007 heading to streaming? Amazon buys MGM for $8.45 billion!

1101113151630

Comments

  • edited May 2021 Posts: 121
    Since Amazon has deep pockets, how about this scenario? BOND 26 with THE new Bond actor in 2024 (3 years after NTTD), and Danny Boyle's Bond film before that, with Daniel Craig or a one-off Bond actor. Think of it as Bond 25b. It could have a lower budget than Bond movies usually do nowadays and could premiere on Amazon prime. (Bond 26 would premiere in theaters of course.)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited June 2021 Posts: 4,588

    Good break down of what Amazon have acquired.

    Interesting. As a collector of Physical media, this news concerned me. I'm still sceptical to be honest.

    I am on the flipside, getting rid of all my physical media. I have ripped all of my Bond DVDs, including all of the "extras." I have also ripped most of my other movies, too, and converted them to MP4s--quality is top notch. (There is a way to do this through Handbrake, but I won't tell.) In the trash those discs have gone. I have streamlined and love it.

    I keep everything on a server (Plex) through which I can access and stream all of my collection from anywhere.

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2021 Posts: 16,574
    Obviously like most people I think the likelihood of spinoffs is very low and kind of all face the same problem which is that Bond without Bond seems a bit pointless, but how about this?
    'The Man With The Golden Gun'- a prequel series set in the 60s/70s following Francisco Scaramanga as he travels the world, living the high life and basically acting like James Bond, bedding beautiful women and driving fast cars, as he builds his business of being the greatest assassin in the world. Taking on jobs for the KGB, eliminating his most dangerous competitors (maybe even coming up against Spectre as well as MI6 or the CIA), and generally being sardonic and supercool. He's sort of like Bond without being Bond and can be a bit more ruthless and nasty occasionally so would be a fun subject for a high quality TV show because he can be really morally dubious- even losing sometimes. Plus he's got his iconic golden gun and isn't averse to a gadget or two so it would feel like Bond's world and you'd have a substitue for 007 who can be just as charismatic and interesting as Bond himself.
    He could be a baddie one episode and a good guy the next (depending on his target), plus as he's not really a Fleming character anymore the makers could could characterise him however they want. And as it's a period production you could even adapt the odd Fleming moment here and there.
    I'd watch that :D
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,714
    mtm wrote: »
    Obviously like most people I think the likelihood of spinoffs is very low and kind of all face the same problem which is that Bond without Bond seems a bit pointless, but how about this?
    'The Man With The Golden Gun'- a prequel series set in the 60s/70s following Francisco Scaramanga as he travels the world, living the high life and basically acting like James Bond, bedding beautiful women and driving fast cars, as he builds his business of being the greatest assassin in the world. Taking on jobs for the KGB, eliminating his most dangerous competitors (maybe even coming up against Spectre as well as MI6 or the CIA), and generally being sardonic and supercool. He's sort of like Bond without being Bond and can be a bit more ruthless and nasty occasionally so would be a fun subject for a high quality TV show because he can be really morally dubious- even losing sometimes. Plus he's got his iconic golden gun and isn't averse to a gadget or two so it would feel like Bond's world and you'd have a substitue for 007 who can be just as charismatic and interesting as Bond himself.
    He could be a baddie one episode and a good guy the next (depending on his target), plus as he's not really a Fleming character anymore the makers could could characterise him however they want. And as it's a period production you could even adapt the odd Fleming moment here and there.
    I'd watch that :D

    Me too. But of course then they have to remake the film....
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    Obviously like most people I think the likelihood of spinoffs is very low and kind of all face the same problem which is that Bond without Bond seems a bit pointless, but how about this?
    'The Man With The Golden Gun'- a prequel series set in the 60s/70s following Francisco Scaramanga as he travels the world, living the high life and basically acting like James Bond, bedding beautiful women and driving fast cars, as he builds his business of being the greatest assassin in the world. Taking on jobs for the KGB, eliminating his most dangerous competitors (maybe even coming up against Spectre as well as MI6 or the CIA), and generally being sardonic and supercool. He's sort of like Bond without being Bond and can be a bit more ruthless and nasty occasionally so would be a fun subject for a high quality TV show because he can be really morally dubious- even losing sometimes. Plus he's got his iconic golden gun and isn't averse to a gadget or two so it would feel like Bond's world and you'd have a substitue for 007 who can be just as charismatic and interesting as Bond himself.
    He could be a baddie one episode and a good guy the next (depending on his target), plus as he's not really a Fleming character anymore the makers could could characterise him however they want. And as it's a period production you could even adapt the odd Fleming moment here and there.
    I'd watch that :D

    Me too. But of course then they have to remake the film....

    Yeah, that is kind of what this - very good idea - runs up against, I feel. Is it the origin story of the Christopher Lee version? Is it the literary version? Is it a new amalgamation that is a set-up for a major Bond film or do it the other way around where the film re-make comes first and then, if the character works there, they do a prequel series?
    Any which way you slice it, a defining decision producers and writers would have to make is how much the eventual end of the story factors into it at the beginning. We all know that - like all bad guys - Scaramanga exists as a fictional character so that Bond can kill him. That is a heavy shadow to hang over a show that would have to balance light and dark anyway.
    Now that I am thinking about it, this could be an interesting way to bridge the gap between Literary Bond and film Bond, where the one is absolutely aware and informed by the fact that his job is probably going to kill him quite early, whereas that is not really something that is considered all that much in the films, I think. But then you lose the fun, sardonic, supercool anti-hero thing that kind of makes the idea worthwhile in the first place. Maybe I have just talked myself into a competely seperate strawman of a show :-?

    As a more general note: I don't think we really know yet how intertwining TV (streaming) shows and blockbuster film franchises really works. Everyone is pointing towards the MCU, but they have only this year started to do TV shows with (kind of) main characters from the films and we have yet to see a film - I think - that builds on developments from a TV series. Star Wars may be further along, but I am not really deep into both of those franchises and follow it more on a meta-level from the sidelines. As far as I understand it, The Clone Wars did a great job of basically filling out and re-explaining all of the stuff that didn't really make sense in the prequel films. So maybe that is a way to go: If something doesn't work (say they reveal that you're big bad is not only behind all of the plots of the previous three films but also your protagonists former foster brother. Just as a random idea), you can go back and flesh it out and explain it more. On the other hand, that is a bit of a downer creatively I would imagine. If they came out tomorrow and said: First project is "Brofeld Begins", I don't think our reaction would be all that positive :))
  • Posts: 2,171
    MaxCasino wrote: »

    Interesting that even after his experience with the series, both good (SF) and bad (SP), that he would be public in his support of EoN and the way the series is run. Good on him I say.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2021 Posts: 16,574
    mtm wrote: »
    Obviously like most people I think the likelihood of spinoffs is very low and kind of all face the same problem which is that Bond without Bond seems a bit pointless, but how about this?
    'The Man With The Golden Gun'- a prequel series set in the 60s/70s following Francisco Scaramanga as he travels the world, living the high life and basically acting like James Bond, bedding beautiful women and driving fast cars, as he builds his business of being the greatest assassin in the world. Taking on jobs for the KGB, eliminating his most dangerous competitors (maybe even coming up against Spectre as well as MI6 or the CIA), and generally being sardonic and supercool. He's sort of like Bond without being Bond and can be a bit more ruthless and nasty occasionally so would be a fun subject for a high quality TV show because he can be really morally dubious- even losing sometimes. Plus he's got his iconic golden gun and isn't averse to a gadget or two so it would feel like Bond's world and you'd have a substitue for 007 who can be just as charismatic and interesting as Bond himself.
    He could be a baddie one episode and a good guy the next (depending on his target), plus as he's not really a Fleming character anymore the makers could could characterise him however they want. And as it's a period production you could even adapt the odd Fleming moment here and there.
    I'd watch that :D

    Me too. But of course then they have to remake the film....

    Yeah, that is kind of what this - very good idea - runs up against, I feel. Is it the origin story of the Christopher Lee version? Is it the literary version? Is it a new amalgamation that is a set-up for a major Bond film or do it the other way around where the film re-make comes first and then, if the character works there, they do a prequel series?
    Any which way you slice it, a defining decision producers and writers would have to make is how much the eventual end of the story factors into it at the beginning. We all know that - like all bad guys - Scaramanga exists as a fictional character so that Bond can kill him. That is a heavy shadow to hang over a show that would have to balance light and dark anyway.

    Oh it's the Chris Lee version (although recast in the same way you recast Bond- not worrying about the likeness too much), and then after that you just don't worry about it too much! :) No need to remake the film, although if there was a Bond film which didn't live up to its potential it's that one.
    But the benefit of the Chris Lee version is you can slide some elements of Fleming's Scaramanga in if you want because he's not really all that well-defined in the movie. You can basically do whatever you want with him- and Bond continuity is lax enough for him to not need to even end up where the film starts anyway. I just think if you have to have a Bond TV show which doesn't feature Bond, you may as well have the anti-Bond who still does all of the things we like watching 007 do. And the Golden Gun is a really strong bit of iconography which people still recognise.
    Imagine doing a golden gunbarrel sequence! The guy walks in from the left, framed by the golden gunbarrel, gets to the middle and turns, and he's shot dead. The camera zooms out of the gunbarrel to see Scaramanga blowing the smoke from it :D
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    MaxCasino wrote: »

    Thanks for sharing mate. That was a really interesting read, I like hearing John's perspective as he has been one of the key people in the room. Clearly he is a talented guy
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2021 Posts: 5,970
    John is great. If he ever wanted to come back or if EON ever wanted him to have another crack, I wouldn't mind. From what we did see of the Spectre drafts, it seemed he had the better ideas...

    ...and after all, he did write one of my favourite shows, and the one that I think is one of the best written out there - Penny Dreadful.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Mr_Beach wrote: »
    Since Amazon has deep pockets, how about this scenario? BOND 26 with THE new Bond actor in 2024 (3 years after NTTD), and Danny Boyle's Bond film before that, with Daniel Craig or a one-off Bond actor. Think of it as Bond 25b. It could have a lower budget than Bond movies usually do nowadays and could premiere on Amazon prime. (Bond 26 would premiere in theaters of course.)

    They already tried with Boyle and it didn’t work out. If NTTD will be well received they will try to bring Fukunaga back, imo.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    I never really understood the attraction to Danny Boyle for Bond. Don't get me wrong he's a talented director, make no mistake about it, but I could never picture him for Bond.
    If I'm being honest, I was much more excited when Cary was announced because he seemed to understand what makes Bond tick, perhaps more so than Boyle
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Obviously like most people I think the likelihood of spinoffs is very low and kind of all face the same problem which is that Bond without Bond seems a bit pointless, but how about this?
    'The Man With The Golden Gun'- a prequel series set in the 60s/70s following Francisco Scaramanga as he travels the world, living the high life and basically acting like James Bond, bedding beautiful women and driving fast cars, as he builds his business of being the greatest assassin in the world. Taking on jobs for the KGB, eliminating his most dangerous competitors (maybe even coming up against Spectre as well as MI6 or the CIA), and generally being sardonic and supercool. He's sort of like Bond without being Bond and can be a bit more ruthless and nasty occasionally so would be a fun subject for a high quality TV show because he can be really morally dubious- even losing sometimes. Plus he's got his iconic golden gun and isn't averse to a gadget or two so it would feel like Bond's world and you'd have a substitue for 007 who can be just as charismatic and interesting as Bond himself.
    He could be a baddie one episode and a good guy the next (depending on his target), plus as he's not really a Fleming character anymore the makers could could characterise him however they want. And as it's a period production you could even adapt the odd Fleming moment here and there.
    I'd watch that :D

    Me too. But of course then they have to remake the film....

    Yeah, that is kind of what this - very good idea - runs up against, I feel. Is it the origin story of the Christopher Lee version? Is it the literary version? Is it a new amalgamation that is a set-up for a major Bond film or do it the other way around where the film re-make comes first and then, if the character works there, they do a prequel series?
    Any which way you slice it, a defining decision producers and writers would have to make is how much the eventual end of the story factors into it at the beginning. We all know that - like all bad guys - Scaramanga exists as a fictional character so that Bond can kill him. That is a heavy shadow to hang over a show that would have to balance light and dark anyway.

    Oh it's the Chris Lee version (although recast in the same way you recast Bond- not worrying about the likeness too much), and then after that you just don't worry about it too much! :) No need to remake the film, although if there was a Bond film which didn't live up to its potential it's that one.
    But the benefit of the Chris Lee version is you can slide some elements of Fleming's Scaramanga in if you want because he's not really all that well-defined in the movie. You can basically do whatever you want with him- and Bond continuity is lax enough for him to not need to even end up where the film starts anyway. I just think if you have to have a Bond TV show which doesn't feature Bond, you may as well have the anti-Bond who still does all of the things we like watching 007 do. And the Golden Gun is a really strong bit of iconography which people still recognise.
    Imagine doing a golden gunbarrel sequence! The guy walks in from the left, framed by the golden gunbarrel, gets to the middle and turns, and he's shot dead. The camera zooms out of the gunbarrel to see Scaramanga blowing the smoke from it :D

    Oh, you know how I like to worry too much and overthink things ;-)..
    Denbigh wrote: »
    John is great. If he ever wanted to come back or if EON ever wanted him to have another crack, I wouldn't mind. From what we did see of the Spectre drafts, it seemed he had the better ideas...

    ...and after all, he did write one of my favourite shows, and the one that I think is one of the best written out there - Penny Dreadful.

    I had no idea who John Logan was. I had heard the name in conjunction with SF and especially SP, but had no idea until right now what his list of credits looked like. Wow.
    I wouldn't mind giving him a shot at the re-invention of Bond for the next actor, but he slams the door on himself with that Op-Ed, doesn't he?

    As for the content of the piece, I fear I don't agree with him on all points. To simply position the Broccolis as these careful family artisans who throw everything into the wind for an artistic vision is much too simplistic, isn't it? "They [the Bond films] were never created with lawyers and accountants and e-commerce mass marketing pollsters hovering in the background." I mean, try creating an artistic masterpiece without the proper licence and see what happens.
    As for bowing to audience pressures, it is very well documented how Bond films have changed to adapt to current action and blockbuster film trends of their various times.
    There is of course a kernel of truth to this general argument. All things being equal, Eon is mainly focussed on what maximizes the Bond-brand, whereas Amazon is interested in maximizing the Amazon-brand. But sometimes a new, outside voice in the room can help, too. For every "Silva should come on to Bond a bit" there is a "Bond will watch Tanner kill himself", which - as far as I know - was a Logan idea for SP that got thankfully nixed by Sony execs...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited June 2021 Posts: 8,201
    I think what makes Bond films special is that it’s largely a family owned business that goes beyond just the Broccolis and that’s part of what makes it special from other production companies. EON could have exploited Bond like so many other properties have been, by attempting so many different spin-offs. Steve McQueen proposed a Naomie Harris Moneypenny spin-off that might have generated a lot of buzz due to the pedigree involved, but they didn’t go for it. The only notable exceptions were James Bond Jr and the cancelled Jinx spin-off, but that was long ago now.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,574
    Steve McQueen, really? I didn't know that. I hope they considered that carefully, a Harris Moneypenny spinoff feels like it could work to me.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Like I said before all this is great publicity for No Time to Die haha :D
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    Who wrote that article? It's locked behind a paywall for me.
  • Posts: 3,164
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Who wrote that article? It's locked behind a paywall for me.

    John Logan.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Who wrote that article? It's locked behind a paywall for me.

    It was written by John Logan who co-wrote Skyfall and Spectre.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    The guy had some crazy ideas for sure, but there are some things that he wrote for Bond 24 that they quickly ditched, and I really think they should've kept some of them.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The guy had some crazy ideas for sure, but there are some things that he wrote for Bond 24 that they quickly ditched, and I really think they should've kept some of them.

    They'll probably turn up at some point in a future Bond film then. If the history of the Bond films has taught us anything it is that nothing is ever really thrown away unless it is a terrible idea like making Dr No a monkey.
  • Posts: 2,919
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Who wrote that article? It's locked behind a paywall for me.

    The major paragraphs were excerpted in an earlier post.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,588
    Revelator wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    John Logan’s take on the matter.

    That's got me a little more worried. Key points:

    "Bond isn’t just another franchise, not a Marvel or a DC; it is a family business that has been carefully nurtured and shepherded through the changing times by the Broccoli/Wilson family. Work sessions on Skyfall and Spectre were like hearty discussions around the dinner table."

    "The current deal with Amazon gives Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson, who own 50 percent of the Bond empire, ironclad assurances of continued artistic control. But will this always be the case? What happens if a bruising corporation like Amazon begins to demand a voice in the process? What happens to the comradeship and quality control if there’s an Amazonian overlord with analytics parsing every decision?"

    "From my experience, here’s what happens to movies when such concerns start invading the creative process: Everything gets watered down to the most anodyne and easily consumable version of itself. The movie becomes an inoffensive shadow of a thing, not the thing itself. There are no more rough edges or flights of cinematic madness. The fire and passion are gradually drained away as original ideas and voices are subsumed by commercial concerns, corporate oversight and polling data."

    "In the context of the larger company, Amazon Prime Video is not chiefly about artists. It’s about attracting and retaining customers. And when bigger companies start having a say in iconic characters or franchises, the companies tend to want more, not better, and the quality differential can vary wildly, project to project."

    "Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson are the champions of James Bond. They keep the corporate and commercial pressures outside the door. Nor are they motivated by them. That’s why we don’t have a mammoth Bond Cinematic Universe, with endless anemic variations of 007 sprouting up on TV or streaming or in spinoff movies. The Bond movies are truly the most bespoke and handmade films I’ve ever worked on. That’s why they are original, thorny, eccentric and special. They were never created with lawyers and accountants and e-commerce mass marketing pollsters hovering in the background."

    I share Logan's concerns only to a point.

    As I have noted earlier, Amazon won't mess with a good thing. That's bad business, and Amazon didn't get where it is today by making stupid business decisions. Disney's purchase of Marvel is similar. To the best of my knowledge, Marvel maintains creative control.

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited June 2021 Posts: 5,970
    I think the whole thing just works as a "warning" or at least a heads up to people out there, or even those at Amazon who think the company will be able to get super involved in the franchise's future, that James Bond remains and will remain an EON-lead franchise - and it's probably needed cause even after EON's own comments, people still suspect a full Amazon takeover.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited June 2021 Posts: 6,356
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The guy had some crazy ideas for sure, but there are some things that he wrote for Bond 24 that they quickly ditched, and I really think they should've kept some of them.

    They'll probably turn up at some point in a future Bond film then. If the history of the Bond films has taught us anything it is that nothing is ever really thrown away unless it is a terrible idea like making Dr No a monkey.

    That's the thing about brainstorming--a writer should be encouraged to pitch wild ideas and be paid to write treatments, etc. Wild ideas might lead somewhere good.

    A writer who pitched "M dies" in 1975 might have been laughed out of the room.

    But in 2009...
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,588
    Denbigh wrote: »
    I think the whole thing just works as a "warning" or at least a heads up to people out there, or even those at Amazon who think the company will be able to get super involved in the franchise's future, that James Bond remains and will remain an EON-lead franchise - and it's probably needed cause even after EON's own comments, people still suspect a full Amazon takeover.

    I agree.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,338
    echo wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    The guy had some crazy ideas for sure, but there are some things that he wrote for Bond 24 that they quickly ditched, and I really think they should've kept some of them.

    They'll probably turn up at some point in a future Bond film then. If the history of the Bond films has taught us anything it is that nothing is ever really thrown away unless it is a terrible idea like making Dr No a monkey.

    That's the thing about brainstorming--a writer should be encouraged to pitch wild ideas and be paid to write treatments, etc. Wild ideas might lead somewhere good.

    A writer who pitched "M dies" in 1975 might have been laughed out of the room.

    But in 2009...

    Yes, given the wildly divergent range in styles and tones of Bond films from 1962 onwards it's a good idea not to throw out what may seem like wild ideas at the time. They could be revisited in a later Bond film of a different style and tone which can come along soon given the oscillations even within the same Bond actor's films and certainly between actors's films.
  • Posts: 1,165
    mtm wrote: »
    Steve McQueen, really? I didn't know that. I hope they considered that carefully, a Harris Moneypenny spinoff feels like it could work to me.
    Not true. It wasn’t Steve McQueen, it was Barry Jenkins. Harris has spoken publicly about this.
  • Posts: 1,976
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I never really understood the attraction to Danny Boyle for Bond. Don't get me wrong he's a talented director, make no mistake about it, but I could never picture him for Bond.
    If I'm being honest, I was much more excited when Cary was announced because he seemed to understand what makes Bond tick, perhaps more so than Boyle

    Still would love to see his script for Bond 25.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 13,901
    Maybe this cartoon outlived its validity.

    Posting anyway. The aim does seem pretty true.

    800.png

  • Bentley007Bentley007 Manitoba, Canada
    Posts: 579
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    I never really understood the attraction to Danny Boyle for Bond. Don't get me wrong he's a talented director, make no mistake about it, but I could never picture him for Bond.
    If I'm being honest, I was much more excited when Cary was announced because he seemed to understand what makes Bond tick, perhaps more so than Boyle

    Still would love to see his script for Bond 25.

    As would I
Sign In or Register to comment.