FalloutAside from Fallout and Invincible I disagree.
Please don't say Rings of Power.
I also would say not awful. Sometimes a change in direction can be good. It will mostly depend on who will play Bond, who is writing and who is directing - in that order.Not necessary awful. Amazon makes a lot of good stuff.
Hard disagree but to each their own.Even the Boys dropped off the past season.
This is odd... they had hit movies, liked by both audiences and critics, and re-energised the franchise only to give it to Amazon?
If it's radically different and alienates the hardcore Bond fan base it will be doomed and short lived.On the other hand, it may save Mr. Bond, since they are not beholden to No Time To Die's on-screen death.
While Bond has always had only a a loose ongoing timeline narrative, with re-boots, it was somewhat loosely implied it was the same "character", just played by different actors.
Yet forgoing a re-boot, by their own narrative and on-screen death, there was now "fan" expectations it would now not just be a new actor playing Bond, but a new character being their Bond.
If that distinction makes sense.
To them meaning outrageous takes like; it was always been a code name, so anyone (read as; poc, female, lbg, non-binary, etc) can now be the new Bond. etc.
If that is where they were heading, MGMazon can just callously re-boot and ignore those expectations, cast without being beholden to that baggage of the characters death.
Not sure what their plan was? They may have been setting up for the daughter to be the new Bond?I always thought the plan was to "reboot" after NTTD and move on from the Craig series of movies.
I doubt any eyes have been opened, if anything the trend has been to double down, and see any so called "hardcore" fans as the problem.If it's radically different and alienates the hardcore Bond fan base it will be doomed and short lived.
Hopefully their eyes are opened to what happens when you mishandle a beloved franchise... Star wars, Dr who etc.
I’m a hardcore Bond fan and one thing that rings true is the following: James Bond is in no way, shape, or form a code name. It’s his literal name. 007 is, however, a mere call sign. Even as a kid, I always saw Bond as basically the first meta-multiverse; it’s the same character but in different timelines, including the literary version. It also makes zero sense because it’s wonky and impossible and self-referential, breaking the 4th wall (looking at you OHMSS). I refused to watch NTTD because of the decision to kill off the character because that’s a cheap, tired, and uninspired move.On the other hand, it may save Mr. Bond, since they are not beholden to No Time To Die's on-screen death.
While Bond has always had only loose ongoing timeline narrative, with re-boots, it was somewhat loosely implied it was the same "character", just played by different actors.
Yet forgoing a re-boot, by their own narrative and on-screen death, there was now "fan" expectations it would now not just be a new actor playing Bond, but a new character being their Bond.
If that distinction makes sense.
To them meaning outrageous takes like; it was always been a code name, so anyone (read as hypthetical ; female, poc, lbg, non-binary, etc) can now be the new Bond. etc.
If that is where they were heading, MGMazon can just callously re-boot and ignore those expectations, cast without being beholden to that baggage of the characters death.
Anyway hopefully what HT has secured, is the license for the all the past incarnations.
I'm actually shocked especially after reading Barbara's statement. She had to continue her family's legacy. Being an owner brings wealth yes but the actual quality will drop. Her father would be so disappointed in her.