, FRWL, TB.
Peter Hunts best work is done in OHMSS and Lazenby definitely didn’t do any better than he did in OHMSS.
I disagree.
As for the Bond actors: one has to look at other roles they played during their tenure. I don’t see any one who was better when they did not play Bond. Marnie for Connery? The Wild Geese for Moore? No. The Rocketeer for Dalton? Disagree. Thomas Crowne or The Tailor of Panama for Brosnan? No. Knives Out for Craig? Close, but no.
When actors got older they sometimes got more layered roles and sometimes they played successfully against type. But you cannot compare that fairly.
As for directors: Bond films very often forced them to be better due to the enormous logistical enterprise and emotional pressure helming those. Was Mendes a better director with „American Beauty“? Or was that just an overhyped zeitgeist favourite? Was Foster‘s „Monster‘s Ball“ better than QOS? Not for me.
In the end: Bond films are expensively made pulp fiction. But if creatives tackle them they exhibit the same qualities or lack thereof as when they work on films which have more dramatic weight and less budget.
The Bond films bring out the best in everyone.
April 30th
John Glen has had a fairly unremarkable career outside of Bond (an Iron Eagle sequel, a Christopher Lambert action film) but has directed some of my favorite films of the series. Unless you want to dig into his early work in 2nd unit or editing I’d say Bond was his career highlight.
I will have to disagree with the eminent SAF somewhat - I think in front of camera (and I’ll come to the lead actors in a moment), it’s hard to find someone for whom their Bond appearance was their best work. While Bardem was terrific in SF, he’s been the villain better elsewhere. Rigg, Lee (Christopher), Wright, Mikkelson, all great, but not their best.
Behind the camera a different story - Young, Hunt, Glenn, and Campbell, this is their best. Maibaum ditto. Barry - different discussion. His Bond work is up there with other more acclaimed scores (Out Of Africa etc). Deakins too - that he didn’t get an Oscar for SF, a travesty, but like Barry, the body of work so impressive, that for their Bond stuff to be in the conversation at all is noteworthy.
As for leads, it depends how you feel about them, but as SC discovered first, Bond defines you, not the other way around. SC has an Oscar, and some of his post-Bond 70s work is outstanding (The Offence, insert Meteor joke right here); frankly he’s brilliant in The Hill and The Molly Maguires.
Sir Rog, maybe, but carrying The Saint all those years…
TD - his role in The Lion In Winter brought him to EON’s attention; I’d offer that’s his screen apex.
Brozza - in Tailor and Matador, he surprised me. I’ll be generous, the Bond written for him restrained him.
DC - we’ll have to see. Bond is such a defining role, you have get some distance to let the light shine across your resume. DC is great in Layer Cake, Friends in the North, and Perdition.
Front of camera - no, not anyone’s best.
Behind? - For sure. Working on a Bond a career-maker for quite a few.
And while I’m at it…Thank you Jim. April may have been cruel but it’s been a great time! 
Hah! I‘m just a self-important loudmouth… or was that… irony?
Nah.
I agree - but is he better in those? I‘d say the charisma of his Bond is a bigger achievement, mainly because that kind of performance, seemingly without a special effort, is the most difficult acting there is.
Crying, raging, giving important monologues - yes, not everyone can do that convincingly. But everyone who has the talent and/or the technique can and should be able to do it.
Talent and/or technique, however, do not guarantee that actors can do what, for example, Cary Grant, Roger Moore, heck, even Tom Cruise or Sean Connery achieve(d).
Wasn’t SC himself who made the comment about Bond that it’s a role “harder than Hamlet”? And I do see that - playing Bond without lurching into stereotype, is no easy feat. In their “serious” moments they’ve all been convincing. Though for Brozza, I think he does “menacing” better than “emotional.” And Sir Rog, who could play the contrasts really well - in TSWLM he throws away lines with the same ease as his hotel confrontation with Anya or her first mention of Tracy.
The one thing you don’t get to do with Bond is chew scenery so I definitely don’t want to underplay what each guy has brought to it. Hardest work - maybe? Best work…mmmmm, my jury is still out!!!
“Best” is like any award for “best whatever” - we´re all just declaring preferences. 
I’m with you there. I spend most days preferring that I am the best…
It is clear that reaching Day 30, I am a little “de-mob” happy…!!
First: thanks for a great April, Jim.
Best work:
Guy Hamilton–DAF–2:35 is his best aspect ratio, and the film’s sour narrative suits his jaundiced worldview.
Lewis Gilbert–MOONRAKER–a film that feels all of a piece, with gritty/misogynistic machismo sent packing in favor of realistic male heroism wittily deployed in/contrasted with fantastic settings.
Roger Moore–MOONRAKER–James Bond movie as star vehicle, and Sir Roger’s most iconic 120 minutes.
Among their best work:
John Barry and Ken Adam–various
Daniel Craig–three variations on the Bond character
Sean Connery–DAF–peak example of a star portraying a character and himself at the same time–a delicious/complex pleasure when achieved with grace, as occurs here.