Who said anything about a multi decade franchise, A multi decade franchise seems just like the thing they’re looking to walk away from. I couldn’t find the article on it but someone had posted it earlier, apparently EON signed a deal to CO-produce multiple films which were non Bond and TRS was the first of them. This isn’t something EON has done before.
I think there’s crossed wires here. He was insinuating that Eon wouldn’t give up their multi-decade franchise unless they had something better on offer. The only thing better would be a multi-decade franchise they aren’t sharing, which is definitely not on the horizon, given TRS is the only project they’ve got, outside of Bond, that could do sequels.
Also; as Dustin pointed out, Lucas did it to have a well funded retirement. Barbara Broccoli, who is lead producer at this point, is only 59, almost 20 years younger than Lucas, so is very much not in the same boat.
3 Likes
Indeed, thank you 
I certainly would not think that BB would sell Bond in order to start another franchise, with TRS or other stuff.
But I could imagine her really thinking that Bond has become an albatross around her neck, a weight so heavy that it prohibits her from pursuing something else. And I would understand. Mounting a Bond film, with all the expectations, from fans AND financiers, is a nerve-wrecking, energy-sucking endeavour. It is different than in the times of her father. And why not go out on top instead of being chained to this until at some point it will go down?
If indeed EON is contemplating this, I would not mind someone else coming in, with fresh energy and ideas, and Nolan could be the one who gives Bond a new direction (no pun intended).
1 Like
Is Bond a franchise that the audience allows a new direction? Or is it comfort food, one that allows for thinking riot against the box, but never outside of it?
To reply to your whole post;
By that reasoning, Bond is already in the perfect position, MGM’s difficulty means that, even if the studio wanted to go straight to the next film, they can’t and the blame lies with the studio. In the interim she can make her own individual projects, such as her theatre work or Movie stars don’t die in Liverpool, but without having to sacrifice her fathers legacy to her, to do it. It even is potentially aiding it, with its rarity giving it a level of prestige that most would kill for.
For, possibly the only time in history, the independent production company holds all the cards against the studio.
Sounds like something that might call for its own thread. What gives me pause from believing it’s true is statements like “we’re not going to make James Bond a woman” (not a direct quotation, mind you), suggesting her interest in the franchise will continue for the foreseeable future.
1 Like
That is the big question. But maybe that “new” direction (still incorporating elements of the old) is only possible with a new radical reboot, produced by someone else.
To drag this back to Bond 7, as whilst I don’t want this blatantly made up rumour to have the air to catch, it does raise an intriguing possibility…
With Cillian Murphy or Tom Hardy, both of whom have been touted, we could get a Christopher Nolan Bond film and a Stephen Knight Bond film…possibly even both working together.
2 Likes
What a tantalising prospect.
It’d be great for Nolan artistically, I think, to work with Knight - move him out of his comfort zone. It would also inspire Knight with the visceral scope of Nolan opus - he’s have more toys to play with.
However, knight may not have time with both Peaky Blinders and his annual dickens TV movies commitments.
Not to mention Taboo every time Hardy has time to lead for 6 episodes. I, selfishly, do not want to give any of those up.
1 Like
Me neither!
If BB does decide to sell, I don’t think it would be a betrayal of Cubby’s memory. In the early nineties, Bond was considered old hat - “a legacy of the Cold War”, to quote M - and yet they have since piled up billions of pounds. Selling would be a neat way of securing a future for the series while removing herself from it. She may believe she has done enough by bringing it into the twenty-first century and maintaining its iconic status, while making some interesting decisions along the way.
On a side-note, how come you want Nolan now?
You’re right, I changed my mind - maybe because I have rewatched some of his films and acknowledge that he could bring interesting new ideas to Bond, even if the kind of humour I enjoy does not seem to be one of them.
I really don’t see BB giving up Bond voluntarily and I don’t currently see a scenario that forces her to. She’s grown up with Bond and while that could mean she’s longing to finally cut herself loose of it, she doesn’t come across as a bitter. I see her steering it as long as she can and then doing her best to keep it ‘in the family’.
Re Nolan one positive that surely no one can object to is that he has some great talent in his ‘family’ t to call upon for his villains, such as Hardy, Murphy, Oldman and Bale, perhaps even Cain, Nolan lucky charm whom appears in all of his movies.
Fair enough. I’ve not liked Nolan’s stuff myself. IMHO, he’s much too pretentious.
I can’t see Nolan wanting to spend ten years on making three Bond films at the expense of original stuff, so he may just want to make one. He would also want to cast his own lead, and that means choosing an actor who will be okay with just making a single film. Eon might think that will be too confusing for audiences - having three different Bond actors in under ten years (Craig, Nolan’s lead, next actor).
I think we’ve basicially had a Nolan film already in Skyfall. He and Mendes are very similar, I think.
On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
Diamonds Are Forever
Live and Let Die
I think they’d cope. Also, why would the actor leave just because the director changed?
2 Likes
Exactly. Nolan could reboot everything and then step down, just producing the next couple of films or even giving that to another producing entity - should EON really sell. Which is highly doubtful.
With EON still in control Nolan could be the Martin Campbell for the next phase.
1 Like
If there ever was something like a plan in the future, something like three of four films with a common overarching theme, say ‘The Fight against SMERSH’ or ‘The Search for the Cambridge Analytica Five’ then a particularly strong first entry would be needed to hook the audience on the idea.
With Bond there never was more than the loosest idea of an ongoing story. I’d even say that’s one of Bond’s advantages: the reset button allows for a fresh take with each entry. Audiences would probably even easier accept a new face in the role with each new film - provided they were really excellent - than something like a Lord of the Rings mega-Bond story where you can’t skip a film or two.
1 Like
That’s a little different, but not by much. They didn’t intend Lazeby to do one film when they hired him, and Connery was a deliberate one-off, but was an effort at course-correction, which Roger then continued.
I think Nolan would chose an actor who also wanted to film a single entry and nothing more. That could well be an enticing prospect for an actor who doesn’t want to dedicate ten years to this series. Should a Nolan-Bond happen at all, I think it would be followed by another reboot from Eon. Remember, he didn’t want to retroatively fit his Dark Knight trilogy into the DCEU (or whatever it’s called). He wanted his films to stand alone and keep that world his.
Intended or not, the series had 3 different leads in the space of 4 years and the audience in no way found it confusing.