Filmed on BB’s phone and posted on Twitter, as they had no backing or distribution.
That MGM albatross had no money or even potential funding. The man in charge got fired for how badly he handled that period of no finance.
As much as we would all have liked more Bond movies in the last 20 years, wishing it isn’t going to change that there’s a reason Amy Pascal got to be part of the group to choose Daniel Craig and this trailer has a certain globe;
Agreed on the many factors at play. Still, as you know, if money is to be made money is found. Quickly. Studios will move heaven and hell to get a hot property made. And with a clear approach to move forward, MGM would have found a way.
Good point about Pascal (and therefore Sony). It’s not so much the lament how few films were made with Craig - rather that MGM wasn’t able to go the risk of casting a new Bond after SPECTRE. Craig was the money earner and going without him would have needed confidence by the lenders.
Tabloids are constantly brewing 007 rumours; small wonder, they need not finance any major productions on their suggestions. Studios are much more risk averse and without a backer like Pascal on board recasting, though certainly a way forward, was in all likelihood just not feasible for now.
The guy got fired for not being able to do that…indeed MGM’s partnership with Annapurna Pictures, then getting Universal to distribute in the rest of the world happened very quickly after he got the boot.
I wouldn’t necessarily call it frustration. EON and MGM are within their rights to do what they want with the franchise, and if that means turning Bond into an infrequent, somewhat-irrelevant, self-reverential legacy project, then that’s their prerogative.
It’s more of a sadness because of what this is doing to Bond. Yes, he’s gotten huge box office the last two times out, but there is an sense of irrelevance setting in with Bond. It’s somewhat sad to see a great franchise reduced to being run in a way that sees it pop up ever so infrequently that building a fanbase that can continue it well into the future becomes more and more difficult. With nothing to fill the void between film releases (the books have become a joke and there isn’t anything else to speak of), it feels like this thing is slowly sliding towards irrelevancy, and this may become worse once the part is recast and the new guy has his debut and then waits five years to make a second one.
At the moment it’s, oddly, only fans who worry that Bond is irrelevant. Bond is currently the pattern for the whole industry in regards to Covid and is the one named in headlines of mass film delays. It is still the go-to for espionage comparison, and praise for any Brit actors doing well at a role has the words “the next James Bond” attached to them quickly, not to mention tabloids STILL use a Bond related story if it’s a slow news day as it’s more likely to be clicked on.
The lack of films mostly comes down to MGM. This goes all the way back to the Dalton era. MGM’s general incompetence has caused it all but fold.
One might argue that the tabloids are always far behind entertainment trends, and they love to use Bond as a punching bag just the same.
These days of the interweb feelings are always amplified as valid arguments, though. So we can hardly establish whether Bond is becoming irrelevant or not. What we can discuss, however, is the absence of new films. Which would not have been a factor if 2020 had gone as planned.
Imagine that: NTTD released in April 2020 in cinemas, before Christmas 2020 on home video, with the first rumors now about the next era of Bond films.
As things are now, unfortunately, NTTD is not guaranteed to be released in October ´21 and might get delayed once again. Also due to the whole MGM situation, the future of Bond films is once again uncertain.
One might compare this, nevertheless, to other franchises which could not be released in 2020 and maybe not in 2021. Still, Star Wars and Marvel are planning full steam ahead, making sure audiences are aware.
And there is this problem with Bond that it is often regarded as “your dad’s movies”, even with Craig being a success in the role. The Bond films have a much older audience than other series, and more competitors than ever. M:I has definitely become a factor, just like the FF films.
Of course, MGM will be aware that their big and only meal ticket will have to be made attractive to the next generations as soon as possible.
In the end, all this might just be a footnote in Bond history, of which only aficionados will be aware. Does any of the younger viewers (or even the older viewers) really care how much time has passed between LTK and GE? Or SP and NTTD? Heck, after TMWTGG it probably would have made us nervous that two years later there wasn’t a new film in theatres…
I’m not sure I follow how increased audience correlates with diminished relevance.
They lost a founding producer, we’d have had a melt down.
I’m curious as to how that series will do when they, inevitably, reach the day that Cruise can’t continue, heck even McQuarrie not continuing, after being so heavily involved in 4 films and an uncredited rewrite on the film before, will take them back to drawing board.
The brand is too important, they will continue with someone else. A LALD moment…
Reminds me of that thread we used to have in the old forum “Posts from the interweb circa 1965” or so…
Had they kept the foot on the accelerator as they did during the Moore years we’d have seen BOND 31 in 2019 - though it’s anybody’s guess how the series might have fared. Personally, I think at least some of the breaks helped in redefining and refocussing the franchise.
Has the series become irrelevant? Difficult to say since relevancy/irrelevance are not so much defined categories as subjective verdicts. Depending whether I lose interest - or maybe never was interested in the first place. Up to a point it’s also just natural that we older fans aren’t necessarily as excited in the 2020s as we used to be in the 70s or 80s.
Has it run out of steam a bit? If contenders from all across the spectrum are any indication that could perhaps be. Spoofs came and went, sometimes with Bond spoofing them in turn. Now the caricatures are even spinning off into serious - while Bond was missing some of the lightness of earlier incarnations in recent films.
But as a brand Bond is still the industry benchmark. I would put good money on 007 even if there was a 15 year gap - they could always jumpstart a new series with a good PR campaign and turn in a GOLDENEYE or CASINO ROYALE. Because Bond is a property with a back catalogue of film history classics in league with JUNGLE BOOK, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.
As a brand Bond is the franchise to sell everything from beer to luxury trash - if the real SIS could put 007 and the gun logo symbol on stationary and mugs they’d have a shop in front of their Vauxhall-Lego quarters and it would pay for half their humint networks.
That would be a great idea 
I’ve peddled this idea repeatedly but they never bite…
A question people have been asking since 1969.
Bond’s ability to change and adapt has kept the series relevant. If they can keep the series going past the end of the Cold War then they can always make the character relevant.
What I’d like for Mission: Impossible to return TV. I even have a fantasy scenario where Cruise stays on and becomes the voice of the mission briefing, for the pilot if nothing else. A man can dream…
You know, it’s crazy how fast time flies. The original delay, on paper, seemed like it would be an eternity. The April release date was just around the corner. The days become weeks, and the weeks quickly become months. Even though the October release date will probably move (but I really hope it doesn’t), kicking the can another six months down the road doesn’t phase me anymore.