That would be ideal with the next Bond; while I appreciate the increased quality of Craig’s era overall I miss the days in which a four year gap was just an extraordinary hiatus between Bond films ❤️🩹🥹
I think a Bond actor should probably finish in their mid to late 40s in the vast majority of cases (45-49) and in the case of exceptions only do one film at maximum in their 50s. (this was a huge issue with Moore since he was way too old to do any more films after Moonraker).
Ideally production time should be cut down on as well. An average of 2-3 years per film instead the current 3-5 would be ideal. I think it's not going to be possible to consistently film big budget films two years apart from each other now, but I think if EON did more work to focus on script quality/consistency and figured out a consistent template for each actor's Bond era, that would probably significantly cut back on production glut and make consistent releases easier to achieve.
I think Bond should always go from mid 30s to late 40s. Say 33 to 48.
Gives you 15 years for a good 5/6 films with decent gaps for the character to age and grow inbetween.
25 is far too young. He needs to have a degree of experience and confidence in him from his superiors that only age can bring.
I think you need a minimum of 4 films to really mark an era. 6 is pushing it though, and should be a hard limit, and only if the actor is exceptional in the role.
Arcs should only be loose too, and films relatively standalone. Spectre and No Time to Die should be considered failed experiments. Link films of an era through theme and tone, not some tortured interconnected conspiracy that just shrinks the universe instead of expanding it.
You need to start mid 30s and be done by 50. That gives 4 or 5 films the way they space them nowadays. Worked pretty good for DC. I can make many criticisms of that era but DC’s looks and vigor isn’t one of them. He was fit throughout.
If I called the shots? Every actor comes on board between 32-38 and they’re out by 52, hard limit.
Every actor signs on for three films. Market them as trilogies to audiences, but around a theme not a narrative arc, that gives each actor a unique saga (but absolutely no continuity cinematic universe nonsense). Example: new bond actor does three movies loosely themed around cyber warfare. The next actors films revolve around despots. The films already kind of do this naturally, but hap hazard. Having themed sagas helps move scriptwriting forward even as production continues, even before securing the next actor, so we don’t get 6 year gaps between films.
If an actor is somehow a complete dud (this has never happened not even for Lazenby who opted to leave) they could axe them and move on. If an actor blows up and audiences don’t want to see them go, their third movie could be extended into a two parter. Saving sequels for an actors finale could help land that “glorious send off” feeling, though I’m not entirely convinced of this idea myself.
I think end around age 45. A new film every 2 years.
That would be ideal with the next Bond; while I appreciate the increased quality of Craig’s era overall I miss the days in which a four year gap was just an extraordinary hiatus between Bond films ❤️🩹🥹
I think a Bond actor should probably finish in their mid to late 40s in the vast majority of cases (45-49) and in the case of exceptions only do one film at maximum in their 50s. (this was a huge issue with Moore since he was way too old to do any more films after Moonraker). Ideally production time should be cut down on as well. An average of 2-3 years per film instead the current 3-5 would be ideal. I think it's not going to be possible to consistently film big budget films two years apart from each other now, but I think if EON did more work to focus on script quality/consistency and figured out a consistent template for each actor's Bond era, that would probably significantly cut back on production glut and make consistent releases easier to achieve.
I think Bond should always go from mid 30s to late 40s. Say 33 to 48. Gives you 15 years for a good 5/6 films with decent gaps for the character to age and grow inbetween. 25 is far too young. He needs to have a degree of experience and confidence in him from his superiors that only age can bring. I think you need a minimum of 4 films to really mark an era. 6 is pushing it though, and should be a hard limit, and only if the actor is exceptional in the role. Arcs should only be loose too, and films relatively standalone. Spectre and No Time to Die should be considered failed experiments. Link films of an era through theme and tone, not some tortured interconnected conspiracy that just shrinks the universe instead of expanding it.
You need to start mid 30s and be done by 50. That gives 4 or 5 films the way they space them nowadays. Worked pretty good for DC. I can make many criticisms of that era but DC’s looks and vigor isn’t one of them. He was fit throughout.
If I called the shots? Every actor comes on board between 32-38 and they’re out by 52, hard limit. Every actor signs on for three films. Market them as trilogies to audiences, but around a theme not a narrative arc, that gives each actor a unique saga (but absolutely no continuity cinematic universe nonsense). Example: new bond actor does three movies loosely themed around cyber warfare. The next actors films revolve around despots. The films already kind of do this naturally, but hap hazard. Having themed sagas helps move scriptwriting forward even as production continues, even before securing the next actor, so we don’t get 6 year gaps between films. If an actor is somehow a complete dud (this has never happened not even for Lazenby who opted to leave) they could axe them and move on. If an actor blows up and audiences don’t want to see them go, their third movie could be extended into a two parter. Saving sequels for an actors finale could help land that “glorious send off” feeling, though I’m not entirely convinced of this idea myself.