EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards (Heyman and Pascal confirmed as producers)

1525355575860

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,609
    Thank you GK, that's very kind of you.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,905
    This is a recurring pattern I've noticed since I started on this forum; someone makes a half-witted argument, @mtm calls them on it, and people get mad at him for questioning them.

    I mean, I can understand it. No one likes being contradicted. But I'd suggest swallowing your pride and actually listening to him, because he almost always makes sound, logical points.

    Count me in as a @mtm fan. Even if we don't agree on something, we don't argue about it, to the point of disrespecting each other.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 314
    Oh hey, look, it's the 'flying monkeys'. You can't make this up. I know all too well @mtm got many warnings in the past and rightfully so.
  • Posts: 517
    I've no dog in this fight but I will say that Salke herself canceled Amazon's Conan the Barbarian because she characterized it as "toxic masculinity", so I'd say if she's calling masculine franchises toxic, it's fair game to throw it back and say some things could then be "toxic femininity" without just being accused of not liking that she's a woman.

    After all, a woman has helmed this franchise since 1995, and I've never seen that be identified as a problem by anyone here.
  • Bond wrote: »
    After all, a woman has helmed this franchise since 1995, and I've never seen that be identified as a problem by anyone here.

    “You must give me the name of your occultist!” ;)
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited March 29 Posts: 314
    Bond wrote: »
    I've no dog in this fight but I will say that Salke herself canceled Amazon's Conan the Barbarian because she characterized it as "toxic masculinity", so I'd say if she's calling masculine franchises toxic, it's fair game to throw it back and say some things could then be "toxic femininity" without just being accused of not liking that she's a woman.

    After all, a woman has helmed this franchise since 1995, and I've never seen that be identified as a problem by anyone here.

    Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Common sense still exists it seems. Good man @Bond. Salke is indeed a woman who had no business helming the post she had and was rambling on about toxic masculinity. She had the audacity to annoy Barbara to no end with her uninformed bs regarding Bond. So, the alpha lady (Barbara) showed Salke who's who and probably got her ass fired, indirectly. Good riddance indeed.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,609
    Bond wrote: »
    I've no dog in this fight but I will say that Salke herself canceled Amazon's Conan the Barbarian because she characterized it as "toxic masculinity", so I'd say if she's calling masculine franchises toxic, it's fair game to throw it back and say some things could then be "toxic femininity" without just being accused of not liking that she's a woman.

    Well not really; just identifying or accusing something of being part of toxic masculinity doesn't make you toxic yourself, otherwise any man accusing her of being guilty of toxic femininity would automatically be an example of toxic masculinity themselves. It doesn't really work like that.


    Bond wrote: »
    After all, a woman has helmed this franchise since 1995, and I've never seen that be identified as a problem by anyone here.

    “You must give me the name of your occulist!” ;)

    Arf! :)) Yes indeed!
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 314
    mtm wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I've no dog in this fight but I will say that Salke herself canceled Amazon's Conan the Barbarian because she characterized it as "toxic masculinity", so I'd say if she's calling masculine franchises toxic, it's fair game to throw it back and say some things could then be "toxic femininity" without just being accused of not liking that she's a woman.

    Well not really; just identifying or accusing something of being part of toxic masculinity doesn't make you toxic yourself, otherwise any man accusing her of being guilty of toxic femininity would automatically be an example of toxic masculinity themselves. It doesn't really work like that.




    This word salad tastes yucky. The gift that keeps on giving.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,463
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I've no dog in this fight but I will say that Salke herself canceled Amazon's Conan the Barbarian because she characterized it as "toxic masculinity", so I'd say if she's calling masculine franchises toxic, it's fair game to throw it back and say some things could then be "toxic femininity" without just being accused of not liking that she's a woman.

    Well not really; just identifying or accusing something of being part of toxic masculinity doesn't make you toxic yourself, otherwise any man accusing her of being guilty of toxic femininity would automatically be an example of toxic masculinity themselves. It doesn't really work like that.


    Bond wrote: »
    After all, a woman has helmed this franchise since 1995, and I've never seen that be identified as a problem by anyone here.

    “You must give me the name of your occulist!” ;)

    Arf! :)) Yes indeed!

    Thank you @mtm - I had that one on reserve for just such an occasion!
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 314
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    Quite sure the screenwriter meant *sexy
  • edited March 29 Posts: 517
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    It was a different time, I don't think you can really compare. It never felt like GoldenEye as a whole was trying to portray M's opinion as gospel, it was just her opinion... the script still treated Bond with respect and not as a misogynist dinosaur worthy of contempt. Same with Terminator 2 in 1991 where Sarah Connor goes on a rant against men, the script and theme of the film as a whole wasn't pushing the same message of what she was saying, or if it was, it was at least subtle. At the time it was understood that these characters were representing only themselves and weren't necessarily vehicles for the writers' opinions. We also hadn't yet had "Mary Sue girlboss power" overload at that point.

    Yes social media has changed everything, but regardless of that all subtlety has disappeared in much of Hollywood's writing in recent years, and some people have come to instinctively groan and roll their eyes now when things like that are said in movies or shows because usually it'll be accompanied by other obvious progressive pushing narratives in the film and (now tired) tropes such as the Mary Sue and in addition the press will likely be gushing about it and how it's "first female" this or "powerful feminist" that and praising the film based on that rather than its merits. It's calmed down a bit in the last couple of years, but that's how it's been in the last decade or so.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,626
    Bond wrote: »
    After all, a woman has helmed this franchise since 1995, and I've never seen that be identified as a problem by anyone here.

    “You must give me the name of your occultist!” ;)

    Well played.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,463
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    Quite sure the screenwriter meant *sexy

    smell-the.png
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,260
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    Quite sure the screenwriter meant *sexy

    smell-the.png
    This is what's wrong.

    ]
    tumblr_o6zcveyQK71qk8phmo1_400.jpg

    Hey, I said it was wrong.


  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    edited March 30 Posts: 314
    Bond wrote: »
    If the internet as it is today with social media existed in 1995, it would have been glorious to see all the calm reactions to Judi Dench calling Bond a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur”.

    Glorious indeed.

    It was a different time, I don't think you can really compare. It never felt like GoldenEye as a whole was trying to portray M's opinion as gospel, it was just her opinion... the script still treated Bond with respect and not as a misogynist dinosaur worthy of contempt. Same with Terminator 2 in 1991 where Sarah Connor goes on a rant against men, the script and theme of the film as a whole wasn't pushing the same message of what she was saying, or if it was, it was at least subtle. At the time it was understood that these characters were representing only themselves and weren't necessarily vehicles for the writers' opinions. We also hadn't yet had "Mary Sue girlboss power" overload at that point.

    Yes social media has changed everything, but regardless of that all subtlety has disappeared in much of Hollywood's writing in recent years, and some people have come to instinctively groan and roll their eyes now when things like that are said in movies or shows because usually it'll be accompanied by other obvious progressive pushing narratives in the film and (now tired) tropes such as the Mary Sue and in addition the press will likely be gushing about it and how it's "first female" this or "powerful feminist" that and praising the film based on that rather than its merits. It's calmed down a bit in the last couple of years, but that's how it's been in the last decade or so.

    Goddangit, the post is strong with this one. Literally no fat and all truth. Impressive. Let me hand you this digital brewski 🍺


    @MakeshiftPython Ha, better make that two 🍻


    Two cents: Look at what's happening to the Snow White film. People have had it with these narratives and certain agendas, same with RoP and many other productions. Amazon know this now. They put in hundreds of millions of dollars into dei bogus and got the backlash. Result: Salke fired, two top producers helming Bond, no room for shits n giggles anymore. Everything is on the line.
  • edited March 30 Posts: 2,468
    I remember seeing a YouTube comment once that received about 50ish likes essentially saying that Bond died the moment Judi Dench said that monologue. Whether or not those likes were from Bond fans is debatable but it doesn’t matter when compared to the upwards of $5.4B Dollars earned from the films since GE. Much as I may criticize the Broccoli/Wilson era - the films have entered new heights especially when compared to the $2.4B combined gross during the Cubby years. So if Social Media was around in 1995, I don’t think it would’ve mattered - the films might’ve been even more successful!

    My issues with Salke are purely down to rumors that she hasn’t watched any film made before 1980. As the head of a film studio, that should be a cardinal sin - at least in my opinion.
  • Posts: 424
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    https://x.com/Borys_Kit/status/1904586348914500035

    Interestingly, Borys Kit adds their deal is only for one film as opposed to an overall.

    Is Amazon effectively signing them to "show us" deal where they have to prove they get it right before there's a longer commitment?

    Well the press release says they’re producing the next Bond film, not becoming the new producers of the Bond films: it’s in the text.

    At this point, no script, no Bond, no director.

    Getting those things in place by the end of the year is optimistic. I'd say we're a year out from an announcement. So maybe shooting begins in summer of 2026, for a 2027 release...so we're at six years right there.

    We shall see.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Excellent!! These are two amazing producers.
    But do we know if they’re huge Bond fans?

    I don't know if Pascal is a "fan" but she is certainly familiar with the production and distribution side. And as has been stated here, she was the one vehemently against the Blofeld foster brother angle in Spectre. I think she has a good eye for what works and doesn't work, both franchise-wise and audience-wise.

    Being that the rumors of Pascal and Heyman producing Bond 26 turned out to be true, I think we can take seriously the speculation that Cuarón pitched his Bond take. Not saying that you’re necessarily wrong but Amazon seems to be fast tracking production. I bet a director and screenwriter come on board before the beginning of Summer. The new Bond will take longer to find, but if it’s Cuarón and he already has a
    mtm wrote: »
    That Salke woman, talk about toxic femininity. She didn't get the gig on merit, I'm sure.

    So it's just about her being a woman is it.

    Tell me, Why is it ok to say toxic masculinity but not toxic feminity? Genuine Question. You make great posters but I don't know why you pick a fight with @buddyoldchap when he's saying the same thing everyone else is saying.

    What’s toxic about Salke’s femininity? Do I like some of her creative choices? No. Am I glad she’s not overseeing Bond? Yes. Is she a professional with a successful track record and some flops? Yes. But what creative doesn’t?

  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    I don't believe you guys. There's been corporate diversity quotas the last few years. Given the idiotic statements and actions of Ms. Salke, it's perfectly natural to question how she got her job. That's a bridge too far for some though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 30 Posts: 17,609
    I remember seeing a YouTube comment once that received about 50ish likes essentially saying that Bond died the moment Judi Dench said that monologue.

    Gosh, yes, that is a strange take; and easily disprovable as you say. To be honest I don't think it would have been as bad then if social media had been around when that came out: in the 90s and 2000s attitudes were a bit more open about these things, albeit still pretty regressive in some ways with the lads mags etc. There wasn't any pushback about the 'misogynist dinosaur' stuff, it was generally just seen as a fun new direction as far as I can remember. But some men seem to be a lot more uptight and threatened by anything like that nowadays and feel they have to fight against it, I feel like we've gone backwards in a lot of ways.
    Over Christmas there were people complaining that the BBC screened an episode of Blankety Blank with a drag queen as one of the panellists: twenty years ago it used to be hosted by one, and no one blinked an eye.
    Burgess wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    AgentM72 wrote: »
    https://x.com/Borys_Kit/status/1904586348914500035

    Interestingly, Borys Kit adds their deal is only for one film as opposed to an overall.

    Is Amazon effectively signing them to "show us" deal where they have to prove they get it right before there's a longer commitment?

    Well the press release says they’re producing the next Bond film, not becoming the new producers of the Bond films: it’s in the text.

    At this point, no script, no Bond, no director.

    Getting those things in place by the end of the year is optimistic. I'd say we're a year out from an announcement. So maybe shooting begins in summer of 2026, for a 2027 release...so we're at six years right there.

    We shall see.
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Excellent!! These are two amazing producers.
    But do we know if they’re huge Bond fans?

    I don't know if Pascal is a "fan" but she is certainly familiar with the production and distribution side. And as has been stated here, she was the one vehemently against the Blofeld foster brother angle in Spectre. I think she has a good eye for what works and doesn't work, both franchise-wise and audience-wise.

    Being that the rumors of Pascal and Heyman producing Bond 26 turned out to be true, I think we can take seriously the speculation that Cuarón pitched his Bond take.

    Are there actually solid-ish Cuarón rumours or is it just coming from extrapolation of his previous working relationship with Heyman?
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 314
    I don't believe you guys. There's been corporate diversity quotas the last few years. Given the idiotic statements and actions of Ms. Salke, it's perfectly natural to question how she got her job. That's a bridge too far for some though.

    Psst, don't let them read this article, as the truth could hurt...

    https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/07/amazon-scrubs-dei-mention-from-its-annual-report.html
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 30 Posts: 17,609
    I don't believe you guys. There's been corporate diversity quotas the last few years. Given the idiotic statements and actions of Ms. Salke, it's perfectly natural to question how she got her job. That's a bridge too far for some though.

    No, that's not really on. By its nature it calls into question how any woman would be in a senior position, which is not an attitude which can really function when it means regarding half the population of the planet with suspicion. It's not as if all men are exactly perfect winners, I'm sure there's plenty of male executives with equally dodgy or worse records - look at the amount of Electric State/Ghosted style crap coming out of the streamers, how did those guys get their jobs? Did they deserve them?
    There's a strange myth about diversity which means that talented men are getting shunted aside in favour of promoting the cleaning lady or something, whereas that's not how it works.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't believe you guys. There's been corporate diversity quotas the last few years. Given the idiotic statements and actions of Ms. Salke, it's perfectly natural to question how she got her job. That's a bridge too far for some though.

    No, that's not really on. By its nature it calls into question how any woman would be in a senior position, which is not an attitude which can really function when it means regarding half the population of the planet with suspicion. It's not as if all men are exactly perfect winners, I'm sure there's plenty of male executives with equally dodgy or worse records - look at the amount of Electric State/Ghosted style crap coming out of the streamers, how did those guys get their jobs? Did they deserve them?

    They should've thought about that before they put in quotas. Take that up with them, not with me. And please show me the executives who green-lighted Ghosted.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited March 30 Posts: 17,609
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't believe you guys. There's been corporate diversity quotas the last few years. Given the idiotic statements and actions of Ms. Salke, it's perfectly natural to question how she got her job. That's a bridge too far for some though.

    No, that's not really on. By its nature it calls into question how any woman would be in a senior position, which is not an attitude which can really function when it means regarding half the population of the planet with suspicion. It's not as if all men are exactly perfect winners, I'm sure there's plenty of male executives with equally dodgy or worse records - look at the amount of Electric State/Ghosted style crap coming out of the streamers, how did those guys get their jobs? Did they deserve them?

    They should've thought about that before they put in quotas.

    Just to repeat myself, thinking that diversity works by promoting less talented people is to misunderstand it. If all men are infallible then there's some pretty high profile examples to prove otherwise doing the rounds at the moment, in many walks of professional life. Making this about her gender is a very specific choice, unless you want to question how every man who does a bad job got his position too.
    Anyway, the way this is going puts a very bad taste in my mouth, I'll leave you to it.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    Theres no "way this is going". Everything is calm. Can you please answer my question? How do you know corporations aren't promoting less talented people? There's countless stories of them doing the above. You say I dont understand it, then don't explain how it really works.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited March 30 Posts: 8,463
    Talentless people have been hired in Hollywood for ages. That’s not gonna magically change just because corporations are scared of the wannabe dictator.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited March 30 Posts: 769
    Talentless people have been hired in Hollywood for ages. That’s not gonna magically change just because corporations are scared of the wannabe dictator.

    You mean 46 the one using autopen? the one locking up people for praying outside clinics? He's the one who championed diversity hiring, so it looks like we're in agreement over how we shouldn't hire talentless people. When you put race and gender above all, you're by definition not looking at merit.
  • Posts: 695
    mtm wrote: »
    Gosh, yes, that is a strange take; and easily disprovable as you say. To be honest I don't think it would have been as bad then if social media had been around when that came out: in the 90s and 2000s attitudes were a bit more open about these things, albeit still pretty regressive in some ways with the lads mags etc. There wasn't any pushback about the 'misogynist dinosaur' stuff, it was generally just seen as a fun new direction as far as I can remember. But some men seem to be a lot more uptight and threatened by anything like that nowadays and feel they have to fight against it, I feel like we've gone backwards in a lot of ways.
    Oh, we have definitely gone backwards. Stuff that was not alarming in any way in the past now becomes a big deal. What if The Matrix came out today? Would Trinity be considered "woke"? What if Lord of the Rings: Return of the King came out today? Would people start a huge backlash campaign against it because of that "I am no man" scene?

    In fact, nowadays the Silva flirting with Bond scene in Skyfall would be considered "woke".

    Whatever decisions they take with Bond's character, I won't be surprised if people have over the top reactions.
  • Talentless people have been hired in Hollywood for ages. That’s not gonna magically change just because corporations are scared of the wannabe dictator.

    Talentless people still somehow get work. Look no further than Uwe Boll’s latest thriller; The Dark Knight starring Armie Hammer.
    I’m not even joking this is a real project.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,463
    Talentless people have been hired in Hollywood for ages. That’s not gonna magically change just because corporations are scared of the wannabe dictator.

    When you put race and gender above all, you're by definition not looking at merit.

    giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952ibn1sl91rmovlp8uzec1u3o2u6m9eq03k643tbse&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g
Sign In or Register to comment.