EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

11516171820

Comments

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,471
    How long has Cubby been dead? 29 years!

    If you inherited a car or a house or a business from a parent, surely you would be allowed to do what you wanted with it 25-29 years later and not just keep the car/house/business exactly as it was 25-29 years before.

    It's a ridiculous point that she needed to be shackled to the past because we fans say so.

    Anyway, we should all be more concerned that we're going to get a series of films like NSNA--a film that hits the tropes but at its heart, despite a good Connery performance, does not feel like Bond.
  • Posts: 6,772
    Yes, I think they’ll play it safe. They have to. After that, they can toy around all they want. But safe isn’t boring and soulless, let’s hope they know that.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited 2:03pm Posts: 8,671
    As someone who hasn't liked the EON Bond films that came out since Casino, I'm optimistic. I think a change in approach will be a good thing and add some much needed freshness back in. I don't think they need to take too many risks either, the franchise could have used a TLD or GE, a nice steady adventure, for a while and EON just refused to kick the ball into the open net. Just a nice breezy adventure with great action scenes, and a strong introduction for the new Bond will be enough.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,471
    As someone who hasn't liked the EON Bond films that came out since Casino, I'm optimistic. I think a change in approach will be a good thing and add some much needed freshness back in. I don't think they need to take too many risks either, the franchise could have used a TLD or GE, a nice steady adventure, for a while and EON just refused to kick the ball into the open net. Just a nice breezy adventure with great action scenes, and a strong introduction for the new Bond will be enough.

    "Kicking the bill into the open net" is a lot harder than that. For every TLD or GE, there are 3-4 adjacent Bond films that are not nearly as good.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,293
    The world of James Bond is always easier in the magical mind of Mendes ;)
  • MartinBondMartinBond Trying not to muck it up again
    Posts: 869
    I'm just wondering why do so many people prefer 2 producers who haven't done any visible work in five years and likely weren't planning to do any for another five, instead of a company which does want to get things moving and has a chance of making something wonderful. Yes, Amazon might completely cock it up, but we've plenty of proof that EON can do that on their own as well...
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited 2:24pm Posts: 14,067
    MartinBond wrote: »
    I'm just wondering why do so many people prefer 2 producers who haven't done any visible work in five years and likely weren't planning to do any for another five, instead of a company which does want to get things moving and has a chance of making something wonderful. Yes, Amazon might completely cock it up, but we've plenty of proof that EON can do that on their own as well...

    Personally, it's the worry that Amazon are going to do the opposite of EON, and drain every possible drop of 'content' out of Bond that they can.

    I am happy to be proven wrong, and I hope that I am. But I don't see it being just a Bond film every 2-3 years.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 256
    Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

    At the end of the day, whichever day in the future it may be, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.

    To be fair, Shaft’s skin color is a lot more ingrained to his stories than Bond’s. The closest I can think of Bond’s whiteness actually serving under any context may be LALD where he shows up as the outsider in Harlem, but that’s about as far as his skin color had held relevance to the plot. It’s never relevant otherwise in the conceit of a gentleman spy globetrotting the world.

    Utter and absolute bogus. I'll leave it that. Just wow.
  • Posts: 4,634
    Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

    At the end of the day, whichever day in the future it may be, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.

    To be fair, Shaft’s skin color is a lot more ingrained to his stories than Bond’s. The closest I can think of Bond’s whiteness actually serving under any context may be LALD where he shows up as the outsider in Harlem, but that’s about as far as his skin color had held relevance to the plot. It’s never relevant otherwise in the conceit of a gentleman spy globetrotting the world.

    Utter and absolute bogus. I'll leave it that. Just wow.

    I’d say it’s a fair point, regardless if you agree or not.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,309
    Oh dear, this old chestnut again. Look, whatever one's views on this topic are, Bond WILL be depicted as a POC in an officially released product at some point. Some may not like it and that's fine. It doesn't make you a racist, but this is the way things are (slowly) heading. And if it's not the next guy, it'll be the guy after, or the guy after that, but it will happen. So, it's probably a good idea to use this interim period to start getting used to the idea, because, like I said, it will happen eventually.

    At the end of the day, whichever day in the future it may be, Bond shouldn't be a vehicle for false 'emancipatory' (woke) ideas. Bond is a white character with lore et all, just like Shaft has his. No one EVER in the future will even BEGIN to think to make Shaft white instead. That is pure hypocrisy. Somehow some people push for these changes because we 'owe' it to minorities. I stress Bond owes nothing to anyone, Bond is white and should remain so. He isn't there to serve perverse ideological agendas concocted by others who don't care.

    To be fair, Shaft’s skin color is a lot more ingrained to his stories than Bond’s. The closest I can think of Bond’s whiteness actually serving under any context may be LALD where he shows up as the outsider in Harlem, but that’s about as far as his skin color had held relevance to the plot. It’s never relevant otherwise in the conceit of a gentleman spy globetrotting the world.

    Utter and absolute bogus. I'll leave it that. Just wow.

    Agree to disagree? :D
  • Posts: 3,341
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    My biggest worry is that if it doesn't work out, Amazon will shrug their shoulders and put Bond in drawer or worse stop making it a big screen experience.

    EON needed Bond to work, that's the difference.

    Amazon really need this to work too. They don't invest billions, just to shrug their shoulders if it doesn't work and write it off as a mistake.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 3:18pm Posts: 6,471
    Oh, they won't shelve Bond because they paid a lot for MGM and then Eon's rights...they'll just keep trying different iterations of Bond until something breaks through.

    If Eon with its (shall we say) deliberate pace couldn't resist using Spectre the moment they got the rights, Amazon is certainly not going to sit around and not exercise their Bond rights to the max.

    Amazon might even flood the zone with Bond, at least until the copyright expires.

    I guarantee you that they are meeting round-the-clock now and probably have been as soon as they realized Broccoli and Wilson would sell. This is the crown jewel of MGM, not The Pink Panther or Rocky or Legally Blonde.

    It's still shocking to me that this happened.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,614
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.
  • Posts: 6,772
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    I agree. It was the script that made CR what it is. I read it in advance, and the film I made inside my head was cool as well ;)
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 256
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    Do you even grasp what a director does? *mind = blown*. A script is a script is a script. Text on paper. To go from there to Casino Royale means blood, sweat and tears and then some. A little more respect for Campbell who also has given us the classic GoldenEye as well, I'd say.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 3:59pm Posts: 6,471
    I'm sure Campbell was involved in the casting as well, which was stellar (even though he wanted Cavill).

    CR captured lightning in a bottle.

    If you watch the CR documentary, Barbara Broccoli talks about how finally obtaining the rights to the CR novel was the crown jewel that Eon had long sought, and for good reason.

    Sigh. I am still sad about this.
  • Posts: 6,772
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    Do you even grasp what a director does? *mind = blown*. A script is a script is a script. Text on paper. To go from there to Casino Royale means blood, sweat and tears and then some. A little more respect for Campbell who also has given us the classic GoldenEye as well, I'd say.

    I personally prefer the directorial work he did in GE. CR’s script would’ve worked in many different hands, IMO.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 256
    Univex wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    Do you even grasp what a director does? *mind = blown*. A script is a script is a script. Text on paper. To go from there to Casino Royale means blood, sweat and tears and then some. A little more respect for Campbell who also has given us the classic GoldenEye as well, I'd say.

    I personally prefer the directorial work he did in GE. CR’s script would’ve worked in many different hands, IMO.

    That may be so, but still CR as we know it looks the way it does because of Martin and Phil. The guy has talent.
  • Posts: 2,043
    Univex wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Seve wrote: »
    Also explains why NTTD ends as it does... Babs dropping the mic

    I had the same thought when I heard the news.

    Being one of the naysayers regarding NTTD, I'm not doing too much hand-wringing about this sale. People seem worried that Amazon will take the screen Bond in a direction they won't like, well that already happened for me.
    I'm less worried, more interested. And I really couldn't imagine EON carrying on doing 'classic' style pre-Craig adventures. When you look at the long wait between Bonds, and them killing almost everyone off in the last film, this news isn't much of a surprise, is it?


    Put it this way, I was bought up in the Moore years, with a new adventure every couple of years. Now, in 2025, I haven't enjoyed a big screen Bond film for ten years. If Amazon start pumping out regular fun Bond adventures with an eye on the books, to keep them grounded, I'll be quite happy.

    I agree with you, to a point. I have never been a flag waving fan of the Craig era, but.... BUT, I do feel that worse can be done to Bond. It only takes a cursory glance at how characters have been cast/recast in recent years, to see what might be in store for Bond.

    You mean with bad actors? There’s always those around.
    I’m sure you don’t mean anything else.

    Could you bookmark my post, i'd like to see it again in 2 years time. It'd be nice to see if i'm right or wrong.

    Is there a reason you feel you can’t say what you mean explicitly?

    Absolutely not.

    Great: go ahead.
    It's always nice to have old posts that I had forgotten about, being brought up. It's like having my own personal archivist.

    I have a memory, yes, I don't think that's all that weird.

    I think Bond should be straight, white and male.

    Bond IS straight, white and male. Changing that would be changing Bond. If they want to change Bond, they can and will, nonetheless it will be changing Bond, so it won’t be Ian Fleming’s James Bond, and to a degree, it won’t be EON’s James Bond, but Amazon’s James Bond. Let’s just hope they’ll be one and the same. Why would they buy the golden goose just to kill it with experimentations? They’d be mad. But hey, maybe they are. Let’s just hope the person they put up to the task will have a lucid comprehension of what the character is all about. Maybe we’ll get a Fleming fan? Who knows? Too early to tell.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    I did some research on Amazon. It's mind boggling data.
    Amazon is
    second-largest company in the world (based on consolidated revenue according to the Fortune Global 500 2024 rankings),
    12th-most visited website in the world,
    second-largest private employer in the United
    In 2021, it surpassed Walmart as the world's largest retailer outside of China,
    As of 2023, it is the world's largest online retailer.

    The second biggest revenue company in the world own James Bond - has full creative control. Eon had no chance to determine the direction of the franchise. How can you tell the second biggest company in the world "er, actually we don't think your ideas are good."

    It was never going to happen.

    Broccoli and Wilson were never going to win the creativity battle with Amazon. My guess is Cubby Broccoli would have tried to flatter Amazon. That might have led to a suitable compromise. Imagine going to Amazon studio meetings and not saying you're "f-king idiots" but doing the opposite. "Yes, your ideas about Bond not being a hero sound fascinating. I'm sure we can do a screenplay making Bond more heroic. And maybe you'll consider raising the budget?"

    Something like that. Give Amazon the bullsh*t they wanna hear. Try to flatter their collective ego and that way they're more likely to compromise.

    Barbara Broccoli is not as smart as some people claim. She was extremely stupid to kill off James Bond because that automatically led to zero plan moving forward. As soon as she agreed to kill off Bond that meant the franchise was in limbo. No clear idea what to do next. A monumental error of judgement.

    And the second monumental error of judgement was not to try to appease Bezos, Salke and the other executives at Amazon MGM Studios. If she did call them "f-king idiots" that automatically dropped Amazon's respect for Eon. It's not a good business strategy because you show yourself to be too emotional or too unwilling to compromise. Barbara Broccoli could and did play hardball with the old MGM because they needed Eon but Amazon doesn't need Eon. All they need is Eon's 50 percent stake to completely own Bond or the next best option - own full creative control.

    Said in hindsight, the Eon Bond film franchise was doomed when

    1) Craig and Eon foolishly, recklessly killed off Bond and thereby sabotaged a clear way forward for the franchise (which I would consider gross negligence),

    2) Refusing or unable to compromise with Amazon. Eon's legal team should have reminded Broccoli - "you're dealing with the second richest company on the planet. You better be prepared to be civil to them and compromise or it's game over. Amazon will file the most harsh lawsuit possible and potentially bankrupt you."

    If she never adopted that approach she was doomed to failure.

    It's possible she wanted to quit anyway so maybe it all worked out for her. Killing Bond is the most compelling evidence she wanted out.

    My guess is Cubby Broccoli would have found a different way. He wouldn't have killed off Bond and he would have tried his very best to co-produce with Amazon. Sadly it wasn't meant to be.

    Had Barbara made the decision to kill Bond off because she knew the Amazon deal was on the horizon, and she knew she would ultimately have to sell out, then I can understand a bit more the reason to kill Bond off at the end of NTTD. In some strange way I even respect it. Cinematic Bond was her family creation, born with her father and killed off by the daughter.

    But, as others have mentioned here before, if the Amazon deal was not on the horizon, then I still do not understand the reckless need to kill off Bond in NTTD. For me it was unforgivable, the biggest single damage she did to her father's legacy.

    This is why I am pleased, ecstatic even, that Amazon are taking over. It remains to be seen what they will do with it, but I am far more hopeful for Bond 26 now, than I was this time last week under EON's reign.

    IM pretty sure killing off Bond was Craigs idea and it was one of the reasons they got him back.
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    edited 4:45pm Posts: 3,224
    Tbf, Eva Green went to Daniel Craig and voiced her misgivings over the shower scene, Dan backed her up and it was shot the way that Dan and Eva wanted it done. It's one of the greatest scenes in the whole series, for me.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,309
    I believe the original conceit was that Vesper was supposed to be in her underwear, but having her wear her dress in the shower did a better job of selling her distress.
  • Posts: 2,043
    MartinBond wrote: »
    I'm just wondering why do so many people prefer 2 producers who haven't done any visible work in five years and likely weren't planning to do any for another five, instead of a company which does want to get things moving and has a chance of making something wonderful. Yes, Amazon might completely cock it up, but we've plenty of proof that EON can do that on their own as well...
    for many its about quality vs quantity. People feel EON would give better quality. But like you said if EON weren't planning on doing anything for quite awhile then maybe it is better to give it to a company that will do something.
  • Posts: 1,099
    What have I been reading here on this thread . . . "I wouldn't mind a black bisexual Bond". Are you MAD!
    If the character is still supposed to be Ian Fleming's James Bond, then I think it should stay as close to the literary description as much as possible - character traits, personality, description, everything..

    Which surely anyone with the power of critical thinking would agree with.
  • edited 5:02pm Posts: 11,216
    Not really sure what to think of this news.

    Sad that it's the end of an era and that we will no longer see the Broccoli name before the title in the credits, but I suppose it was just a matter of time before this eventually happened.

    To be honest I'm a little sceptical. Having seen the Bond-esque amazon tv series Citadel in 2023 I remember finding it very glossy but also very forgettable. Can't remember anything about the plot or the characters or the action. I did like the Jack Ryan series though and I've heard good things about their Jack Reacher series eventhough I haven't seen it.

    I guess I just hope Bond doesn't become another bland source of "content" for Amazon and that they create something we will at the very least remember 5 years later.

    I'm not going to pretend that all the Eon films were great movies, but a legacy was created that we are still talking about now.
  • buddyoldchapbuddyoldchap Formerly known as JeremyBondon
    Posts: 256
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Not really sure what to think of this news.

    Sad that it's the end of an era and that we will no longer see the Broccoli name before the title in the credits, but I suppose it was just a matter of time before this eventually happened.

    To be honest I'm a little sceptical. Having seen the Bond-esque amazon tv series Citadel in 2023 I remember finding it very glossy but also very forgettable. Can't remember anything about the plot or the characters or the action. I did like the Jack Ryan series though and I've heard good things about their Jack Reacher series eventhough I haven't seen it.

    I guess I just hope Bond doesn't become another bland source of "content" for Amazon and that they create something we will at the very least remember 5 years later.

    I'm not going to pretend that all the Eon films were great movies, but a legacy was created that we are still talking about now.

    Content = corporal quantitative digital vomit
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,309
    What have I been reading here on this thread . . . "I wouldn't mind a black bisexual Bond". Are you MAD!
    If the character is still supposed to be Ian Fleming's James Bond, then I think it should stay as close to the literary description as much as possible - character traits, personality, description, everything..

    Which surely anyone with the power of critical thinking would agree with.

    @ColonelAdamski my critical thinking is working just fine.
  • Posts: 11,216
    BAIN123 wrote: »
    Not really sure what to think of this news.

    Sad that it's the end of an era and that we will no longer see the Broccoli name before the title in the credits, but I suppose it was just a matter of time before this eventually happened.

    To be honest I'm a little sceptical. Having seen the Bond-esque amazon tv series Citadel in 2023 I remember finding it very glossy but also very forgettable. Can't remember anything about the plot or the characters or the action. I did like the Jack Ryan series though and I've heard good things about their Jack Reacher series eventhough I haven't seen it.

    I guess I just hope Bond doesn't become another bland source of "content" for Amazon and that they create something we will at the very least remember 5 years later.

    I'm not going to pretend that all the Eon films were great movies, but a legacy was created that we are still talking about now.

    Content = corporal quantitative digital vomit

    I'd like to think that someone involved in the production of the next Bond film/tv series will have at least some knowledge of the source and more than a passing awareness of the previous 25 films.

  • Posts: 11,216
    TripAces wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Lots of discussion re who they will cast, who will direct, music etc etc but IMHO, THE key factor is script. We have all seem Bond movies let down by poor (very poor scripts), if there is one thing Amazon (and fans) need right now (or soon), it's a great script.

    A great script + Martin Campbell = great Bond film.

    A great script + any director = great Bond film

    There was nothing Campbell did in CR that was noteworthy except the pullback from Bond and Vesper in the shower...and it was Craig who had to fight for that scene to work the way it did.

    - the opening scene
    - the Terminator style knife showdown between Bond and Domitrios amongst the passing members of the public
    - the cut when Bond finds the dinner jacket on the bed in the hotel
    - the camera pan when Solange is discovered dead
    - the staging of the dinner scene with Bond and Vesper
    - the staging of the torture scene

    ...to name a few.
  • edited 5:32pm Posts: 187
    Univex wrote: »
    Yes, I think they’ll play it safe. They have to. After that, they can toy around all they want. But safe isn’t boring and soulless, let’s hope they know that.

    @Univex I hope they make the safe choice and stay with safe choices until they don't want to make bond films anymore.
  • edited 5:32pm Posts: 187
    What have I been reading here on this thread . . . "I wouldn't mind a black bisexual Bond". Are you MAD!
    If the character is still supposed to be Ian Fleming's James Bond, then I think it should stay as close to the literary description as much as possible - character traits, personality, description, everything..

    Which surely anyone with the power of critical thinking would agree with.

    No one has that anymore
Sign In or Register to comment.