I think there will be more money for the JB franchise to play with. Perhaps this will lead to more frequent movies. Maybe bigger movies, possibly stuff like a Bond animated series, a young Bond TV-series, Lego Bond or even a Bond World somewhere a little bit like what they did with Asterix and Harry Potter. This is good if they don’t go too far.
I like physical media, especially DVDs and cinema. I don't know what will happen in the more distant future, but I don't think anything dramatic will happen in the near future. Bond movies will keep premiering and showing in cinemas, but they will probably be on streaming services earlier. They won't stop making DVDs in a long time. Some still make LPs, right? (or are DVDs the audio casettes of movies? 😧)
I don't think Bond will become more "woke"? Not as long as EON is in charge. What happens if they lose control is anyone's guess, but I hope not.
I’ve read a lot of complaints on this forum about SP being subpar, the eternity it takes for Eon to make a film, the multiple unforced errors (anyone remember Danny Boyle?), the decision to give the Scooby Gang screen time over 007, the sense that Barbara’s heart is in other projects, and haven’t there been clues that Bond might die in NTTD?
All of this was Eon.
We all have our opinions about the state of the franchise. Personally I see the Craig era as a high water mark. But I also see positives in change.
I think there will be more money for the JB franchise to play with. Perhaps this will lead to more frequent movies. Maybe bigger movies, possibly stuff like a Bond animated series, a young Bond TV-series, Lego Bond or even a Bond World somewhere a little bit like what they did with Asterix and Harry Potter. This is good if they don’t go too far.
if theyre going to build a Bond theme park, we should revive our Bond theme park thread to give them some ideas!
A proper Bond world, museum, theme park, experience, would be fantastic, but needs the kids onboard, and I don't think the majority of kids are particularly interested in the recent films or have any knowledge/interest in the classic films. The franchise has some work to do in this regard - LEGO, Video Games, Animation, is required. How willing are Amazon/Eon/Danjaq in working together to go down this route..? Do they want to be Marvel or Star Wars?
Yes Bond has a bit of problem there in that one of the core tenets of the brand is sophistication and upmarket style: that's what James Bond is, right? But as soon as you do a movie-themed anything it becomes tacky by association: which is fine if you're building the inside of a spaceship or something as the fun factor overtakes the tackiness; but if your theme is sophistication and by the very act of using the theme you're making it tacky, you're sort of making it not sophisticated and failing to make it feel like Bond! 😁
Which is kind of why putting the 007 logo on expensive sunglasses or champagne doesn't really work.
So I think often the only way to embrace the 007 brand is to use the cheesiness of it: great big retro 007 logos or Octopussy wacky poster art!
Mind you, the Casino Royale Secret Cinema did work, so who knows really!
Well, there's a new one on the way, whether the Amazon deal will have any impact on that I have no idea.
The weird thing about GoldenEye 64 was that I was kind of of the impression that although the game was massive the Bond IP was kind of neither here nor there for a lot of people- they'd have loved it if it wasn't Bond and also I'm not sure it necessarily drove lots of people to the films etc. It was a great game but in a lot of places it perhaps didn't feel like James Bond..?
assuming the new boss is heavyhanded, or Babs'n'Mike lose interest, what is Amazon's record in content creation? or in management of preexisting franchises they have bought out?
they're basically an online big box store who has branched into other activities, have they created other entertainment content we can compare to? do they have any sense of how to make movies or do they just look at the bottom line?
people mention the Marvel and DC franchises above. Both are historic comic book companies now answerable to corporate overlords.
Marvel is a comic book company owned by the corporate heirs to Walt Disney, Disney knows content, specifically cartoons and characters, thus they have been very good at turning Marvel's comics into films and other spinoffs while respecting the source material.
DC is a comic book company who was bought out by Warner Brothers in the 70s, once comparable to the MarvelDisney relationship (and that was when they made things like the original superman film). But in recent years Warner in turn was bought out by AT&T, a telecommunications company that just sees their entertainment division as another department amongst many whose role is to make them more money. and it shows, not just in the relative quality of DC comics films but in the actual comic books they still publish as well: comic book fans are very upset about what has happened to a once great comics company since that buy-out.
So would Amazon be more similar to Disney or AT&T?
I would search out coverage of Amazon's forthcoming Lord of the Rings series. They're spending half a billion on it and have cast mostly unknowns. Beyond that, I don't know what the industry insiders thinks about their development of that property — whether it seems promising or not.
The press suggests Eon will still be making the creative decisions so it's not as if a master show runner is coming in — a la Kevin Feige — to take over the franchise.
I would search out coverage of Amazon's forthcoming Lord of the Rings series. They're spending half a billion on it and have cast mostly unknowns. Beyond that, I don't know what the industry insiders thinks about their development of that property — whether it seems promising or not.
yipes, I didn't know this was coming. The article I found suggests its not a remake of Lord of the Rings per se (which hardly seems necessary) , but fleshing out the history of the Second Age. Tolkien himself didn't really write much about that era of MiddelEarth , just one story in Unfinished Tales about the Fall of Numenor (LotR and the Hobbit were the end of the Third Age, and the Silmarillion was various events in the First Age) so they're really going to have invent a lot of material themselves , especially as its a multi-season series! I don't know if I like the idea of all-new adventures set within the Tolkien-verse...
the same article also says amazon produced Fleabag which seems relevant, didnt the creator of that show do some rewrites for Bond25?.
To flesh out "The Hobbit", Peter Jackson & co used material from the appendices to "The Lord Of the Rings" and I'm sure there's plenty more which could be used for the TV series.
From what I've read (I'm a big Tolkien fan) the new series is based in the first age leading up to the making of the rings of power and rise of Mordor and the battle which saw the one ring cut from Saurons hand. But I've also heard Aragorn will be in the story ?? Would be good to see his character with his rangers perhaps ? There is a wealth of material that could be used.
As far as Bond is concerned, Fleming simply didn't create such a vast amount of material supporting Bond, sure there are snippets in various books but for Amazon to create a series or spin offs then these would have to be new story arcs and then we get the whole cannon arguments that plague the DC and Marvel extended universe .
I think any spin-offs should probably be limited to a high-quality animated mini-series and maybe a young Bond TV-series. Combined with Lego-Bond should bring in the younger audiences. Spin-offs starring Felix Leiter, Moneypenny, Q etc. Will probably be too much.
To be fair, I really enjoyed the Fleming mini series with Dominic Cooper, I found it very bondesque and enjoyable. Not sure what I'd think about a James Bond series in the same vein 🤷
80% of whats in the EON films is not from Fleming anyway, some of it contradicts Fleming. And of course they chose to begin a new timeline with Casino Royale, which is 100% incompatible with their old films (except for that Aston in the garage which slipped through from the old timeline). So there's canon issues anyway, I don't think spinoff series should complicate that. If they're doing it Marvel-style, the continuity of the spin-offs and the main series could be closer than what EON has managed on its own, even with more product.
I'd love to see a list of Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity errors vs EON Bond universe continuity errors, I would bet EON has made more already.
yes yes I know, its just a matter of confusion occasonally debated for fun. CraigBond jokes about the ejector seat which makes no sense unless he's watched Goldfinger. And the audiences who cheered (and they did) were not cheering because they recognised the car from Craig's first film, they were cheering because something recognisable from the classic films finally appeared..
But that's an irrelevant digression, a joke of mine. The point is EON already replaced their entire established canon with a new timeline, a much bigger contradiction within their films than anything I can think of in the Marvel films. And film to film (classic example being OHMSS) continuity was never consistent. The threat of spinoffs should not inherently mean continuity problems, not any worse than the ones we've taken for granted in the Bond films for nearly 60 years now.
Continuity isn't really the reason I'm sceptical when it comes to spin-offs. It's the danger ofcdeluting the brand and losing focus. Marvel can do it because they have a long history of heroes white standalone adventures in their own stories who sometimes work together. With Fleming Bond has always been the lead and others are there to support his stories.
While I am not a fan of Amazon's tentacles stretching across markets it was never previously associated with, if they did want to do something ground breaking with Bond and utilise all the snazzy CGI stuff they can call on, they could always revisit every single Bond story in chronological order, including the missions only alluded to in the novels; maybe do them as an hourly show - you know, how Fleming imagined his OO7 series - perhaps go retro and film it all in black and white. Bond isn't very 'current' at the moment, so harking back to the era he was written for might make more sense. Thing is, I also sense Amazon would baulk at offensive language and behaviour towards minorities, foreigners and women, so everything would be sanitised. Ah, just stop dreaming and panicking, it'll all come out in the wash...
Side issue- would Bond have remained more "current" if Eon had stuck to a regular release schedule, say one every two years (pandemics excepted) giving us 10 in the last 20 years rather than 5 with long gaps between?
Definitely so, Barbel. Continuing series need regular new episodes, whether in visual or written format.
I agree with chrisno1, in that a continuing series for Bond would be a good way to go as Amazon are doing with the Jack Reacher books, one book dramatised every year. I would prefer it to be updated as CR06 was though, that was the perfect example of updating a novel to present times.
But it has been stated that the films will continue as normal though. I can’t imagine Amazon resting on their laurels though, and I think they will heap enormous pressure on the producers to make a film every 2 years, without their financing the Bond series will be dead in the water, as there is no way the producers would finance the future projects on their own.
I would like to see spin-off series of Leiter and early days of M - the Starzplay series of the early days of Alfred Pennyworth is superb.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
I'm happy with every three years- I feel like two years is perhaps a bit too much pressure for films on this scale. The only film series that I can think of which attempted that recently was Star Wars and everyone moaned about those.
Not even the Avengers movies did it (the last two were shot back-to-back I think)
I wouldn't be hugely holding out for a TV series of adaptations- we've had the books adapted largely already save for a couple of exceptions. A version of Goldfinger without the clever bomb plot, laser beam, iconic lines, Connery, DB5, Adam's sets or Barry's music would just seem bland and would get the thumbs down from most fans, let's face it.
Would people want the gunbarrel/Bond theme in these TV shows?
I think that sounds possible to me. The guys who ran the studio around the time GoldenEye was starting up say that they told Eon they didn't want Dalton, so it seems that sort of thing can happen.
a film every two years sounds perfect to me, they should be thinking ahead while still working on the new one. Its actually strange these Craig ones being made so far apart as they're the first ones with ongoing plot threads, they'd have benefited from a tighter schedule.
I like the idea of a period set teevee series to escape the problem of ever evolving cultural norms. The stories could be unapologetically what Fleming wrote if conspicuously set in a specific time and place. But then that in itself would be a risk, such a retro-version of Bond might play up the sexist/racist/imperialist aspects all out of proportion, just to meet 21st century expectations of how bad things used to be.
I think they’ll need to cast someone that both EON and Amazon agree on. And they’ll probably pick an unknown actor and require him to appear in a film every two years for a three-film deal. That way the lead won’t have any leverage to take 5 years off between films. I don’t envision any more waiting around for directors, either. Amazon didn’t pay $8 billion for 2 films per decade.
Comments
I think there will be more money for the JB franchise to play with. Perhaps this will lead to more frequent movies. Maybe bigger movies, possibly stuff like a Bond animated series, a young Bond TV-series, Lego Bond or even a Bond World somewhere a little bit like what they did with Asterix and Harry Potter. This is good if they don’t go too far.
I like physical media, especially DVDs and cinema. I don't know what will happen in the more distant future, but I don't think anything dramatic will happen in the near future. Bond movies will keep premiering and showing in cinemas, but they will probably be on streaming services earlier. They won't stop making DVDs in a long time. Some still make LPs, right? (or are DVDs the audio casettes of movies? 😧)
I don't think Bond will become more "woke"? Not as long as EON is in charge. What happens if they lose control is anyone's guess, but I hope not.
I’ve read a lot of complaints on this forum about SP being subpar, the eternity it takes for Eon to make a film, the multiple unforced errors (anyone remember Danny Boyle?), the decision to give the Scooby Gang screen time over 007, the sense that Barbara’s heart is in other projects, and haven’t there been clues that Bond might die in NTTD?
All of this was Eon.
We all have our opinions about the state of the franchise. Personally I see the Craig era as a high water mark. But I also see positives in change.
Busted 😊😊
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Number24 said:
I think there will be more money for the JB franchise to play with. Perhaps this will lead to more frequent movies. Maybe bigger movies, possibly stuff like a Bond animated series, a young Bond TV-series, Lego Bond or even a Bond World somewhere a little bit like what they did with Asterix and Harry Potter. This is good if they don’t go too far.
if theyre going to build a Bond theme park, we should revive our Bond theme park thread to give them some ideas!
A proper Bond world, museum, theme park, experience, would be fantastic, but needs the kids onboard, and I don't think the majority of kids are particularly interested in the recent films or have any knowledge/interest in the classic films. The franchise has some work to do in this regard - LEGO, Video Games, Animation, is required. How willing are Amazon/Eon/Danjaq in working together to go down this route..? Do they want to be Marvel or Star Wars?
Yes Bond has a bit of problem there in that one of the core tenets of the brand is sophistication and upmarket style: that's what James Bond is, right? But as soon as you do a movie-themed anything it becomes tacky by association: which is fine if you're building the inside of a spaceship or something as the fun factor overtakes the tackiness; but if your theme is sophistication and by the very act of using the theme you're making it tacky, you're sort of making it not sophisticated and failing to make it feel like Bond! 😁
Which is kind of why putting the 007 logo on expensive sunglasses or champagne doesn't really work.
So I think often the only way to embrace the 007 brand is to use the cheesiness of it: great big retro 007 logos or Octopussy wacky poster art!
Mind you, the Casino Royale Secret Cinema did work, so who knows really!
Well, there's a new one on the way, whether the Amazon deal will have any impact on that I have no idea.
The weird thing about GoldenEye 64 was that I was kind of of the impression that although the game was massive the Bond IP was kind of neither here nor there for a lot of people- they'd have loved it if it wasn't Bond and also I'm not sure it necessarily drove lots of people to the films etc. It was a great game but in a lot of places it perhaps didn't feel like James Bond..?
assuming the new boss is heavyhanded, or Babs'n'Mike lose interest, what is Amazon's record in content creation? or in management of preexisting franchises they have bought out?
they're basically an online big box store who has branched into other activities, have they created other entertainment content we can compare to? do they have any sense of how to make movies or do they just look at the bottom line?
people mention the Marvel and DC franchises above. Both are historic comic book companies now answerable to corporate overlords.
Marvel is a comic book company owned by the corporate heirs to Walt Disney, Disney knows content, specifically cartoons and characters, thus they have been very good at turning Marvel's comics into films and other spinoffs while respecting the source material.
DC is a comic book company who was bought out by Warner Brothers in the 70s, once comparable to the MarvelDisney relationship (and that was when they made things like the original superman film). But in recent years Warner in turn was bought out by AT&T, a telecommunications company that just sees their entertainment division as another department amongst many whose role is to make them more money. and it shows, not just in the relative quality of DC comics films but in the actual comic books they still publish as well: comic book fans are very upset about what has happened to a once great comics company since that buy-out.
So would Amazon be more similar to Disney or AT&T?
All's I want to say is that I've been enjoying all the recent memes of Jeff Bezos as Blofeld. . .
I would search out coverage of Amazon's forthcoming Lord of the Rings series. They're spending half a billion on it and have cast mostly unknowns. Beyond that, I don't know what the industry insiders thinks about their development of that property — whether it seems promising or not.
The press suggests Eon will still be making the creative decisions so it's not as if a master show runner is coming in — a la Kevin Feige — to take over the franchise.
A bit more on the subject https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/amazon-acquisition-mgm-future-james-bond-142556730.html
Cheverian said:
I would search out coverage of Amazon's forthcoming Lord of the Rings series. They're spending half a billion on it and have cast mostly unknowns. Beyond that, I don't know what the industry insiders thinks about their development of that property — whether it seems promising or not.
yipes, I didn't know this was coming. The article I found suggests its not a remake of Lord of the Rings per se (which hardly seems necessary) , but fleshing out the history of the Second Age. Tolkien himself didn't really write much about that era of MiddelEarth , just one story in Unfinished Tales about the Fall of Numenor (LotR and the Hobbit were the end of the Third Age, and the Silmarillion was various events in the First Age) so they're really going to have invent a lot of material themselves , especially as its a multi-season series! I don't know if I like the idea of all-new adventures set within the Tolkien-verse...
the same article also says amazon produced Fleabag which seems relevant, didnt the creator of that show do some rewrites for Bond25?.
That's right, CP, be a nerd openly and with pride! 🏆😁
To flesh out "The Hobbit", Peter Jackson & co used material from the appendices to "The Lord Of the Rings" and I'm sure there's plenty more which could be used for the TV series.
From what I've read (I'm a big Tolkien fan) the new series is based in the first age leading up to the making of the rings of power and rise of Mordor and the battle which saw the one ring cut from Saurons hand. But I've also heard Aragorn will be in the story ?? Would be good to see his character with his rangers perhaps ? There is a wealth of material that could be used.
As far as Bond is concerned, Fleming simply didn't create such a vast amount of material supporting Bond, sure there are snippets in various books but for Amazon to create a series or spin offs then these would have to be new story arcs and then we get the whole cannon arguments that plague the DC and Marvel extended universe .
I think any spin-offs should probably be limited to a high-quality animated mini-series and maybe a young Bond TV-series. Combined with Lego-Bond should bring in the younger audiences. Spin-offs starring Felix Leiter, Moneypenny, Q etc. Will probably be too much.
To be fair, I really enjoyed the Fleming mini series with Dominic Cooper, I found it very bondesque and enjoyable. Not sure what I'd think about a James Bond series in the same vein 🤷
I didn't like that series, but technically that series wasn't in the Bond universe anyway.
80% of whats in the EON films is not from Fleming anyway, some of it contradicts Fleming. And of course they chose to begin a new timeline with Casino Royale, which is 100% incompatible with their old films (except for that Aston in the garage which slipped through from the old timeline). So there's canon issues anyway, I don't think spinoff series should complicate that. If they're doing it Marvel-style, the continuity of the spin-offs and the main series could be closer than what EON has managed on its own, even with more product.
I'd love to see a list of Marvel Cinematic Universe continuity errors vs EON Bond universe continuity errors, I would bet EON has made more already.
yes yes I know, its just a matter of confusion occasonally debated for fun. CraigBond jokes about the ejector seat which makes no sense unless he's watched Goldfinger. And the audiences who cheered (and they did) were not cheering because they recognised the car from Craig's first film, they were cheering because something recognisable from the classic films finally appeared..
But that's an irrelevant digression, a joke of mine. The point is EON already replaced their entire established canon with a new timeline, a much bigger contradiction within their films than anything I can think of in the Marvel films. And film to film (classic example being OHMSS) continuity was never consistent. The threat of spinoffs should not inherently mean continuity problems, not any worse than the ones we've taken for granted in the Bond films for nearly 60 years now.
Continuity isn't really the reason I'm sceptical when it comes to spin-offs. It's the danger ofcdeluting the brand and losing focus. Marvel can do it because they have a long history of heroes white standalone adventures in their own stories who sometimes work together. With Fleming Bond has always been the lead and others are there to support his stories.
While I am not a fan of Amazon's tentacles stretching across markets it was never previously associated with, if they did want to do something ground breaking with Bond and utilise all the snazzy CGI stuff they can call on, they could always revisit every single Bond story in chronological order, including the missions only alluded to in the novels; maybe do them as an hourly show - you know, how Fleming imagined his OO7 series - perhaps go retro and film it all in black and white. Bond isn't very 'current' at the moment, so harking back to the era he was written for might make more sense. Thing is, I also sense Amazon would baulk at offensive language and behaviour towards minorities, foreigners and women, so everything would be sanitised. Ah, just stop dreaming and panicking, it'll all come out in the wash...
Side issue- would Bond have remained more "current" if Eon had stuck to a regular release schedule, say one every two years (pandemics excepted) giving us 10 in the last 20 years rather than 5 with long gaps between?
Definitely so, Barbel. Continuing series need regular new episodes, whether in visual or written format.
I agree with chrisno1, in that a continuing series for Bond would be a good way to go as Amazon are doing with the Jack Reacher books, one book dramatised every year. I would prefer it to be updated as CR06 was though, that was the perfect example of updating a novel to present times.
But it has been stated that the films will continue as normal though. I can’t imagine Amazon resting on their laurels though, and I think they will heap enormous pressure on the producers to make a film every 2 years, without their financing the Bond series will be dead in the water, as there is no way the producers would finance the future projects on their own.
I would like to see spin-off series of Leiter and early days of M - the Starzplay series of the early days of Alfred Pennyworth is superb.
I'm happy with every three years- I feel like two years is perhaps a bit too much pressure for films on this scale. The only film series that I can think of which attempted that recently was Star Wars and everyone moaned about those.
Not even the Avengers movies did it (the last two were shot back-to-back I think)
I wouldn't be hugely holding out for a TV series of adaptations- we've had the books adapted largely already save for a couple of exceptions. A version of Goldfinger without the clever bomb plot, laser beam, iconic lines, Connery, DB5, Adam's sets or Barry's music would just seem bland and would get the thumbs down from most fans, let's face it.
Would people want the gunbarrel/Bond theme in these TV shows?
I agree that a film every two years is probably too often.
Question: how much will Amazon (Bezos) decide regarding the next Bond actor? Maybe EON chose and Bezos has a veto?
I think that sounds possible to me. The guys who ran the studio around the time GoldenEye was starting up say that they told Eon they didn't want Dalton, so it seems that sort of thing can happen.
a film every two years sounds perfect to me, they should be thinking ahead while still working on the new one. Its actually strange these Craig ones being made so far apart as they're the first ones with ongoing plot threads, they'd have benefited from a tighter schedule.
I like the idea of a period set teevee series to escape the problem of ever evolving cultural norms. The stories could be unapologetically what Fleming wrote if conspicuously set in a specific time and place. But then that in itself would be a risk, such a retro-version of Bond might play up the sexist/racist/imperialist aspects all out of proportion, just to meet 21st century expectations of how bad things used to be.
I think they’ll need to cast someone that both EON and Amazon agree on. And they’ll probably pick an unknown actor and require him to appear in a film every two years for a three-film deal. That way the lead won’t have any leverage to take 5 years off between films. I don’t envision any more waiting around for directors, either. Amazon didn’t pay $8 billion for 2 films per decade.