This story has made front page news in today's "The Times":
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 854Chief of Staff
With talk of a younger Bond, and a possible Disneyfication of Bond, and the creative free reign of Amazon/MGM does that mean the next Bond film might actually be Silverfin? Could it be we end up with a "period piece" with Young Bond at school getting into scrapes with his chums? If that's the case, that is a spin off we may not have expected. Or could it be that Tarantino finally gets to make a James Bond movie? A movie set in the iconic era as he envisaged. Or does Guy Ritchie get a chance? This change could indeed see some interesting directions. Yes some will be controversial, but it could be an interesting direction whatever they choose. Time has evolved and the world is a very different place. There is source material out there. All those continuation authors such as Gardner, Benson, Horowitz, et al. And of course Higson. It could be the shake up the series needs, although change is always difficult.
I don’t know if that’s quite right: I can’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff so happy to be corrected, but Bond will still be trademarked, and in the case of Mickey Mouse, some of which has left copyright but also remains trademarked, you can’t make anything which could be ‘confused’ as having come from the trademark owner- hence we haven’t seen anyone put an animated Mickey film for kids in the cinemas.
And if there’s one thing Amazon do have, it’s an awful lot of money to take you to court if you try.
There’s a Young Sherlock series coming up on Prime, and it’s been my pet theory that Prime wanted a Young Bond show but Eon vetoed it, and they pivoted to adapt another very similar YA book series (which was actually inspired by the Young Bond books) and made that instead.
Absolutely no proof of that and it’s just a theory, it just looks like that might have been their thinking to me.
scaramanga1The English RivieraPosts: 854Chief of Staff
Yes, there are many options that may have opened up, and thinking along the lines of a Bond for a new generation would mean a YA version could be on the table. It may upset some, but at the end of the day for there to be any longevity then such ideas will have to be explored. I for one look forward to seeing what happens. A new era of escapism is upon us. Another possible source of material will be various graphic tales that have been written over the years. Maybe not at all what Fleming would've imagined. But then, he wouldn't have expected his creation to still be around today. He probably would've thought 007 would've faded into the past by now. As a fan I want to be optimistic and hope this change is positive and will indeed take it forward.
They killed off Bond in the last one, perhaps he should stay dead. I don't have any faith in Amazon. I'd rather the series end, than it continue as a shattered husk of itself.
Having watched Kenobi, I personally think this sounds awful. Partly because the show was terrible and, as much as I like Q, this holds no appeal. I want 007 to focus on Bond and him alone. I don't want the 007 universe, with spin-off after spin-off,
As someone mentioned above, the only thing I could see as a potential positive is Amazon having the freedom to have different cinematic Bonds on screen, consecutively not concurrently. Maybe a one-off with Tarantino in a period setting, retro-futuristic gadgets, black and white. Then a Nolan directed film with a contemporary setting and different actor. Though this model would suggest having an actor in the role for only one to two films - not sure how I feel about that, but it's not new ground either in the history of the franchise.
With parallels to Indiana Jones, I'm waiting excitedly for the Project 007 videogame. The recently released Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is a great game and has a fun story (no spoilers please as I've not finished it yet) and I'd argue is much stronger than the two fan films they made after Last Crusade. Perhaps Project 007 will help reinvigorate the franchise and introduce younger/new audiences to Bond which they would then like to see accurately represented on screen.
What is clear from the noises coming from the Eon camp is that they were happy to wait and not produce anything under Amazon's MGM ownership until they were ready, but that Amazon have strong-armed them. I can kind of understand Amazon's position - investing huge sums on a production company whose biggest asset was dormant is not great business.
Positives for me are that there will be "content" now, but the question is what kind of content. We have also been at similar crossroads in the development of the Bond world (McClory et al) and we came out of the other side in reasonable health. It is a massive potential flashpoint in the franchise however.
I am deeply concerned to have a techbro calling the shots and letting his ego direct this most quintessential of British brands. Tweets asking the great unwashed who they would like to see as Bond is not my idea of suave and mysterious. The timing of all of this is rather concerning too. Bond has always been a bellwether to British (and increasingly global) geopolitics. What price the influence of more malign forces on the direction of 007?
The future is bleak but let's hope not as bleak as it could be ...
Of course they'll keep the gunbarrel and James Bond theme! They paid good money for it. Not doing so would be like buying the rights to Batman and never using the bat signal or putting him in the cape and cowl. Or spending a fortune to get the rights to Indiana Jones and not using the whip or using the Indiana Jones fanfare. Simply bad business.
I can never watch past the first episode of any modern TV series, with their meandering plots, too many characters and dialogue-heavy scripts. The recent TV series of The Day of the Jackal being an example. And I fear Amazon will do the same for Bond. If any of you think the Craig era was somewhat of a "departure", then the Amazon one will be that on steroids.
Most of the conversation in here has been of a doom and gloom nature. The sky is falling, pun intended.
Let's play Devil's advocate here and list off how this could be a good thing.
Consistent delivery of movies. With the Amazon machine in place, we can probably expect a new theatrical Bond release every 2 years or so, give or take.
High budgets. Not that this was ever really a concern but Amazon has shown a willingness to spend money on things. They won't half-ass Bond.
Their 'real world' action series have generally been pretty good. I look at stuff like REACHER and JACK RYAN and see some good consistency in terms of output. Counterpoint, CITADEL is absolute garbage, but it's tonally completely different from the world of Bond. Their fantasy stuff is highly questionable (LOTR and WOT) but that's a completely different genre from Bond, so I think that the best comparisons are REACHER and JACK RYAN.
Amazon really already has a formula in place. All they have to do is follow the EON playbook in terms of production and they should be guaranteed a product that is, at a minimum, 'good'. There isn't a wheel to be reinvented here.
Amazon should be able to attract top tier talent with the money at their disposal.
Amazon should be able to firmly and permanently house the entire Bond franchise for everyone now. No more questions should be presented in terms of where to watch the films.
We have the possibilities now for period-piece content. Many of us have wanted to see 'Bond in the 60s' again. Well, now we can have that, probably as a streaming show. A low-tech Bond could be absolutely awesome to see again.
I just can't imagine several actors playing Bond simultaneously within different timelines. Having a 1950s TV show on Prime and then two months later getting Bond 26,27,28...released on the big screen, it's just something I don't want to see. There's nothing as exciting as having a unique chosen one for ten or fifteen years before shifting to another actor. I just want one Bond, and if he has to appear in TV shows, let it just be for cameos and within the timeline of the films.
Well, I suppose the dust is still settling and it really is too early to call anyone out about how they have handled the EoN Sale Affair or will handle the franchise in the future.
For what it is worth, I don't sunscribe to any streaming service, so I cannot comment on quality or otherwise of Amazon programs. What I can say with some certainty is that while there may still be a place for the cinema in the twenty-first century, in the same way people will probably always enjoy the theatre, it will become more and more a niche market form. So, I can certainly see James Bond being diluted from the cinema to the small screen. What this will do for the quality of a James Bond film is open to debate and shouldn't really be debated until we have some physical evidence. However, I do feel that Amazon's strategy is always to gain viewers and market share, thus boosting advertising revenue, and to do this they need to produce entertaining and relevant movies [and series, documentaries, etc].
One of Cubby's determining mantras was that he was in the entertainment business and he wanted to give his customers a good show. He also listened to feedback and understood the changing times. Hence, the wild and outlandish sci-fi looking stuff sits alongside serious and gritty contemporary Cold War themes. Barbara and Michael in their time have also trod this fine line - although I would consider they eventually veered less towards entertainment for mere pleasure and more as an artistic licence. If Amazon can recapture a sense of fun and flair around their new films, while maintaining a foot firmly on the ground, I wouldn't begrudge them any kind of success. How that format takes - retro, modern, serial, black-and-white, etc - doesn't really concern me as long as the product is good. Or at any rate as long as I enjoy it.
My problems with the last three Bond films have all been the same: over indulgence, over long, over complicated and over reverential. They really needed to lossen up. They also needed to stop trying to copy other franchises. James Bond already had its hallmarks and a return to the core identity of the character's mission-investigation-resolution format would certaintly be welcome to these eyes. Although I would expect variations on the theme, I do not need origin stories or emotional turmoil. I do not believe OO7 does either. Perhaps Amazon can resolve this and make the films more snazzy than they have been. Shorter too, I hope.
Given the amount of cash thrown at EoN to wrestle away creative control, I rather hope Amazon will throw a ton of cash at IFP and start adapting the Gardner continuation novels, all of which are still ripe for the cinema IMO and would not take much to alter for the mid-2000s. And, as many of us hope, more than one film every 5 years would be nice.
Amazon is a titanic company awash with money and what has just happened is entirely expected. I feared it. It has happened. We can only hope the people in charge of these things have a heart as well as a head. They'll take no notice of me - or any of us - so we can but wait...
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,984Quartermasters
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
John Logan!! Hes the Bastard who wrote the drivel that was Star Trek Nemesis! Thats the point Trek went down the pan and never recovered. - Its been trying to since.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
That was a pretty low budget movie though. It had to use a small factory workshop as a location for Q's laboratory, instead of stylish set. And the musical score was awful. It was good to see Connery playing Bond again, but overall I was very disappointed.
I’m no attorney either, but I once had a conversation with an entertainment lawyer whose opinion mirrors my assertion. I remember it well, because I didn’t want to believe it, LOL. But just as Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan films can be produced by anyone, it will arguably be the same for Bond. However, as said above, Ernst Stavro Bezos can field a team of headhunters that will certainly challenge the testicular fortitude of anyone who might be inclined to try it. Only time will tell.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Those elements are specific to the EON Bond films and won't go public domain. They'll keep those just to help differentiate their product from anyone else out there churning out other Bond related material.
What assertion is that? I think the difference is that the trademarks to Holmes and Tarzan are in the wind whereas Bond is very much sewn up. Honestly: have a read as to why no one is making Mickey Mouse kids films, it will apply to Bond too.
Comments
This story has made front page news in today's "The Times":
With talk of a younger Bond, and a possible Disneyfication of Bond, and the creative free reign of Amazon/MGM does that mean the next Bond film might actually be Silverfin? Could it be we end up with a "period piece" with Young Bond at school getting into scrapes with his chums? If that's the case, that is a spin off we may not have expected. Or could it be that Tarantino finally gets to make a James Bond movie? A movie set in the iconic era as he envisaged. Or does Guy Ritchie get a chance? This change could indeed see some interesting directions. Yes some will be controversial, but it could be an interesting direction whatever they choose. Time has evolved and the world is a very different place. There is source material out there. All those continuation authors such as Gardner, Benson, Horowitz, et al. And of course Higson. It could be the shake up the series needs, although change is always difficult.
I don’t know if that’s quite right: I can’t pretend to be an expert on this stuff so happy to be corrected, but Bond will still be trademarked, and in the case of Mickey Mouse, some of which has left copyright but also remains trademarked, you can’t make anything which could be ‘confused’ as having come from the trademark owner- hence we haven’t seen anyone put an animated Mickey film for kids in the cinemas.
And if there’s one thing Amazon do have, it’s an awful lot of money to take you to court if you try.
A Kenobi style Programme regarding the background of Q (I don't know which one - Llewellyn, Cleese, Wishaw) would be a great idea....
There’s a Young Sherlock series coming up on Prime, and it’s been my pet theory that Prime wanted a Young Bond show but Eon vetoed it, and they pivoted to adapt another very similar YA book series (which was actually inspired by the Young Bond books) and made that instead.
Absolutely no proof of that and it’s just a theory, it just looks like that might have been their thinking to me.
Yes, there are many options that may have opened up, and thinking along the lines of a Bond for a new generation would mean a YA version could be on the table. It may upset some, but at the end of the day for there to be any longevity then such ideas will have to be explored. I for one look forward to seeing what happens. A new era of escapism is upon us. Another possible source of material will be various graphic tales that have been written over the years. Maybe not at all what Fleming would've imagined. But then, he wouldn't have expected his creation to still be around today. He probably would've thought 007 would've faded into the past by now. As a fan I want to be optimistic and hope this change is positive and will indeed take it forward.
David Zaritsky-
BREAKING NEWS AROUND THE BOND FRANCHISE | Live Stream
Calvin Dyson-
HUGE 007 NEWS | AMAZON Takes Creative Control of JAMES BOND
Well, this sucks.
They killed off Bond in the last one, perhaps he should stay dead. I don't have any faith in Amazon. I'd rather the series end, than it continue as a shattered husk of itself.
Father of the US Navy and a solid bass player, what a CV
Having watched Kenobi, I personally think this sounds awful. Partly because the show was terrible and, as much as I like Q, this holds no appeal. I want 007 to focus on Bond and him alone. I don't want the 007 universe, with spin-off after spin-off,
As someone mentioned above, the only thing I could see as a potential positive is Amazon having the freedom to have different cinematic Bonds on screen, consecutively not concurrently. Maybe a one-off with Tarantino in a period setting, retro-futuristic gadgets, black and white. Then a Nolan directed film with a contemporary setting and different actor. Though this model would suggest having an actor in the role for only one to two films - not sure how I feel about that, but it's not new ground either in the history of the franchise.
With parallels to Indiana Jones, I'm waiting excitedly for the Project 007 videogame. The recently released Indiana Jones and the Great Circle is a great game and has a fun story (no spoilers please as I've not finished it yet) and I'd argue is much stronger than the two fan films they made after Last Crusade. Perhaps Project 007 will help reinvigorate the franchise and introduce younger/new audiences to Bond which they would then like to see accurately represented on screen.
What is clear from the noises coming from the Eon camp is that they were happy to wait and not produce anything under Amazon's MGM ownership until they were ready, but that Amazon have strong-armed them. I can kind of understand Amazon's position - investing huge sums on a production company whose biggest asset was dormant is not great business.
Positives for me are that there will be "content" now, but the question is what kind of content. We have also been at similar crossroads in the development of the Bond world (McClory et al) and we came out of the other side in reasonable health. It is a massive potential flashpoint in the franchise however.
I am deeply concerned to have a techbro calling the shots and letting his ego direct this most quintessential of British brands. Tweets asking the great unwashed who they would like to see as Bond is not my idea of suave and mysterious. The timing of all of this is rather concerning too. Bond has always been a bellwether to British (and increasingly global) geopolitics. What price the influence of more malign forces on the direction of 007?
The future is bleak but let's hope not as bleak as it could be ...
Of course they'll keep the gunbarrel and James Bond theme! They paid good money for it. Not doing so would be like buying the rights to Batman and never using the bat signal or putting him in the cape and cowl. Or spending a fortune to get the rights to Indiana Jones and not using the whip or using the Indiana Jones fanfare. Simply bad business.
I also think they could very well dilute Bond into a "TV-series and movies about every character mentioned in the previous movies, like Star Trek".
I can never watch past the first episode of any modern TV series, with their meandering plots, too many characters and dialogue-heavy scripts. The recent TV series of The Day of the Jackal being an example. And I fear Amazon will do the same for Bond. If any of you think the Craig era was somewhat of a "departure", then the Amazon one will be that on steroids.
I agree, but I did like George Lazenby's Australian accent in OHMSS.
We don't know. We may suspect this. We may even have reason to belive so based on what Amazon has done earlier, but we don't know.
I would welcome their departure.
I agree. And their scripts were like "writing by committee"
Most of the conversation in here has been of a doom and gloom nature. The sky is falling, pun intended.
Let's play Devil's advocate here and list off how this could be a good thing.
I just can't imagine several actors playing Bond simultaneously within different timelines. Having a 1950s TV show on Prime and then two months later getting Bond 26,27,28...released on the big screen, it's just something I don't want to see. There's nothing as exciting as having a unique chosen one for ten or fifteen years before shifting to another actor. I just want one Bond, and if he has to appear in TV shows, let it just be for cameos and within the timeline of the films.
Well, I suppose the dust is still settling and it really is too early to call anyone out about how they have handled the EoN Sale Affair or will handle the franchise in the future.
For what it is worth, I don't sunscribe to any streaming service, so I cannot comment on quality or otherwise of Amazon programs. What I can say with some certainty is that while there may still be a place for the cinema in the twenty-first century, in the same way people will probably always enjoy the theatre, it will become more and more a niche market form. So, I can certainly see James Bond being diluted from the cinema to the small screen. What this will do for the quality of a James Bond film is open to debate and shouldn't really be debated until we have some physical evidence. However, I do feel that Amazon's strategy is always to gain viewers and market share, thus boosting advertising revenue, and to do this they need to produce entertaining and relevant movies [and series, documentaries, etc].
One of Cubby's determining mantras was that he was in the entertainment business and he wanted to give his customers a good show. He also listened to feedback and understood the changing times. Hence, the wild and outlandish sci-fi looking stuff sits alongside serious and gritty contemporary Cold War themes. Barbara and Michael in their time have also trod this fine line - although I would consider they eventually veered less towards entertainment for mere pleasure and more as an artistic licence. If Amazon can recapture a sense of fun and flair around their new films, while maintaining a foot firmly on the ground, I wouldn't begrudge them any kind of success. How that format takes - retro, modern, serial, black-and-white, etc - doesn't really concern me as long as the product is good. Or at any rate as long as I enjoy it.
My problems with the last three Bond films have all been the same: over indulgence, over long, over complicated and over reverential. They really needed to lossen up. They also needed to stop trying to copy other franchises. James Bond already had its hallmarks and a return to the core identity of the character's mission-investigation-resolution format would certaintly be welcome to these eyes. Although I would expect variations on the theme, I do not need origin stories or emotional turmoil. I do not believe OO7 does either. Perhaps Amazon can resolve this and make the films more snazzy than they have been. Shorter too, I hope.
Given the amount of cash thrown at EoN to wrestle away creative control, I rather hope Amazon will throw a ton of cash at IFP and start adapting the Gardner continuation novels, all of which are still ripe for the cinema IMO and would not take much to alter for the mid-2000s. And, as many of us hope, more than one film every 5 years would be nice.
Amazon is a titanic company awash with money and what has just happened is entirely expected. I feared it. It has happened. We can only hope the people in charge of these things have a heart as well as a head. They'll take no notice of me - or any of us - so we can but wait...
https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/films/1851563/Next-James-Bond-public-domain
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Everything seemed to be going so good for Bond after Skyfall... sigh... I blame John Logan.
I don't think Amazon paid all those billions to get rid of the Gunbarrel and the Bond Theme.
John Logan!! Hes the Bastard who wrote the drivel that was Star Trek Nemesis! Thats the point Trek went down the pan and never recovered. - Its been trying to since.
That was a pretty low budget movie though. It had to use a small factory workshop as a location for Q's laboratory, instead of stylish set. And the musical score was awful. It was good to see Connery playing Bond again, but overall I was very disappointed.
I Called this ages ago, What do I win?😁https://www.ajb007.co.uk/discussion/54763/anyone-else-think-wilson-and-broccoli-wont-be-involved-with-26/p1
I’m no attorney either, but I once had a conversation with an entertainment lawyer whose opinion mirrors my assertion. I remember it well, because I didn’t want to believe it, LOL. But just as Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan films can be produced by anyone, it will arguably be the same for Bond. However, as said above, Ernst Stavro Bezos can field a team of headhunters that will certainly challenge the testicular fortitude of anyone who might be inclined to try it. Only time will tell.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Those elements are specific to the EON Bond films and won't go public domain. They'll keep those just to help differentiate their product from anyone else out there churning out other Bond related material.
What assertion is that? I think the difference is that the trademarks to Holmes and Tarzan are in the wind whereas Bond is very much sewn up. Honestly: have a read as to why no one is making Mickey Mouse kids films, it will apply to Bond too.
Here you go- a quick google turns this up:
And as the fella says, even the lawyers aren't 100% sure about this stuff. I'm not sure anyone's going to risk it.