It hasn’t, Bond has always been a film for adults that children can enjoy, but the marketing campaign aimed older more blatantly, once the MGM’s financial woes issue created large gaps, so EON decided to lean into its more prestige elements, which, given that’s ACTUALLY from the books rather than an Eon creation, is fair enough.
However; the first time that change was noted was actually The Living Daylights, when an old woman complained to Timothy Dalton about how it wasn’t suitable for her grandkids any more. Dalton was horrified that the woman thought that a womanising, government sanctioned murderer with a drink problem used to be child friendly.
With nothing else to support it but my gut feeling I would say that it has, at least partially. But on sober reflection I’d also say that’s pretty hard to judge from an individual point of view.
As kids we went to the theatre at times when all the other kids also were going, afternoons, weekends, holidays. When of course theatres were packed with kids our age.
As adults we mostly go to the theatre when work schedule and family allows for it, frequently evenings with a much more senior audience. So it’s perfectly possible to repeatedly watch a Bond film for us and see hardly any younger faces in the audience.
The only ones who really could answer how much average audience age has changed, if at all, would be the theatres themselves. I’m sure the studios also keep an eye on such figures, but probably more via Internet research. They wouldn’t have much of a database reaching further than the 90s probably.
If you look at the marketing materials for A View to a Kill, it was clearly targeting adolescents with its books, toys, and song. Then four years later Licence to Kill came out and was the first to have a harder rating (PG-13 in US, what was the UK equivalent?)
Then there was no movie for six years and so the “children” that remembered seeing Bond in the theater were now adults. And it’s been that way ever since.
He doesn’t talk recasting, his only larger franchise comments are to do with Discovery and Picard, which, given he’s on for Star Trek 4, wouldn’t be connecting to his anyway.
I’m assuming it’s the Star Trek post you were asking about, though I’m confused generally.
Edit: oh right, deadline make that jump. Hawley in his quotes is clearly talking about the two CBS All Access series’ that Kurtzman is in charge of.
Really couldn’t be more excited about this trek movie! He’s the absolute perfect writer/director for it (he’s directing too, right?)
Having grown up on the TOS I’ve often lamented to cinematic move away from the science/philosophy mysterys towards the action movie format.
Although I love many of the movies, particularly the Khan to Voyage Home trilogy and JJs first reboot they were never ‘really’ trek in terms of the mission statement.
What Noah says is great news for fans of the original tv trek. His mastery of visual storytelling in Legion is going to make his trek bonkers in the best way.
I liked “Star Trek Beyond” - but the big villain reveal was not as effective for me as I wished it to be.
Of course, none of the Kelvin timeline-movies were really Roddenberry-ish in their soul, they really tried to cater to the marketplace - and they had to. Without high stakes action-sequences and constant plot pressure audiences today would have rejected it, the way they reject the classic films now. Even in the 80´s the first film was ridiculed as slow and not having enough propulsive movement when it actually adhered to basic Star Trek ideas.
If Noah Hawley really wants to go back to the original Star Trek ideas, of course, I want to see that movie. And in that regard, despite the perfect casting of the Kelvin timeline-crew, I would be okay with a new cast. It would be a complete reboot.
One thing about “Star Trek Beyond”: Kind of like “Skyfall” the film jumps a few years ahead, and after the two previous films the crew is almost at the end of their mission. And I wondered: why? I want to see more of their adventures! What happened in between? But maybe this is what makes it also okay to leave this crew behind - the Kelvin timeline narrative is finished. Now go back and really reboot “Star Trek” - without the narrative explanation of the Abrams´ films. Just plainly tell the story of this crew (please, no origin story about how they met - they just are already on their mission, like the tv show did it) and dive into their adventures.
Or: tell another “Star Trek” mission with a completely different crew.
No Kirk, Spock, McCoy re-imagining - just move forward, tell the story of what happened after NEMESIS.
Then again, this might already be part of the whole arc for PICARD.
Into Darkness missed its chance to go Trek by not having a trial at the end where Kahn is faced with consequences for his actions. Instead, they put him back to sleep and we got a Spock Hard action movie ending.
As for the villain reveal in Star Trek Beyond, a lot of the Kelvin timeline pays homage to Star Trek Enterprise, the least popular of its TV series. So there wasn’t a lot of familiarity with what a MAKO was among the casual movie going audience. And those that were familiar with Idris Ilba could barely recognize him under all the makeup. Besides, we were ready for a Klingon villain in the Kelvin timeline (see Star Trek reboot’s deleted scenes.)
A big format point in trek is the relationship between the 3 leads. Most of the original cast movies make this paramount (no pun intended). This element is hugely successful in those movies.
Wrath of Khan is an exception. It’s the one original cast movie that isn’t about the team. It’s all about Kirk - the legend in his own lifetime. Kirk’s up against his moriarty, his Blofeld. It’s a battle of wits and acknowledges that it’s also a battle of egos. The race is which one can get over themselves first and use the others ego against them. It’s simple and wonderful for that.
Apparently tone deaf to what makes WOK work they tried to rework Into Darkness to more involve the team, which nullifies the originals key adversarial quality and theme of good guys and bad guys being equally vulnerable to their egos. Despite a few good moments (Thanks to good performances) it falls flat on its backside.
That’s not even to mention the embarrassing whitewashing of Khan. I’m a huge Benedict Cumberbatch fan and he’s a terrific actor. But he should not have been playing Khan. My pick would have been either Javier Bardem or Benicio Del Toro.