007 franchise sold to Amazon including creative control

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Get ready for more Bond than you ever wanted, or will ever want.
1740104847411.jpeg
 
I'm missing something? 30 of what? Bond movies? You mean, you're saying we have enough James Bond movies and should be done with it entirely?
But is 25 not a lot? How many do you think is too many?

It’s quite a lot of handsome spy bangs hot woman and stops bad guys.
I don't know, 25 movies inside 60 years is a lot... but MCU did 30 inside a decade.
The MCU is more bad than good though imo.
 
https://deadline.com/2025/02/james-bond-amazon-mgm-studios-deal-1236296104/

Amazon MGM Studios Shelled Out An Extra $1 Billion-Plus To Take Control Of James Bond: What’s Next For The Franchise​

In the past, filmmakers including Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan have expressed an interest in putting their stamp on Bond; both however, required complete creative control, which wasn’t possible under the reign of Broccoli and Wilson. Now, with the producers on the side, Amazon can move forward to attract a top-tier director.

Also available to come to life in the new deal finally are a slew of Bond villains and women in their own series or features. The last time an attempt was made to spin off the Bond franchise was in 2003 with a stand-alone movie about the spy’s girlfriend Jinx, played by Halle Berry in Die Another Die. Bond scribes Neal Purvis and Rob Wadewere attached to pen that, with Stephen Frears circling, but Broccoli and Wilson put the kibosh to the idea due to creative differences.
 
My only hope for this is that they read the books. Over and over. Go back to the source material, and set Bond back where he belongs - 1953 to the mid 1960s. James Bond was shaped by WWII and is active during the Cold War, an exciting and eminently cinematic era, so set them in his era!

Making Bond relevant, or fit for modern audiences, is not doing the character - or Ian Fleming's legacy - any justice. I don't want a female head of the service, I don't want Moneypenny being more than a functionary, I don't want Q being camp and amusing - Bond was operating in a dangerous world and was a dangerous man. I pray to all the gods that whoever runs with this abandons the woeful attempts to modernise Bond that the Broccoli/Wilson films this century have foisted upon lovers of the books, character and early films. Fleming worked in Naval Intelligence - this was a man who knew the murky world of espionage and the dangers it posed, and he created Bond to reflect that.

Setting it in its period also gets rid of the reliance on tech and gadgets - nothing is more boring than seeing more and more outrageous electronic warfare that reduces the plot to a silly game of one-upmanship.

For those who say Bond is anachronistic, yes, he is! That's the whole point. Set him in his own time, and stop trying to mould him into something he was never meant to be.
 
Back
Top