EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

13637383941

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,304
    Yes, excellent post. I guess they could possibly get a Young Bond show going as you can kind of retrofit that into any new continuity, but I guess you do want it in the same tone.

    To be honest I reckon the very first thing we'll see will be some sort of retrospective documentary on the Bond series in some fashion, or a 007 lifestyle TV show or something. I think the dramas will come later.
  • Posts: 4,736
    I can see a young Bond based on Higson’s novels being a thing I guess. But I’m not sure how much legs it’d have. I can see it going a bit like Netflix’s A Series of Unfortunate Events adaptation a while back - that’s to say relatively well made and perhaps even critically well reviewed, but a bit short lived and of limited interest (honestly, most people I know rate the Jim Carry film higher, and I can see why). Even with that comparison in mind I think few Bond fans were introduced to the series through those books and there’s not a massive amount of nostalgia for them (it’s there, but not a massive amount). So ASOUE has an advantage in that area.

    We’ll see. I can imagine a lot of these ideas not quite working in practice. And hey, I’m fine with some Bond documentaries.
  • Posts: 1,674
    007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Amazon had "approached the Broccolis with pitches for a TV series based on Moneypenny, another about Felix Leiter, and “maybe even something involving a female 007.” This met with disapproval.

    I suppose these are what we are most likely to see soon. These will be easier and quicker to get off the ground than casting and promoting a new Bond actor.

    The major problem I can see with these ideas are that they really need a new Bond era to establish these incarnations of the characters and the actors playing them (and honestly, that’s a tricky sell - would Jeffery Wright have signed on to play Leiter in CR had there been a clause in his contract stating he had to do 3 series of a tv show playing the character? I don’t think it’s worth it for an established character actor, and is in many ways a commitment comparable to playing Bond in that scenario).

    They could of course go in a different direction with it - do a Moneypenny adaptation set in the 60s, a Felix Leiter adaptation set in a different ‘timeline’, but at some point I think that becomes disjointed and not even instantly recognisable as even being part of the 007 brand to a portion of ordinary viewers. Even if it is, they’d likely encounter the opposite issue - that’s to say it’s too niche with these characters not of much interest to non-Bond fans. They’d likely be of varying quality and there’s no guarantee of viewers who watch Bond films tuning into them (or indeed new viewers of Bond movies coming along due to these). To be honest, I suspect all those pitches were early ideas, and there’s no guarantee they’d be greenlit when put into the practice of writing/development. And to some extent I think they’ll want to concentrate on the main film.

    Bond isn’t a franchise easy to split off into these different threads. It’s not like Star Wars with its ensemble casts, and tight but long spanning ‘universe’ which gives more creative opportunities. If they’re going to do it I think it should be about an original character from the official movies (ie. a Jinx or Zukovsky type) who proves popular, has an actor and team willing to commit to developing said character in their own context, and aims at being distinct from the Bond films while still having that thread with the main movies. If they can’t do that I’d suggest Amazon just invest in a Bond theme park or something as it’d be less hassle and probably more worthwhile to people.

    Why not? Colin Farrell played the Penguin and it was the best decision he could have made.
  • Posts: 4,736
    007HallY wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    Amazon had "approached the Broccolis with pitches for a TV series based on Moneypenny, another about Felix Leiter, and “maybe even something involving a female 007.” This met with disapproval.

    I suppose these are what we are most likely to see soon. These will be easier and quicker to get off the ground than casting and promoting a new Bond actor.

    The major problem I can see with these ideas are that they really need a new Bond era to establish these incarnations of the characters and the actors playing them (and honestly, that’s a tricky sell - would Jeffery Wright have signed on to play Leiter in CR had there been a clause in his contract stating he had to do 3 series of a tv show playing the character? I don’t think it’s worth it for an established character actor, and is in many ways a commitment comparable to playing Bond in that scenario).

    They could of course go in a different direction with it - do a Moneypenny adaptation set in the 60s, a Felix Leiter adaptation set in a different ‘timeline’, but at some point I think that becomes disjointed and not even instantly recognisable as even being part of the 007 brand to a portion of ordinary viewers. Even if it is, they’d likely encounter the opposite issue - that’s to say it’s too niche with these characters not of much interest to non-Bond fans. They’d likely be of varying quality and there’s no guarantee of viewers who watch Bond films tuning into them (or indeed new viewers of Bond movies coming along due to these). To be honest, I suspect all those pitches were early ideas, and there’s no guarantee they’d be greenlit when put into the practice of writing/development. And to some extent I think they’ll want to concentrate on the main film.

    Bond isn’t a franchise easy to split off into these different threads. It’s not like Star Wars with its ensemble casts, and tight but long spanning ‘universe’ which gives more creative opportunities. If they’re going to do it I think it should be about an original character from the official movies (ie. a Jinx or Zukovsky type) who proves popular, has an actor and team willing to commit to developing said character in their own context, and aims at being distinct from the Bond films while still having that thread with the main movies. If they can’t do that I’d suggest Amazon just invest in a Bond theme park or something as it’d be less hassle and probably more worthwhile to people.

    Why not? Colin Farrell played the Penguin and it was the best decision he could have made.

    Like I said :)

    "If they’re going to do it I think it should be about an original character from the official movies (ie. a Jinx or Zukovsky type) who proves popular, has an actor and team willing to commit to developing said character in their own context, and aims at being distinct from the Bond films while still having that thread with the main movies."

    Which is more along the lines of Penguin than what I see being suggested at this stage.

    Not all actors are going to want to commit to such spin offs though, especially if we're at a point when Amazon hasn't even made a proper James Bond film yet. I also think part of Penguin's success was that that version of the character was quite distinct, witty (dare I say even weirdly likeable) and there was creative opportunity to expand on his story in a way which linked into the bigger Batman world Matt Reeves created.

    If they can do such a spin off and make it worthwhile and expand on the Bond era they're in, I'm all for it. But it's not something you can just do overnight. I think they really need to concentrate on making these films first.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,304
    And indeed Colin Farrell is being quite open about not being keen on doing it again!
  • edited March 8 Posts: 4,736
    mtm wrote: »
    And indeed Colin Farrell is being quite open about not being keen on doing it again!

    Is he? The make-up routine alone looks awful to be fair, haha.

    I was sceptical of Penguin, but it seems like they went into it with the right ideas. I'm not sure if it's comparable to pitches about Moneypenny or Leiter spin offs in this instance.

    I could be way off, but my suspicion is after they've finalised this deal in May, Amazon's questions about Bond will likely be how to get newer audiences (and indeed which audiences they can get/conceivably keep), how to drum up excitement about a new era, and how to keep Bond in the public consciousness (this is all secondary to creating an actual film incidentally). I think in practice Felix Leiter and Monepenny spin offs won't inherently do any of this, and I think these are concerns and possibly realisations which could come to light at this stage. Maybe a young Bond show might do it, but I'm not too sure. We'll see how far Amazon really go in this direction, but I can see them not doing so until they've got a film, and in the meantime just going with docs etc as you said. But I'm not sure
  • Posts: 41
    Moneypenny spin-off, Felix Leiter spin-off, a well-known celebrity begins his Bond role era.... And the crowd goes mild.

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,725
    On one hand, it is sound logic to look at your cast, see Ben Whishaw and Naomi Harris, and start to wonder why you aren't doing more with them, especially when they both went on to star in action/spy roles of their own to great success.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited March 8 Posts: 6,555
    Oh, I completely agree with you. I don't know how they would get Wright or Harris to do it, or even how those two actors would fit it into their busy schedules (Wright and Harris are in demand in a way Lee and Maxwell were not)...maybe they'll just throw money at them and get them to do it. I'm guessing Harris might be the key.

    Or maybe they'd want to get Samantha Bond back in some capacity. Who knows? Caroline Bliss, this is the moment you have been waiting for since 1989!

    The MI6 podcast has been *very* right with insider hints. They said a year or so ago that it was a distinct possibility Eon would sell, when I and I think others on this board truly didn't believe it. And then Eon sold.

    The podcasters also hinted that Gregg did something that influenced the sale to Amazon. I still want to know what that is.
  • Posts: 1,674
    LucknFate wrote: »
    On one hand, it is sound logic to look at your cast, see Ben Whishaw and Naomi Harris, and start to wonder why you aren't doing more with them, especially when they both went on to star in action/spy roles of their own to great success.

    Ana de Armas got her Spin off too without Bond.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,304
    LucknFate wrote: »
    On one hand, it is sound logic to look at your cast, see Ben Whishaw and Naomi Harris, and start to wonder why you aren't doing more with them, especially when they both went on to star in action/spy roles of their own to great success.

    I know spinoffs can be a bit naff, but on the other hand I do kind of wish Harris had had a Moneypenny show of her own. I think she's great and could easily have been the star of something like that, with Whishaw appearing, sure. And it wouldn't have felt like she's just a Bond substitute because she's different to Bond, but also quite cool. I could imagine it being quite London-centric.
  • Posts: 2,150
    The surest way to kill interest in Bond is saturation. What makes the series unique and frustrating is the time between.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,703
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The surest way to kill interest in Bond is saturation. What makes the series unique and frustrating is the time between.

    Eh? The time between was roughly 2 - 3 years fairly consistently before Craig.
  • Posts: 606
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The surest way to kill interest in Bond is saturation. What makes the series unique and frustrating is the time between.

    Eh? The time between was roughly 2 - 3 years fairly consistently before Craig.

    Even within Craig this was also the case, more or less: two years between "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", then four between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall" (would've been three if MGM didn't go bankrupt), then three between "Skyfall" and "Spectre", then really four between "Spectre" and "No Time to Die" (can't blame EON for COVID shutting down movie theaters).
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,166
    As an indicator for what the producers wanted to do, early on they planned to release BOND 22 in May 2008 a mere 18 months after CR.

  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred Canada, True North Strong and Free
    Posts: 1,408
    I never really thought the time it takes to make affects the quality too much. For me the main issue has always been the scripts post CR.
    QoS was obviously handicapped with the writers strike. And SP and NTTD were in need of refinement. SF had the best cohesive story. Really hope Amazon hires good writers!
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,525
    BMB007 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The surest way to kill interest in Bond is saturation. What makes the series unique and frustrating is the time between.

    Eh? The time between was roughly 2 - 3 years fairly consistently before Craig.

    Even within Craig this was also the case, more or less: two years between "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", then four between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall" (would've been three if MGM didn't go bankrupt), then three between "Skyfall" and "Spectre", then really four between "Spectre" and "No Time to Die" (can't blame EON for COVID shutting down movie theaters).

    The mere two-year gap between 'Casino Royale' (CR) and 'Quantum of Solace' (QOS) is quite impressive, especially given the numerous setbacks. The Craig era faced its share of challenges—strikes, studio issues, and even a pandemic—not caused by Daniel Craig or the oft-dismissed 'Babs'.

    But now, with Amazon in the picture, we anticipate a barrage of new releases. Amazon, known for its relentless production of 'content', promises much. Yet, will this content captivate us? Will its release be a monumental event, sparking discussions that endure for months or years? Or will it be formulaic, churned out for subscription services, quickly forgotten amidst waning interest? Time will tell whether those who insatiably crave more new things will remain so pleased.
  • Posts: 2,150
    2 or 3 years between is okay with me. I don't want to see a bunch of Bond related spin offs that weaken the series because there is too much Bond. I can't see Bond working the same way as all the Star Wars spinoffs.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,555
    CrabKey wrote: »
    2 or 3 years between is okay with me. I don't want to see a bunch of Bond related spin offs that weaken the series because there is too much Bond. I can't see Bond working the same way as all the Star Wars spinoffs.

    But that's apparently what Amazon wants, or at least, wanted.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,388
    Fans want a return of the sausage factory of Cubby’s run, but do they consider that part of the box office decline in the 80s was precisely because they came out so regularly over time that people began taking Bond films for granted when they came out?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,721
    With the right team in place in behind the camera I think a film every 3-4 years is manageable. It gives them plenty of time to plan ahead and to write good scripts
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,318
    I keep wondering whether Amazon would make standalone Bond films or follow Eon's latest style of serializing the films.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 10:31am Posts: 17,304
    I’m not sure there’s any film series around at the moment which keeps the instalments completely separate is there?
    Mission Impossible sort of did, but the audience were actively asking to know what happened with Ethan’s wife etc.
  • Posts: 4,736
    BMB007 wrote: »
    CrabKey wrote: »
    The surest way to kill interest in Bond is saturation. What makes the series unique and frustrating is the time between.

    Eh? The time between was roughly 2 - 3 years fairly consistently before Craig.

    Even within Craig this was also the case, more or less: two years between "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace", then four between "Quantum of Solace" and "Skyfall" (would've been three if MGM didn't go bankrupt), then three between "Skyfall" and "Spectre", then really four between "Spectre" and "No Time to Die" (can't blame EON for COVID shutting down movie theaters).

    Exactly. All things considered the gaps weren’t bad and there was a lot of stuff they couldn’t avoid in the later Craig films.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,318
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m not sure there’s any film series around at the moment which keeps the instalments completely separate is there?
    Mission Impossible sort of did, but the audience were actively asking to know what happened with Ethan’s wife etc.

    Yeah. That's true. Audiences are now sort of....obsessed with continuity.
  • Posts: 2,101
    I think the timeline for releases for the new actor should be like how the Brosnan movies were. First 3 films released 2 years apart, 4th one 3 years.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,555
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m not sure there’s any film series around at the moment which keeps the instalments completely separate is there?
    Mission Impossible sort of did, but the audience were actively asking to know what happened with Ethan’s wife etc.

    Yeah. That's true. Audiences are now sort of....obsessed with continuity.

    Yes. We are in an era where things get replayed and dissected to death over social media. In some ways it was easier in the '60s and '70s, before VCRs.

    Can you imagine if the continuity errors in, say, TB were given the once-over in real time, as opposed to whatever people remembered seeing in the cinema?

    "Wait, what color was his mask when I saw it in the theater?"

    Today TB would be: "Wow, what slapdash filmmaking" and some sort of Internet meme.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,318
    echo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I’m not sure there’s any film series around at the moment which keeps the instalments completely separate is there?
    Mission Impossible sort of did, but the audience were actively asking to know what happened with Ethan’s wife etc.

    Yeah. That's true. Audiences are now sort of....obsessed with continuity.

    Yes. We are in an era where things get replayed and dissected to death over social media. In some ways it was easier in the '60s and '70s, before VCRs.

    Can you imagine if the continuity errors in, say, TB were given the once-over in real time, as opposed to whatever people remembered seeing in the cinema?

    "Wait, what color was his mask when I saw it in the theater?"

    Today TB would be: "Wow, what slapdash filmmaking" and some sort of Internet meme.

    Yes. That's the sort of era we live in. I just hope Amazon prepares better...if they're going to serialize the films again.
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred Canada, True North Strong and Free
    Posts: 1,408
    Fans want a return of the sausage factory of Cubby’s run, but do they consider that part of the box office decline in the 80s was precisely because they came out so regularly over time that people began taking Bond films for granted when they came out?

    Bond was in better hands back then. Hard to compare to how it would be now. ‘62-‘89 contains the best Bond films.
  • Posts: 12,560
    Great to see Brosnan reunited with his DAD Vanquish! Fab photos!!! The man has still clearly got it! :-bd
Sign In or Register to comment.