It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It gives room for experimentation, lower budgets, younger directors but hopefully would not effect the main franchise.
If you look at the way that Rogue One tapped into an existing plot/time line. The potential for spin off characters/plot connections within the Bond universe is massive.
Gets the creative juices flowing.
Young Bond and Young Blofeld ? (sorry, now that is a silly idea)
And not only that. this especially worries me:
This news ties in with some of the other news articles that were saying Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson are willing to sell off Bond in its entirety. Which I wouldn't like to see happening. It also shows that those companies in the race to distribute the next Bond films, don't want to be be treated the way Sony was:
And that means that the negotiations for the distribution rights could take much longer than previously anticipated. It also shows that companies involved, like Warner, Universal and now Amazon and Apple, are asking much much more from both MGM and EON Productions, potentially risking the fate of the EON family business. Not to mention the fact that Bond could be 'Disney-fied' like Star Wars, meaning that new distributors want more, want spin-offs, want more marketing, want TV, want more China, basically act like Elliot Carver.
Because make no mistake, in the world of Lucasfilm and Marvel, I prefer Bond to stay heavily underdeveloped.
Ultimately as you say, Bond is unique. He's almost an anomaly in today's world of sanitized heroes. An outlier. It's not just the essential Britishness, although that's a large part of it. There's something more, and as you note a lot of that is due to heritage. That's what makes him interesting and that's what keeps viewers coming back.
Still, I preferred the predictability of the Cubby era. I liked the way they executed back then and if they made mistakes, we only had to wait a few years for a new one to wash the past away. As I've said, I'd like them to dump the direct connectivity going forward as well.
Of all the franchises to milk, Bond is at the bottom of peoples interests. Casual fans, general cinema goers and even die hard Bond fans just don't care enough about the semi-regular characters for an expanded universe to be a success. Especially not now, when studios seem to be completely blind to the current state of franchise fatigue.
Having said that, the museum exhibitions have been successful. I wouldn't mind them considering an official Bond museum in London somewhere, with more touring exhibitions. The potential for more touring exhibitions, film screenings, special events, massive store etc. is worth considering.
I agree, if SW fans were sceptical about a Solo spin-off, who is going to give two turds about an 'M' origin?
I'd also scrap continuity. A consistent cycle with the onus on creating a solid self-contained adventure is my preference post B25. It's not coincidence that CR and SF were the two resounding successes of the era.
Bond the character is unique but that does not stop them introducing new characters that dont share those values. It could be a great way of bringing in new fans. Viewers do come back but I am not sure about gaining traction with new viewers.
I suspect there is a chance that youngsters are more excited by MI and Avengers rather than Bond. New characters and spin offs could produce a wider range of characters whilst retaining Bond in his 007 role.
They could invest more in 'gaming' as well. I don't play, but I know that the success of the GE game helped bring in lots of new fans.
As long as it doesn't dilute the primary brand (which is the film), I'm open to it.
For example, they could do a spinoff tv series focusing on MI6 or some foreign intelligence operation which is first established in a specific film.
It wouldn't surprise me if we get MP, Q, Leiter, Blofeld etc spinoffs as the big thing these days when you own a franchise is to flog it to death and then continuing flogging the corpse.
You have to think that it can't be long before some bright spark realises that bringing The MP Diaries to the small screen is a no brainer as it has a female lead which is practically de rigeur for any project these days (and if they let Harris carry on the role they also tick the diversity box too. Slam dunk).
1. "Warner Bros. remains in the lead to land film distribution rights"
2. "Apple’s and Amazon’s inclusion in the chase would indicate that more is on the table than film rights, including the future of the franchise if MGM will sell or license out for the right price."
3. "[...] this would suggest that Apple is interested in cutting a larger rights deal or acquiring full ownership"
It all depends on how its managed.
I wonder if there is really more going on behind the scenes than we know.
Yes of course, I completely forgot about the gaming aspect. It's something that has been very uneven, and really should be a success. I hope moving forward, once a deal has been locked in, we start to see some solid game releases.
I could live with a tv series, but one that is done right, and has a reason to exist. Just because you have the rights, and can make one, doesn't mean you should. It can only survive for so long, as a Bond spin-off before people stop caring about that connection and the show as a whole. Something like 'Spooks' but MI6 based could work.
"Other sources insist that, at this stage, Eon producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson remain traditional in their outlook and that theatrical movies are their main concern."
There's slight hope in that sentence for those hoping to see tradition carry on, but that sentence was towards the end, almost as a throw away, so seemingly big things are happening behind-the-scenes.
We know Bond is a money milking machine. But you have money milking machines....and you have oversized, creativity killing, China-censored money milking machines. The latter I refuse to welcome.
Bond is behind in this. He clearly cant be part of an Avengers team, he is a loner by nature but spin off characters could enable the Bond Universe to exploit this new market.
I read about the Jinx spin off but it was too early for that. I think things have moved quickly and there is space for this now.
lets go through this
1. A Taken style Revenge thriller: I love it Loved Taken and have screamed since DECEMBER 2015
2. Bond gets married and then goes out on vengeance; cool
3. A more straight adaption of YOLT cool
My one issue
4. Shatterhand: really ... Look I love the title I do I get others hate it I do love it but it's not right for now Especially since the name Dr Gutham Von Shatterhand is cool name on it's own right that both it and the film name Shatterhand to many one word s titles
there are better titles
Blofeld
Garden of Death
Risico
The Property of a Lady
or my personal Favorite
The Hildebrand Rarity
This is just pandering.
This will be the first time I'm posting a .gif. But here I go dear @bondjames :
I don't want endless spinoffs or a Marvel approach to the films, and I don't want EON to sell up. What I would like is to get back to having a film every two years, three years max. And I'd like someone to start making Bond video games again as well. If done right they're basically playable Bond films. Everything Or Nothing really helped ease the four year gap between DAD and CR imo.
"Do you want fries with that?" - its all about up selling and exploiting new markets and, whether you like it or not, the Bond universe has not been upsold well.
"Upselling is a sales technique where a seller induces the customer to purchase more expensive items, upgrades or other add-ons in an attempt to make a more profitable sale."
Sadly, that adage is entirely true :-(.
Except with Bond you aren't asking, 'Do you want fries with that?'. You're asking, 'Do you want a Tanner film with that?'. 'Err... no. No I don't'. It's like when you buy a blu-ray in HMV and they ask if you want a Michael Bolton album for £2.
"Bond burger anyone?"
I agree with @bondjames that I would rather they keep to the original model if they could deliver a new film every two years but with the gaps getting longer, these new possibilities, with the right people involved, could give us fans things we didn't even realise we wanted.
Like many others, I can't see the appeal of spin offs with the MI6 team but I'd like to see more video games or perhaps some kind of series, as @TheWizardOfIce suggested faithful period adaptations could be great, maybe as an animated series to seperate it from the main series and to keep to only having one on screen Bond at a time.
It depends on what ideas these people have for the series, but if it means Bond becoming more like the Star Wars or Marvel business models, I'm with @Gustav_Graves I'd rather it remains underdeveloped too, less is more.
Recently, I was fancying the idea of animated adaptations of Fleming's novels done in the style of Mike Mignola (of Hellboy fame).
It isn't going to work, mate. How do you sell a Dr. No lego set to a 10 year-old?