You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Seems that the stalemate between Amazon and Broccoli/Wilson has been resolved and the pair have relinquished creative control.
What do we think will happen with the franchise now?
Will there be a Moneypenny spin off series, or one for Q Branch?
They seem to have got out at just the right time I suspect as I believe the copyright is about to expire in Bond anyway.
I am surprised they've done it and I have low expectations. Bond is pretty much the only character/universe that I'll make an effort to catch the films. Part of what's good about it is that it has a certain formula. I gloomily predict that Amazon will not make a success of it.
Cubby once offered the advice to never let temporary people make permanent decisions. Looks like that's been ignored.
Apparently it caused a lot of friction when someone at Amazon called James Bond "content".
Might be good for it really, some of the recent ones have been pretty indulgent and a bit stale, like QoS and Spectre. Also the clunky product placement was getting too obvious.
Amazon should have a different actor for each film to break the pattern up and get the films done and out , also not have the problem of actors getting old and predictable.
Yeah - a resounding "meh" from me. After a strong start with Casino Royale, the Daniel Craig bond films have all left me disappointed - and in my opinion, aren't as good as the latest Mission Impossible films.
I was hoping the latest actor would re-invigorate the franchise a bit - which may still happen I guess..... but my expectations (already low) have just been lowered further.
But who knows, maybe it's what the franchise needs?
Change might be good... The current 'bond' format is a bit tired and generic, and the old style misogynistic bond.. Well, the less said about that, the better IMO.
I don't blame Daniel Craig for not being interested lest he gets type-cast in future roles.
Very vanilla.. And 'meh'.
Could do to be a bit more gritty and dramatic.
I'd sooner watch a Liam Neeson film if I want a fun action film.
Multiple spin-offs and nothing in the main films that stand out against anything else.
Think I'm done with Bond, so I suspect I'll avoid any of the new stuff.
Change might be good... The current 'bond' format is a bit tired and generic, and the old style misogynistic bond.. Well, the less said about that, the better IMO.
This!
Old Bond films are close to being unwatchable now, the newer ones have some great bits but also some massively clunky bits - the ridiculous green screen stuff with Pierce Brosnan surfing a wave springs to mind after they'd blown the budget ragging supercars around an icy lake.
Mission Impossible, Bourne and even some of the Jason Statham films (much as they're standalone and not a franchise) are all superior to many of the Bond films now, they've just not kept up with the times.
After a strong start with Casino Royale, the Daniel Craig bond films have all left me disappointed - and in my opinion, aren't as good as the latest Mission Impossible films.
Skyfall is brilliant and IMO is better than Casino Royal. No Time To Die is also better upon rewatching it. Spectre and Quantum of Solace are the weak two in Craig's 5 films.
Casino Royale and QoS were decent, the rest were entirely forgettable.
You can spend hours arguing which bond film is better than which.
But ultimately they've always been a bit shit.
Cheesy and a bit shit fits perfectly with all the streaming service films so i don't expect much change.
You'll be in Sainsbury's later this year and it'll be full of licenced James Bond socks, dildos and mugs. Give it 5 years and the aisle of dreams in Aldi will have the ceremonial 007 mig welder
Not Sainsbury's or Aldi, but EON are pretty far down that road already....
James Bond doormat anyone?
You'll be in Sainsbury's later this year and it'll be full of licenced James Bond socks, dildos and mugs. Give it 5 years and the aisle of dreams in Aldi will have the ceremonial 007 mig welder
Not Sainsbury's or Aldi, but EON are pretty far down that road already....
James Bond doormat anyone?
Bond girls are for sale?
They're going to monetise the hell out of it
This is hardly new. Kid across the street from me had a die-cast underwater Lotus Esprit and a James Bond digital watch which played the theme tune back when we were still in short pants.
Besides, so what? It's only monetised if there's people willing to buy it. I'm fairly sure that purchasing merchandise won't be comemandatory.
Who doesn't want a 007 Easter egg?
Jason Bourne movies knock all the modern bond films into a cocked hat.
They're going to monetise the hell out of it
You'll be in Sainsbury's later this year and it'll be full of licenced James Bond socks, dildos and mugs. Give it 5 years and the aisle of dreams in Aldi will have the ceremonial 007 mig welder
I came up with the idea of an 8 sided bond themed fleshlight but I can't think of a name for it 😔
£700 for a Scaramanga tracksuit!
The things you never knew that you didn't want...
that might bring back Connery as an AI generated actor.
strange world.
it won’t be as good as Slow Horses.
They seem to have got out at just the right time I suspect as I believe the copyright is about to expire in Bond anyway.
They're going to monetise the hell out of it
You'll be in Sainsbury's later this year and it'll be full of licenced James Bond socks, dildos and mugs. Give it 5 years and the aisle of dreams in Aldi will have the ceremonial 007 mig welder
I'm wondering if the move by Josef Kleindienst to try and wrestle away bond trademarks was a strategy coordinated by Amazon to try and force Brocolli's hand in negotiation. Some of the IP is at risk of expiring through lack of use - if a trademark hasn't been used for 5 years an application can be made for it to be acquire it* - or for the trademark simply to be voided so anyone can use it.
I can see the motivation on Amazon's side - the only thing that seems to make money these days for studios and streamers is franchises of existing IP. Given they completed shooting of the last bond movie 6 years ago and don't have script, actor or director for a next one is pretty nuts (not that having a script has been a concern in the past- they started shooting QOS before the script was ready)
It might seem like Amazon are overly keen to turn the handle and thats why Brocolli has been resistant - but to be honest Amazon themselves seem to be ditherers so I wouldn't expect a flood of Bond stuff going forward, just something rather than nothing.
*Engergiser batteries once caught Duracell napping and acquired their bunny trademark and basically started using Duracell's own trademark against them to market their own stuff
I came up with the idea of an 8 sided bond themed fleshlight but I can't think of a name for it
no idea, but it could be marketed alongside
a cocked hat.
What do we think will happen with the franchise now?
MI5 get privatised and merged into Spectre with Bond going deep cover to prevent a union organisers dastardly attempts to unionise a distribution centre.
In seriousness,
I don't think Bond knows what it wants to be. I haven't read the books, but AIUI the source material is somewhat problematic for a modern audience so 'going back to its roots' is probably a non-starter. Over the years it's been everything from a self-aware camp action comedy to a po-faced action thriller trying to be gritty.
Maybe a fresh pair of eyes on it is exactly what the franchise needs.
Well I guess they could go back to ground zero and remake the originals one by one without the sexism etc
In fact, has there ever been a remake?
Maybe it could actually work, I dunno.
Never say never again was a remake of Thunderball if that counts.
I believe 70 years after the authors death the copyright expires which would be 2035.
I assume Casino Royale was a remake of, err, Casino Royale 🙂
I've just thought: There are post-Fleming books of course. Charlie Higson (off of that Fast Show) picked up the mantle there, he did a series of Young Bond novels (and I think some regular ones?). Adapting YA fiction might re-establish Bond as "traditional Christmas Day film" rather than 15-certificate testicle torture.
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me. Its not supposed to be a bourne or MI as they are their own films.
Its a commodity, theres loads of 007 lunch boxes, socks etc. that wont change.
Ooo I didn't know about never say never, is it a proper bond film ie part of the franchise?
Casino Royale was a spoof first time round I think, David niven and Peter sellers. I've never seen either though!
Ooo I didn't know about never say never, is it a proper bond film ie part of the franchise?
Casino Royale was a spoof first time round I think, David niven and Peter sellers. I've never seen either though!
Don't think it was official and couldn't use the theme music? Name came from Connery's wife telling him to never say never again to another Bond film.
Bond is a product of its time. That time was the 50s and 60s. It should be left there.
I don’t really understand why people think if they have to makes a film, which effectively reinvents James Bond, they just don’t make a film which doesn’t have James Bond in it. Of course Bond is dated as a character, there is no shame in that, but to me it’s rather odd that people are worried that someone who goes around murdering dozens of people per film is persona non grata because he’s a bit sexist. If Bond is unacceptable by today’s standards then drop him & come up with a new character.
What do we think will happen with the franchise now?
I'd be very surprised if they didn't start doing Marvel-style spin-off shows and/or films focussing on minor characters, which has the potential to be interesting as now they don't just need to retread the same ground over and over (because that's what the Brocolli's wanted). They've got a huge amount of money invested in the Bond franchise & they'll need to start seeing a return on it. Whether they can pull it off is another matter, they've had a lot more misses than hits lately (Rings of Power I'm looking at you 🙂 )
I don’t really understand why people think if they have to makes a film, which effectively reinvents James Bond, they just don’t make a film which doesn’t have James Bond in it.
that just isn't how Amazon operate (also the other streaming services, but Amazon do seem the worst in this regard). I think the days of big-budget, truly original stuff are numbered (if not over already) which is a real shame. Amazon is real lowest-common-denominator telly, they want things like Reacher that's mass-market and people have already heard of... I think it's really stifled creativity & just made everything a bit more bland.
Bond films aren't supposed to be like Mission Impossible or Bourne films. They're camp in a way like those other franchises aren't.
A Bond film that tried to take on a Bourne film head on would be...a pale imitation of a Bourne film and like a zillion other spy movies made every year. The essence of a character or creative concept is what makes it distinctive from everything else. You'd be nuts to throw that away and chase what other people are doing better.
I don’t really understand why people think if they have to makes a film, which effectively reinvents James Bond, they just don’t make a film which doesn’t have James Bond in it.
For the same reason Coke keep making TV adverts despite there being no-one in the developed world who hasn't heard of them. It's an established brand, more people are going to want to see the new James Bond movie than the new Brian Smith movie.
The name’s Smith. Brian Smith.
I like it! Make that movie
I think it's really stifled creativity & just made everything a bit more bland.
I think people have lost the ability to concentrate on a film - folk watching at home are often "half-watching" while scrolling on a phone, eating dinner etc which is why everything has been dumbed down, expositions are more obvious and more laboured than ever to get the point across to folk who are really only partially engaged in a film.
And in order to get people to actually watch something, it needs to be the same old same old that they know works so they'll churn out bland, forgettable films that can be enjoyed without too much effort and then the viewer moves onto the next thing.
In true streaming service style there is surely ripe for a crossover.
006 has taken the aston and bond is left with chittychittybangbang to fight arch nemesis Baron Bomburst
They can annoy all the incel types with the recasting a female Caractapussy Butts as a sexy foreign agent who bond must pump for information, literally and figuratively.
Q can really labour the point that theres an autopilot in chitty to cover any plot holes etc.
Q can really labour the point that theres an autopilot in chitty to cover any plot holes etc
Hello is that the roads department ? My name's Mr bond and I want to complain about the plot holes
It's a disgrace
Hello? Hello?
I must be incredibly shallow, I liked all the Daniel Craig bond films (QOS probably the least - by quite a margin!)
Yeah I liked all Craig's bond films as well. The previous stuff was enjoyable at the time (well the last few brosman films werent), despite being a bit 'rapey'..
Agree that a bit of a shakeup isn't necessarily a bad thing. Casino Royale was a great response to the Bourne films but since then it's been going backwards again with all the SPECTRE stuff IMO.
That said I'm not hopeful that Amazon are going to do a great job with it. First thing that springs to mind is Disney and the Star Wars stuff. For every Rogue One and Andor there's a load of not very good 'content' that isn't doing it any favours.
Octopussy. Bum tish.
Octopussy. Bum tish.
I'm quite liking Richard Osman's proposals for Bond spin offs (from about 12min if the link doesnt start there)
In particular his proposal of running 'Octopussy' in the month before 'Movember'
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me.
+1
If anything, I think they need to get a bit more camp and light-hearted again.
Is there a case that Austin Powers is the best Bond film anyway?
Matthew Vaughn could be a safe pair of hands, or even Guy Ritchie? Maybe Tarantino as an outside bet?
Matthew Vaughn could be a safe pair of hands, or even Guy Ritchie? Maybe Tarantino as an outside bet?
I don't think it will happen, as he's not high profile enough for the Amazonion overloads, but I'd go for Charlie Higson as a showrunner. He's a proper Bond nerd who's shown, via his Young Bond books, that he understands the source material and can extrapolate from it.
They're going to monetise the hell out of it
You'll be in Sainsbury's later this year and it'll be full of licenced James Bond socks, dildos and mugs. Give it 5 years and the aisle of dreams in Aldi will have the ceremonial 007 mig welder
I came up with the idea of an 8 sided bond themed fleshlight but I can't think of a name for it 😔
*solemn applause*
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me.
+1
If anything, I think they need to get a bit more camp and light-hearted again.
Is there a case that Austin Powers is the best Bond film anyway?
Matthew Vaughn could be a safe pair of hands, or even Guy Ritchie? Maybe Tarantino as an outside bet?
Charlie Higson as producer and Mike Myers as director - it's a dream team! Myers is a brilliant director with a real sense of place and time. Bring back the camp!
A Tarantino bond could work really well, Pulp Bond would be fun!
A Tarantino bond could work really well, Pulp Bond would be fun!
It could work really well both ways. The limitations of a franchise might give QT a bit of focus that he sometimes lacks.
A Tarantino bond could work really well,
I think it would compound the issue for Amazon 🙂 pairing a franchise that has been in no rush to make another movie with a director who is in no rush to make another movie. Seal the deal with an actor who (like Daniel Craig for instance) doesn't really want to be in Bond movies too maybe.
I don't really want to write a bond script. So maybe I could come on board as writer.
That said I'm not hopeful that Amazon are going to do a great job with it.
Amazon already made a version of a "Bond" series, the rather forgettable Citadel, it somehow cost $300m and received very mixed reviews. And in spite of the massive budget, much of the CGI was really quite chintzy, like the special effects apprentice had found the HDR +++ button and used it on everything.
I like the bond films. I also like the way they have evolved over time.
It is cheesy, it is self indulgent and thats part of the charm for me.
+1
If anything, I think they need to get a bit more camp and light-hearted again.
Is there a case that Austin Powers is the best Bond film anyway?
So, we're saying that the originals were cheesy, camp, light-hearted and a bit rapey! 😀
We miss the point that the Connery and Moore films were made in an era when viewers weren't travelling to exotic places, which is why the action jumps from Istanbul to Florida to the casino to a health spa to a ski resort, outer space. The locations were as important as the ridiculous plots but these days we can all very familiar with those places - except space obvs - so nobody cares.
Austin Powers? The Man From UNCLE, Our Man Flint.... every man and his dog had done spies in the 60s/70s, even Morecambe and Wise iirc?
I know I posted before about the madness that is the official James Bond store, but this one is pretty special...
They are Tweeting today to alert us all that for just £1,995 they will sell you this...
Given that a good Bond movie involves suspension of disbelief I think I've got a plot for the next film.
A supervillain cons and buys their way into a superpower nation and sets that superpower to align with Russia and turn against it's previous Western allies.
Bind is then tasked with saving the world.
I think the set up is just about grounded enough in reality. Where this might fall down is whether saving the world is a bit too far fetched.
What do you think?
Latest rumours are they they are looking for an actor under 30 to play bond, so cavill and Taylor -jihnson are out.
Do wonder how someone under 30 could rise to the rank of commander in the royal navy though
Given everything else Bond-related, that should be easy to not worry about as it'll be part of the story...
Latest rumours are they they are looking for an actor under 30 to play bond, so cavill and Taylor -jihnson are out.
Do wonder how someone under 30 could rise to the rank of commander in the royal navy though
Connery was 32 when he played Bond in Dr No so it's not a great leap.
Now Amazon have the Bond franchise, will the the next one go straight to streaming (for $$$)? Bond in the Craig era was about the only thing that got us to the cinema - couldn't tell you why, just became a tradition.
Given everything else Bond-related, that should be easy to not worry about as it'll be part of the story...
Well they literally blew him up in the last one so I suppose it depends how they reboot it .
(TBH I thought it was a bit of an unnecessary arrogant way to end the tenure of a Bond as opposed to just rolling along into a new bond actor.)
Do wonder how someone under 30 could rise to the rank of commander in the royal navy though
Wanting the actor to be under 30 has nothing to do with the age of the character they'll be protraying. Connary played Bond when he was practically the same ages as Micheal J Fox when he played a teenage Marty Mcfly. Clive Dunn started his acting career playing his signature 'doddery old men' when he was 30 too. They're actors - its there job to pretend to be someone else. 🙂
What they'll be wanting from an under 30 year old actor is someone who they can sign up for a long contract relatively cheaply.
With a lot of movies you need a 'name' to carry your film but in Bond movies the Bond character is that name - so long as they do a competent job it doesnt actually matter too much who the actor is, so theres no point paying for someone who is already able to trade on their reputation
Now Amazon have the Bond franchise, will the the next one go straight to streaming (for $$$)? Bond in the Craig era was about the only thing that got us to the cinema - couldn't tell you why, just became a tradition.
In the current climate it tends to be a decision that rests with the actor. If its an actor that wants to tread a few red carpets than the only way films can be considered for most of the awards events is if they've had a theatrical release. So part of their negotiation, aside from their fees, will be whether theres a theatrical release and if so what work the studio is going to do to support an awards campaign. So you'll see quite a few films released by the streamers and seemingly bomb at the box office but the cinema release was never the point, financially.
Since my forties (which recently ended) I've pretty much lost interest in any movie 'franchise/universe'. There's a few exceptions, but in general, both those terms signify $$$$$$ (and quite often a test of my capacity to endure) rather than something I might actually enjoy. I've enjoyed most of the Bond films but there's no pull to watch them.
Wanting the actor to be under 30 has nothing to do with the age of the character they'll be protraying... They're actors - its there job to pretend to be someone else.
Yeah, but it usually works in the other direction, older actors playing younger characters.
In any case, should it matter? I'm sure I heard somewhere once that "James Bond" and "007" are just code names, it's not just different actors who are the next 007 but actually different characters. One gets 'retired' either by a bullet or the more traditional method, they promote a new one.
As far as canon goes there's plenty in the source books which would be problematic for a modern audience. There's no reason why we couldn't have a Jane Bond even, if only to troll the bottom half of the Internet.
there's plenty in the source books which would be problematic for a modern audience
Not half! I found a box set of CD audiobooks of all the Bond books by Fleming and ripped them to mp3 to listen to. **** me, they are cinge now - and not in a good way!
I read a few of the originals when I was 13/14, they aren’t exactly what you got on the screen 🙂
I preferred the cinematic presentations and the written adaptations of the screenplay.
In any case, should it matter? I'm sure I heard somewhere once that "James Bond" and "007" are just code names, it's not just different actors who are the next 007 but actually different characters. One gets 'retired' either by a bullet or the more traditional method, they promote a new one.
TBH they didn’t have to do that for what is it 25 films previously thou.
I think James Bonds almost a traditional thing, sort of hard to describe like a Father Christmas type character.
I think James Bonds almost a traditional thing, sort of hard to describe like a Father Christmas type character.
They've both got a list of who's naughty or nice?
They both come down your chimney?
TBH they didn’t have to do that for what is it 25 films previously thou.
I don't think we've seen an on-screen, ahem, "regeneration." But it would conveniently hand-wave why he suddenly stopped being Scottish and then later turned blonde.
https://jamesbond.fandom.com/wiki/00_Agents
"Standard mandatory retirement age is 45, though various writers including Ian Fleming, Sebastian Faulks and John Gardner have contradicted this as a matter of poetic license and several actors who have portrayed Bond on film have been older than 45 at the time of playing the character (indeed, Roger Moore was 45 when he filmed his first Bond film, and continued to play the role until he was nearly 60, whereas Sean Connery's Bond was implied to have had retired - or, more precisely, moved into training - by the time of Never Say Never Again with the actor in his mid-50s)."
Can't see any mention of Denis being announced to direct here:
James Bond: Denis Villeneuve to direct next 007 film - BBC News
It'll be really interesting to see what he comes up with, certainly an impressive signing - but I might have preferred someone who would bring back a bit of camp and fun.
Now Amazon have the Bond franchise, will the the next one go straight to streaming (for $$$)?
I don't think so. I reckon they will appreciate the glamour and prestige of a proper big movie release (and having it on streaming a couple of months later).
I might have preferred someone who would bring back a bit of camp and fun.
A cross over into the Carry On Cinematic Universe maybe
"Do be careful with that bond. Thats no ordinary swanny whistle"