007 franchise sold to Amazon including creative control

[HanFiredFirst]

Please stay on topic.

Hell yeah, bro.

Bond, played by Henry Cavill, approaches his contact, played by Sydney Sweeney. He suggests they go somewhere more private. She smiles, "Follow me." She glides across the floor, pushes open a door. Bond sees the placard, BIOLOGICAL WOMEN.

Yeah, let’s ALL stay on topic, please.

 

[Felinx]

Yeah, let’s ALL stay on topic, please.

Otherwise it's the Broken Britain countdown to "Hitlerian" and a 999 call to Met Police? Well it was a gendered bathrooms joke...

It IS on topic - how does Bond's love of women play in the "what is a woman?" context (especially on Amazon) I believe was the OP's point.

Who knew Wint and Kidd would be the today's heroes (righting all that historic hate with the violence movies respect) and Bond the one doing "real harm."

 

[SwedishHeat]

Otherwise it's the Broken Britain countdown to "Hitlerian" and a 999 call to Met Police? Well it was a gendered bathrooms joke...

It IS on topic - how does Bond's love of women play in the "what is a woman?" context (especially on Amazon) I believe was the OP's point.

Who knew Wint and Kidd would be the today's heroes (righting all that historic hate with the violence movies respect) and Bond the one doing "real harm."

No, that was not my point at all. Though I am rather gobsmacked that people on both sides of the argument have misinterpreted the joke.

Let's please move on and discuss James Bond.

I am not opposed to having a period piece James Bond movie. Though I think Austin Powers so thoroughly parodied the earlier James Bond movies, it will be very tough for them to go backwards in time. It would have to be the 'dark and gritty' type thing to avoid direct comparison.

The franchise has moved in such a direction that product placement and endorsements have become a major factor, so going back in time, would reduce that impact, and likely reduce the financial incentives of the film. But that was largely because of how the previous rights holders wanted to do it, now that Amazon is in control, it's at their discretion. Shoot, for all intents and purposes they could do a TV show set in the past, and movies in the present.

 

[choombaz]

I don't care what the nuGen wants, I'm ready for a return to healthy flirtation and sexual innuendo.

Yeah as Q Algenon said in Never Say Never Again:

“Good to see you, Mr. Bond. Things've been awfully dull 'round here. Bureaucrats running the whole place. Everything done by the book. Can't make a decision unless the computer gives you the go-ahead. Now you're on this. I hope we're going to have some gratuitous sex and violence!”

 

[Wor-Gar]

for all intents and purposes they could do a TV show set in the past, and movies in the present.

This is actually what I'm thinking.

Serves the tastes of both generations. Although, also somewhat exhausts the brand (as was done with Star Wars).

 

[HanFiredFirst]

No, that was not my point at all. Though I am rather gobsmacked that people on both sides of the argument have misinterpreted the joke.

Let's please move on and discuss James Bond.

I am not opposed to having a period piece James Bond movie. Though I think Austin Powers so thoroughly parodied the earlier James Bond movies, it will be very tough for them to go backwards in time. It would have to be the 'dark and gritty' type thing to avoid direct comparison.

The franchise has moved in such a direction that product placement and endorsements have become a major factor, so going back in time, would reduce that impact, and likely reduce the financial incentives of the film. But that was largely because of how the previous rights holders wanted to do it, now that Amazon is in control, it's at their discretion. Shoot, for all intents and purposes they could do a TV show set in the past, and movies in the present.

Any reboot of Bond that involves going back to the 50s and 60s would naturally have to be dark and gritty, as were the books. Sponsorship wouldn’t be an issue - smart tailoring, quality watches and luxury brands woild be all over a suave and sophisticated 60s era Bond. Ray-Ban, Hamilton watches, Herbert Johnson, all of them rely on nostalgia and timeless style.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

Stop with “the baggage” “risky reputation” nonsense! Bond is one of the most successful book and movie franchises of all time. Amazon were desperate to buy that franchise. The only “risk” is that Amazon mess up their stewardship of the characters and franchise; Bond has a huge fan base and it’s silly to keep saying the character is risky - the last film made over $770 million and was the fourth biggest film of the year. People are clearly just fine with James Bond.

What Brian DePalma did with the first Mission Impossible was seen as controversial in the mid 90s, but it set the blueprint on how James Bond moving forward can succeed. Mission Impossible originally, at it's core, had more of a Cold War era kind of tone in terms of storytelling. But as the Cruise MI series moved along, it became an action/techno thriller franchise with some homage and callbacks to the original source material. What DePalma did was create a "Kelvin Timeline" for MI before JJ Abrams did it for the 2009 Star Trek series.

The current MI series is "Mission Impossible In Name Only"

If more James Bond comes out, it will have to take that same road. He can still have gadgets. He can have the latest cool car. He can still have Q. He can still have antagonists with some over the top creature feature to them. But the tone has to adapt to the modern world and current geopolitical environment.

If you don't have the biggest movie star in the entire world supporting your series, then you are better off with an ensemble. A bigger backstory. A slightly more moderate backstory element pushed Skyfall over the top with many fans. From a practical standpoint, you don't want a situation where one actor can hold the entire franchise hostage. Instead of five guys fighting over who can play Bond, then have 5 guys total. Why not throw Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Richard Madden and a few others in at the same time. Golden Eye was pretty interesting with 006 in the mix, so more agents isn't always a bad thing.

The pathology of James Bond white knuckling his personal trauma in film decades ago just isn't marketable today. It's just not. A new franchise is going to have to toe the line. Honor the legacy from before, but infuse the best elements that modern film/storytelling/prestige level production has to offer. You aren't looking for a replacement, you are looking for a high quality fusion of the best elements across different eras. That's a very thin margin for error.

But yes, this is incredibly risky. It's a storied and established IP, but there's a huge checklist of issues, stories and nations that will be treated as No Go Zones. It's very hard to take a spy/action thriller series anywhere like that. Be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Nick D]

I think everything is overthought, who cares if you isolate a region due to your story that's based in fiction, who cares if it has sexual innuendos and undertones, what film doesn't. Film has never been some pure thing. They just aren't popular today is what it comes down to. A new Bond film comes out tomorrow, its got a week or two then that's it, forgotten like the vast majority of other films. Audiences simply do not think about things past their time watching it in the moment. They're not thinking wow I want to go buy that 4K, movies are the equivalent of what you decide to eat today. Film is simply a way most past the time when they have no other plans for the evening or if word of mouth is so extraordinary it captures their attention briefly enough to see what the talk is about. It's a pastime.

 

[HanFiredFirst]

What Brian DePalma did with the first Mission Impossible was seen as controversial in the mid 90s, but it set the blueprint on how James Bond moving forward can succeed. Mission Impossible originally, at it's core, had more of a Cold War era kind of tone in terms of storytelling. But as the Cruise MI series moved along, it became an action/techno thriller franchise with some homage and callbacks to the original source material. What DePalma did was create a "Kelvin Timeline" for MI before JJ Abrams did it for the 2009 Star Trek series.

The current MI series is "Mission Impossible In Name Only"

If more James Bond comes out, it will have to take that same road. He can still have gadgets. He can have the latest cool car. He can still have Q. He can still have antagonists with some over the top creature feature to them. But the tone has to adapt to the modern world and current geopolitical environment.

If you don't have the biggest movie star in the entire world supporting your series, then you are better off with an ensemble. A bigger backstory. A slightly more moderate backstory element pushed Skyfall over the top with many fans. From a practical standpoint, you don't want a situation where one actor can hold the entire franchise hostage. Instead of five guys fighting over who can play Bond, then have 5 guys total. Why not throw Idris Elba, Tom Hardy, Richard Madden and a few others in at the same time. Golden Eye was pretty interesting with 006 in the mix, so more agents isn't always a bad thing.

The pathology of James Bond white knuckling his personal trauma in film decades ago just isn't marketable today. It's just not. A new franchise is going to have to toe the line. Honor the legacy from before, but infuse the best elements that modern film/storytelling/prestige level production has to offer. You aren't looking for a replacement, you are looking for a high quality fusion of the best elements across different eras. That's a very thin margin for error.

But yes, this is incredibly risky. It's a storied and established IP, but there's a huge checklist of issues, stories and nations that will be treated as No Go Zones. It's very hard to take a spy/action thriller series anywhere like that. Be interesting to see what happens.

I’m not going to argue, as it’s a point of view, albeit completely at odds with my view. All I will say is that Bond has never had the biggest star in the world - Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig, not one of them was the biggest star in the world pre-Bond, it’s the kind of role that MAKES you the biggest star.

I really hope they don’t do what you suggested - it’s too generic, too safe, too far from the source material and I just don’t see the point of yet another Bourne/Reacher/Ryan in a saturated market. Everyone having the latest nanotechnology is just boring, done to death.

 

[MeatHookGekko]

I really hope they don’t do what you suggested - it’s too generic, too safe, too far from the source material and I just don’t see the point of yet another Bourne/Reacher/Ryan in a saturated market. Everyone having the latest nanotechnology is just boring, done to death.

Ian Fleming is an incredible writer. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a book much beloved to me in my youth.

But for Bond to endure, it has to take on some modern sensibilities in terms of the reality of the current film/tv landscape and marketplace. Classic Bond is refined and cultured. An archetype. But fertile narrative ground is how he got to that place to start. Everyone starts somewhere. You have to break the illusion to get to the best cuts of meat near the bone. Matthew Weiner's Mad Men, a huge hit, doesn't work if Don Draper didn't have a backstory that humanized him, which was basically that his life was a lie.

Classic Bond is Don Draper who never had to live as Dick Whitman. That kind of sensibility works during the Cold War era, it's just not going to translate now. I'm sorry to say it for legacy Bond fans, but this is only likely going to work if you guys get 20 percent of what you want/remember. And I say this as someone who genuinely appreciates Fleming as a writer.

 

[HanFiredFirst]

Ian Fleming is an incredible writer. Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is a book much beloved to me in my youth.

But for Bond to endure, it has to take on some modern sensibilities in terms of the reality of the current film/tv landscape and marketplace. Classic Bond is refined and cultured. An archetype. But fertile narrative ground is how he got to that place to start. Everyone starts somewhere. You have to break the illusion to get to the best cuts of meat near the bone. Matthew Weiner's Mad Men, a huge hit, doesn't work if Don Draper didn't have a backstory that humanized him, which was basically that his life was a lie.

Classic Bond is Don Draper who never had to live as Dick Whitman. That kind of sensibility works during the Cold War era, it's just not going to translate now. I'm sorry to say it for legacy Bond fans, but this is only likely going to work if you guys get 20 percent of what you want/remember. And I say this as someone who genuinely appreciates Fleming as a writer.

Once again, Mr MeatHookGekko, we disagree. I don't agree that Bond needs to take on modern sensibilities - he's a character form the 1950s and1960s, and can easily be rebooted into that era. Mad Men is Mad Men - it was a mostly great TV series, but other than being set in the same original era as Bond, has no relevance to Bond's story. Fleming is a very good writer - I've been reading them for 40 years, most recently in their gorgeous Folio Society editions, but I won't go so far as to say incredible, but what he did know was the Cold War and the world of espionage, having himself been in Naval Intelligence.

I have no concerns with a Cold War Bond - it is an incredible era to set stories, and indeed was the era the books' character was set in - and there are enough examples of successful films and TV series set in the same era that have been hugely popular. In the same way that Dickens continues to have a huge following, or with Austen adaptations, Brontës, there is no need to try to bring their characters into the modern world.

Sorry to say it for those who seem to want Bond to be as vanilla and interchangeable as the Ludlum/Clancy/Lee Child characters, but if that's the route Amazon take it, it will no longer be James Bond.