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
Fans did the same when it happened in a Craig movie. So I struggle to see your point.
Why would fans complain about them in a Brosnan movie?
Yeah agreed, a bit too obvious. And I think folks have said that Dame Barbara has said, when asked if they'd put a Musk type in as the villain, "already did that in '97", and she's right.
Also I think making some of these types into Bond villains kind of trivialises the actual real threat they present too.
Nah, I think 26 is just fine.
Unless that's overused or not recognizable enough for Bond.
Move this to messages. That's where current politics are discussed.
How can you call it 26 and not put Casino Royale 67, NSNA and Climax theater into the mix? That would make it 29. Like I said, lazy.
And to that I say.......................McClory had the official rights to Bond when he did NSNA and Feldman did too. Now, when GL appeared as JB in the U.N.C.L.E. TV movie they did not have the official rights but I did not put that one in the mix.
Is Amazon planning to follow the Eon formula and continue the classic traditions: gunbarrel, PTS, titles sequence, etc?
For instance, it's kind of expected to wonder who will sing the title song, but maybe Amazon will go another route and do something completely different with their Bond films?
I feel open minded to what they may bring to the table.
Burton's BATMAN went a drastically different direction from what audiences had seen before with Adam West, and it enormously successful. I loved it just as much, but in a different way.
On the other hand, SUPERMAN RETURNS played as a sort of late continuation of the Christopher Reeve films in terms of the titles, music etc, and yet to me it felt like something was off.
This is a very exciting time for me as a Bond fan. The possibilities are endless. Perhap we should start a new thread called WHERE DOES BOND GO AFTER EON?
Does Amazon have the opportunity to screw up things royally? Yes. But why would they? You certainly don't want your first shot at an astoundingly successful film series to be a dud. JB Fires A Blank. The name is Bezos. Jeff Bezos. I made this mess.
If Amazon is smart, the company will do everything possible to avoid disaster. No doubt critics are already writing their negative reviews well ahead of casting, production, and release.
My opinion is 26 is appropriate as it is a continuation of the same entity that existed before just under a different ownership structure. They still use the Bond theme, gun barrel, 007 logo etc.
But we will see what ends up happening!
Once it gets a title it will all be a moot point.
I don’t think Eon are producing, they likely won’t be involved at all. Broccoli and Wilson will still co-own the rights, but that’s more like a Danjaq situation, and the old films didn’t have ‘a Danjaq production’ on them. Eon is just another company which BB & MW own at this point, nothing to do with this film. This is a Pascal Pictures/Heyday films production.
The new ownership of Bond between BB & MW and Amazon is curious though: presumably that’s a new company taking over from Danjaq? What’s it called?
Quite interesting to see on Companies House that BB & MGW both resigned from B25 Ltd and their other Bond companies on 24th March and lawyer Ajay Patel (US) and accountant David Clapham (UK) took them over. They’re also associated with lots of ‘Leo’ production companies, which is presumably MGM from the name.
Didn't the original announcement say there would be a new entity created to hold the rights, which would be co-owned by Amazon/MGM and Eon, but the creative control was fully with Amazon/MGM? So basically a new Danjaq on top of or replacing Danjaq?
At the end of the day, it's fun to see new schism created the fandom can argue about for the next few decades (It has to be seperated by actor! No, by lead producer! No, by licence owner! No, by my own perceived continuity! The only real deal was Connery! No, everything up to Craig! No, Craig was already a different thing; it's Connery to Brosnan, then Craig, then the new guy!), but @delfloria is right in that this is currently just a discussion about a placeholder until we have a title and from then on it will go by it's acronym, just like every other film. Which opens the fun possibily of them re-using a title (a more book acurate Moonraker?) and annoy all of us all over again.
Yeah that's how I took it, and presumably it's a new company because it has to be something owned by both of them, it's just funny how there's no sign of what that is. I wonder if it'll be announced or we have to wait for the next IFP book or whatever and read in the small print who James Bond is being licensed to them by!
I would also guess that all licensing would be under review as the new entity takes control, so any new Bond books or La La Land soundtracks I would have thought might be on pause, but I guess we'll have to see.
They did not end the Eon series, as Eon is still in the MIX! Why is that so hard for some people to understand? They are still in the mix. They did not turn away. They changed rights but are still producers. Think of it like them getting promoted.
You all want this to be a bigger deal than it is so it has to change every facet of fandom. It doesn't. I hope Amazon have long moved on beyond working title at this point.
Look, we've been doing it like this on this forum for ages. CR was 'Bond 21', QOS was 'Bond 22', ..., and NTTD was 'Bond 25'. It's easiest to call the next one 'Bond 26' because 26 follows 25, and because most of us are used to doing it this way. No need to bring in McClory, Amazon, or whatever; that's just arguing for the sake of it.
Eon aren't in the mix as far as I understand it: Eon is the production company which BB & MW own but that company isn't part of B26; BB & MW's involvement comes only through the new holding company (let's call them Danjaq 2 for the time being!) which they also co-own. Eon and Danjaq2 are two completely differently companies, and only the latter is part of the Bond films going forward. Happy to be corrected if I have that wrong though.
I can well imagine BB & MW being credited as exec producers though, yeah.
Oh gosh, don't get me wrong, I'm calling it Bond 26 because it is! :)
It will be interesting to see how the credits work out on it, will it be 'Amazon MGM Studios presents..' or 'Pascal Pictures / Heyday Films presents..'? A combo of both ('Amazon presents a Pascal Pics production')?
I assume you don't like to play pranks with the forum structure, but I'd personally love it if you renamed this whole section "Bond 1: Version 2 (the Amazon one) & Beyond" for April Fool's tomorrow...