https://x.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1795871588874641603
2 Likes
Young Sherlock… oh, boy.
I imagine that Amazon will want something more with the James Bond name brand over RTAM, soon. Movie or TV show, even if the show isn’t put out on a regular (namely yearly) basis. Some people I know think that this is Amazon getting back at EON for not giving more Bond content to them.
1 Like
2 Likes
There‘s no getting back, they have contracts, and apparently, EON okayed that.
I didn’t bother with the second IT, not sure if it really calls for ‘expansion’. There are some episodes in the novel that likely didn’t make it into the films. But overall the entire point of the book is to overcome the past and, good and bad, let go of it.
1 Like
6 Likes
It’s a little surprising to see those numbers, but on reflection it makes sense. Traditional network TV (chock full of commercials, broadcast on someone else’s timetable, etc) would logically hold scant appeal for a younger, tech-savvy generation used to getting what they want, when they want it.
It also aligns – barely – with my own situation as I’m 59 and and on the lower end of the demo for the network audince, and I can tell you I watch NOTHING on broadcast television, or at least the Big 3. On occasion I will go even more “fuddy duddy” and watch something on “old school” broadcast television (as in signals sent over the air, not a cable, like “MeTV” or “AntennaTV”) and I can tell you every ad on those channels is for adult diapers, Diabetes medications, walk-in bathtubs, no-exam-required life insurance deals, reverse mortgages or Life Alert bracelets. So someone sure thinks broadcast TV is the exclusive domain of geezers.
On the other hand, one reason I don’t watch network TV is because the content in no way appeals, partly because it seems aimed at younger audiences (who I guess these numbers prove are not biting). Drivel like The Masked Singer or America’s Got Talent is surely not meant to appeal to the over-60 crowd, is it? All those crappy game shows, some remakes of old ones but others new “ideas,” all seem to hinge on “celebrity” contestants only Instagram users would recognize, answering questions about week-old pop culture subjects that leave a codger like me scratching my head. Conceivably the remakes of “Magnum PI” and “Hawaii Five-O” are meant to tug at the nostalgic heartstrings of seniors, but it has the reverse effect on me: all I think is, “That is NOT Thomas Magnum” and “That is NOT Steve McGarrett!”
Anyway, it’s hard to interpret these numbers as a good thing. People who are 70 now will be 80 soon enough, then before too awfully long they’ll be out of the picture entirely, and there’s no reason to expect the next wave of seniors will take their place in front of the telly. Today’s old-timers accept things like commercial interruptions and lack of control over scheduling because that was their reality most of their lives. The next generation will grow up with nostalgia for shows they watched on Netflix. They never had to put up with network TV so there’s no reason for them to transition to it based on how many birthdays they’ve had.
It’s also unsustainable from an advertising standpoint to assume every set of seniors will have the same amount of disposable income as the Boomers, or exist in the same numbers.
3 Likes
Absolutely.
Which also means, as in pop music, the time of common ground is largely over, we have become tribal in every way.
So… is Bond still for every quadrant or only a niche for the granddads and dads who think only Craig was a decent 007?
1 Like
Well I suppose there’s no way to collect proper demographics on movie-goers, but the fact that TV viewers are so old proves the old perspectives no longer hold. There was a time when the 18-49 crowd was the target for commercial TV, but that was because (1) that group tended to have the most disposable income and (2) the further you got past 49, the less likely it was you were even alive. Now that’s changed – logically but again a bit surprisingly because I’d given it no thought – because that same audience that WAS 18-49 is now 65 and up. The Boomers. Where in the old days seniors could be largely ignored (CBS even willingly threw them to the curb around 1970 when they cancelled a slew of successful but older-skewing programs), now they are the bread an butter…until they die off.
So yeah, with that in mind, maybe it is conceivable the primary audience for Bond films is both older and capable of generating the box office numbers we’ve seen. I don’t know a lot of youngsters outside of the ones who live in my house, and I can attest that none of them finds Bond interesting, be it “classic” Bond or Craig’s “NuBond.” But that’s just anecdotal, obviously. It would be fascinating to see numbers, assuming there were any way to collect them.
2 Likes
Some might say it’s been made before.
3 Likes
If Costner‘s „Horizon“ surprisingly draws in the older demographic and turns into a hit we could be more hopeful for Bond to draw enough older audiences also.
1 Like
But what does that say in the long term? As a member of the older demographic, it’s all the same to me, but when we’re gone, is that the end of Bond?
2 Likes
Bond, like a diamond, is forever.
5 Likes
James Bond will return.
6 Likes
I suppose Bond will be what he always was, different things at different times. An end to Bond as we know him may not mean an end to Bond, full stop. We already see a semi-scripted reality show, various forms of literary approaches, a wide range of cinematic interpretations. Like Tarzan, like Holmes, Bond is always going to inspire creatives and businesspeople. Surely there will be some form of Bond in any given entertainment industry of the future.
Since we lived through the most part of the early cinematic Bond we naturally take that template - in spite of its inconsistency - for granted. But DR NO is now twice as long ago as the old Flash Gordon serials were when DR NO was shot. It’s safe to assume future iterations of Bond will likewise feel as different from, say, CASINO ROYALE or NO TIME TO DIE as these do from the first Eon project.
Also, Bond may gradually turn more into a kind of niche entertainment. Until public interest in the character grows again.
All of this may sound somewhat depressing for our generation of longtime fans. Yet future fans will likely not terribly mind. We tend to hold dear the things we’ve been socialised with, be that Moore or Craig.
Since 2006’s CASINO ROYALE almost an entire generation of fans grew into the fandom who don’t know the Bond films as anything other than a weird struggle to barely manage to lift a production every four years or so. From a certain point onwards that turns into the accepted ‘industry standard for Bond’, at least in younger fans’ perspectives.
4 Likes
The unsure future, I believe, is due to the lack of consistent planning after SKYFALL.
Since then EON made the mistake of letting their main actor dictate when or if he was available, and which director would be suitable for him.
If they had kept the Cubby model, maybe gone to a three year rhythm to take off the pressure a bit, audiences of all ages would have been accustomed to and looking forward to a new Bond film.
Now, I often hear: that series is over, right? And who cares anyway?
To restart they have to put a firm system in place. Maybe they are working on that.
6 Likes
I agree with this. A new film every five or so years makes things feel even more like a tribute to the past, continuing on in an obligatory manner, rather than being a genuine continuation with a sense of forward momentum.
Absence can create anticipation and make the heart grow fonder, but there is also the risk of developing apathy. There is a real risk of the latter, more than we think. But ultimately I think the iconography and power of Bond is strong enough to overcome it. There’s a drought now, but the real game begins after Bond 26 is released. Dithering around then would be even worse.
6 Likes
New TV projects incoming from Netflix featuring some well known properties: