Best and worst case scenario for the Amazon Bond

1235»

Comments

  • Posts: 597
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    “Producing a Bond film takes at least 2 years of their lives with little time for anything else. And with Michael retiring I think Barbara did not have the appetite to shoulder the burden alone. She has so many other interests, especially with her theatre projects.”

    “Looking at Amazon’s previous theatrical films does not fill me with any great enthusiasm,”

    “If they mess with the Essence of Bond they risk alienating a huge audience. Choosing the actor to fill the role is a huge task and not one I would hand over to subscribers of X.”

    “I have worked closely with Barbara and Michael for over 40 years and had the most amazing career, travelling all over the world in search of wonderful actors, and to be on hand on the various locations,” continued McWilliams.

    “I have now hung up my casting hat and have moved on to other film-related projects. But I wish everyone the best of luck and hope the transition can be relatively painless. But it won’t be the same.”


    Debbie McWilliams commenting on Amazon and her retirement from Bond casting

    She's always been candid in interviews but wow this is pretty open.
  • Posts: 2,065
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Is it going to be a case of rats fleeing a sinking ship?

    Unless the check has enough 0s on it. Then they will change their minds
  • edited February 25 Posts: 4,674
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    “Producing a Bond film takes at least 2 years of their lives with little time for anything else. And with Michael retiring I think Barbara did not have the appetite to shoulder the burden alone. She has so many other interests, especially with her theatre projects.”

    “Looking at Amazon’s previous theatrical films does not fill me with any great enthusiasm,”

    “If they mess with the Essence of Bond they risk alienating a huge audience. Choosing the actor to fill the role is a huge task and not one I would hand over to subscribers of X.”

    “I have worked closely with Barbara and Michael for over 40 years and had the most amazing career, travelling all over the world in search of wonderful actors, and to be on hand on the various locations,” continued McWilliams.

    “I have now hung up my casting hat and have moved on to other film-related projects. But I wish everyone the best of luck and hope the transition can be relatively painless. But it won’t be the same.”


    Debbie McWilliams commenting on Amazon and her retirement from Bond casting

    She's always been candid in interviews but wow this is pretty open.

    It's not a great sign, although she's not wrong in what she said and it reflects the general feeling across the board about this. I can imagine some other collaborators not wanting to return without EON.

    It's a shame. EON built up a good line up of talent over the decades and it showed in their films. It might well be a very fresh start then.
  • edited February 25 Posts: 2,408
    007HallY wrote: »
    I always say Bond's never actually had an origin story on film. I really don't count CR. It's Bond on his earliest 00 mission/a very important one for him personally, but otherwise there's absolutely nothing about his origin.

    They could do that basic idea again in a different way - Bond in his earlier days as 007 on a mission which puts him on a certain track. Forever and A Day does that. It's not fundamentally needed, and they can certainly just give us an established Bond, but it's a neat way of reintroducing the new Bond/universe onscreen. I don't think it needs to have a long term impact on the next era/actor.

    This is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of introductory film, to me, not for one individual actor or for some overarching story, but for the entirety of what's to come with the cinematic Bond as a whole, that I think sets it on the right foot. Thank you for actually engaging with the idea and not foaming at the mouth at the mere suggestion of it.

    EDIT: And to go back to the supplement of my initial idea: why NOT have Bond films that are different? I'm not saying don't have a TSWLM, a Thunderball, a GoldenEye...but let's say the next Bond film explores his time in the SAS leading up to his two kills. Let's say the film after that is Live and Let Die. Let's say we finally DO get the proper Moonraker adaptation 99% of us seem to want. Let's say we get a Bond film where espionage is a bigger focus than action.

    Let's try stuff. What the hell do we have to lose? Maybe they take a big swing at something different and miss. Okay, fair enough, let's follow that up with something a bit more traditional as a palate cleanse, dust ourselves off, and carry forward. We've gotten 25 Bond films and I think it's fair to say at least half of them follow "the formula". I love those films and I can watch them any time. If whatever comes next is just gonna be "safe" and "established" each time out, I think that might actually be the most dull, uninspiring version of what could come next for Bond.
  • "What a mistaka to maka" ... Ian Fleming didn’t know what a secret agent really was! Fleming dubbed James Bond a "secret" agent yet simultaneously depicted 007 as an employee on MI6's payroll. You may say "so what" because Bond is fiction. So is Postman Pat but his creator John Cunliffe never called him an Uber or Deliveroo courier.

    Now an MI6 secret agent would never have: (1) been an employee on MI6’s payroll who took holidays and submitted expense claims etc; (2) reported directly to the Head of MI6, had annual appraisals and been on extremely familiar terms with many other MI6 employees such as Q or Moneypenny; (3) been a frequent visitor to MI6 HQ and other MI6 buildings; and (4) even used his own name when he met ministers et al in Whitehall.

    Given Ian Fleming's background in British naval intelligence in World War 11, that contradictory classification of 007 was about as absurd as calling a Brain Surgeon a Hair Dresser or a Navy Seal a Coastguard as noted in the latest intriguing news article in TheBurlingtonFiles (advert free) website.

    To quote from the article ... "As for 007 being “secret”, ... since everybody knew ... his favourite drink was shaken not stirred, I’m surprised he wasn’t poisoned more often … especially as he insisted on letting everyone know his name was “Bond, James Bond”! Perhaps Bond’s true skill lay in being so conspicuously ostentatious that no one believed he could genuinely be a spy!

  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 997
    "What a mistaka to maka" ... Ian Fleming didn’t know what a secret agent really was! Fleming dubbed James Bond a "secret" agent yet simultaneously depicted 007 as an employee on MI6's payroll. You may say "so what" because Bond is fiction. So is Postman Pat but his creator John Cunliffe never called him an Uber or Deliveroo courier.

    Now an MI6 secret agent would never have: (1) been an employee on MI6’s payroll who took holidays and submitted expense claims etc; (2) reported directly to the Head of MI6, had annual appraisals and been on extremely familiar terms with many other MI6 employees such as Q or Moneypenny; (3) been a frequent visitor to MI6 HQ and other MI6 buildings; and (4) even used his own name when he met ministers et al in Whitehall.

    Given Ian Fleming's background in British naval intelligence in World War 11, that contradictory classification of 007 was about as absurd as calling a Brain Surgeon a Hair Dresser or a Navy Seal a Coastguard as noted in the latest intriguing news article in TheBurlingtonFiles (advert free) website.

    To quote from the article ... "As for 007 being “secret”, ... since everybody knew ... his favourite drink was shaken not stirred, I’m surprised he wasn’t poisoned more often … especially as he insisted on letting everyone know his name was “Bond, James Bond”! Perhaps Bond’s true skill lay in being so conspicuously ostentatious that no one believed he could genuinely be a spy!
    You’ve made this post before, and no one bit then. Like Clark Kent being just Superman with glasses on, some things are fundamentally baked into the property and if you can’t deal with them then you’re pretty much out of luck.
  • Posts: 4,674
    "What a mistaka to maka" ... Ian Fleming didn’t know what a secret agent really was! Fleming dubbed James Bond a "secret" agent yet simultaneously depicted 007 as an employee on MI6's payroll. You may say "so what" because Bond is fiction. So is Postman Pat but his creator John Cunliffe never called him an Uber or Deliveroo courier.

    Now an MI6 secret agent would never have: (1) been an employee on MI6’s payroll who took holidays and submitted expense claims etc; (2) reported directly to the Head of MI6, had annual appraisals and been on extremely familiar terms with many other MI6 employees such as Q or Moneypenny; (3) been a frequent visitor to MI6 HQ and other MI6 buildings; and (4) even used his own name when he met ministers et al in Whitehall.

    Given Ian Fleming's background in British naval intelligence in World War 11, that contradictory classification of 007 was about as absurd as calling a Brain Surgeon a Hair Dresser or a Navy Seal a Coastguard as noted in the latest intriguing news article in TheBurlingtonFiles (advert free) website.

    To quote from the article ... "As for 007 being “secret”, ... since everybody knew ... his favourite drink was shaken not stirred, I’m surprised he wasn’t poisoned more often … especially as he insisted on letting everyone know his name was “Bond, James Bond”! Perhaps Bond’s true skill lay in being so conspicuously ostentatious that no one believed he could genuinely be a spy!
    You’ve made this post before, and no one bit then. Like Clark Kent being just Superman with glasses on, some things are fundamentally baked into the property and if you can’t deal with them then you’re pretty much out of luck.

    I swear this guy’s a bot or something. Same post every time and we all get wound up 😂
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 25 Posts: 17,192
    Black Panther, agent Jay, Alex Foley, A-Team's B.A., Roger Murthaugh, James Carter, Blade, Lando Calrissian, Apollo Creed, etc.... The list is endless. If you feel black/asian/female/etc is nor represented enough in movies or anywhere else: just create your own (good) carracter rather than changing one already existing. It is a simple as that if you don't want to see people calling your movie "woke".

    It's just not the same thing: it's not like a road where one direction has the same width of road space as the other.
    Is Tom Cruise playing the only white character in feudal Japan okay? Unless you do some kind of biopic with real Historic carracter, why would it be okay? Especially in samourai...

    I mean, you know I'm talking about an actual film which he made, right?

    007HallY wrote: »
    I always say Bond's never actually had an origin story on film. I really don't count CR. It's Bond on his earliest 00 mission/a very important one for him personally, but otherwise there's absolutely nothing about his origin.

    They could do that basic idea again in a different way - Bond in his earlier days as 007 on a mission which puts him on a certain track. Forever and A Day does that. It's not fundamentally needed, and they can certainly just give us an established Bond, but it's a neat way of reintroducing the new Bond/universe onscreen. I don't think it needs to have a long term impact on the next era/actor.

    Yeah, I genuinely don't mind it. I don't know if seeing his very beginnings in the military or what-have-you is essential or anything, after all, if you do an origins of Bruce Wayne film, you want to see him dress up like a big bat at some point. But I don't think it's weird to have a first film where some of the characters you'll be watching meet up: it's not like the first Ghostbusters didn't show them buying the car and the firehouse and hiring Winston etc. - just because we know where it's going doesn't change that characters can be shown meeting for the first time. We saw Spider Man meet Iron Man, you know: it's fine to do that.
    I would like there to be a thread running through these films and for one to carry from the last, pretty much all sequels and series do that, it's not weird.
    Let's try stuff. What the hell do we have to lose? Maybe they take a big swing at something different and miss. Okay, fair enough, let's follow that up with something a bit more traditional as a palate cleanse, dust ourselves off, and carry forward. We've gotten 25 Bond films and I think it's fair to say at least half of them follow "the formula". I love those films and I can watch them any time. If whatever comes next is just gonna be "safe" and "established" each time out, I think that might actually be the most dull, uninspiring version of what could come next for Bond.

    I think you're right in a way: the new film has to do something new in order to make people want to come back for another, and that's potentially a tricky thing with something as old as Bond. Has there been a long enough gap that a totally trad GoldenEye-style film is enough to do that on its own, or does it need a Craig-style reinvigoration to get people excited about Bond again? I have absolutely no idea! :D
  • Posts: 4,674
    I think for everyone saying they need to make a ‘safe’ Bond film, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. And never has been. Even the likes of GE, TND and TSWLM (which lean into the formula and riff on the outline of previous Bond flicks) have their unique qualities and bring plenty of fresh ideas to the table.

    They’ll have to do something different in some way. I’m fine with the next era immediately using some of the more ‘traditional elements’ of the formula compared to the early Craig films, but this has to feel fresh, even amongst the familiar.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,981
    Is Tom Cruise playing the only white character in feudal Japan okay? Unless you do some kind of biopic with [a real Historical character], why would it be okay?
    The movie is told through his eyes to bring us westerners smoothly into the story, but it's not about him- it's about the last samurai. He wasn't a white guy saving the day for poor stupid non-whites.

    Back to the subject: I like the idea of making many different types of Bond movies, even with different actors. If one creative team hits gold, then they could continue on for a while....

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 25 Posts: 17,192
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think for everyone saying they need to make a ‘safe’ Bond film, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. And never has been. Even the likes of GE, TND and TSWLM (which lean into the formula and riff on the outline of previous Bond flicks) have their unique qualities and bring plenty of fresh ideas to the table.

    They’ll have to do something different in some way. I’m fine with the next era immediately using some of the more ‘traditional elements’ of the formula compared to the early Craig films, but this has to feel fresh, even amongst the familiar.

    Yes it's a good point. Even if it's relatively trad they still have to reboot the whole thing and 'bring it into the 20s' like they used to say.
  • Posts: 1,637
    007HallY wrote: »
    I think for everyone saying they need to make a ‘safe’ Bond film, I don’t think it’s as simple as that. And never has been. Even the likes of GE, TND and TSWLM (which lean into the formula and riff on the outline of previous Bond flicks) have their unique qualities and bring plenty of fresh ideas to the table.

    They’ll have to do something different in some way. I’m fine with the next era immediately using some of the more ‘traditional elements’ of the formula compared to the early Craig films, but this has to feel fresh, even amongst the familiar.

    It's going to be different. The question is how different do you want the movie to be?
  • edited February 25 Posts: 483
    007HallY wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    “Producing a Bond film takes at least 2 years of their lives with little time for anything else. And with Michael retiring I think Barbara did not have the appetite to shoulder the burden alone. She has so many other interests, especially with her theatre projects.”

    “Looking at Amazon’s previous theatrical films does not fill me with any great enthusiasm,”

    “If they mess with the Essence of Bond they risk alienating a huge audience. Choosing the actor to fill the role is a huge task and not one I would hand over to subscribers of X.”

    “I have worked closely with Barbara and Michael for over 40 years and had the most amazing career, travelling all over the world in search of wonderful actors, and to be on hand on the various locations,” continued McWilliams.

    “I have now hung up my casting hat and have moved on to other film-related projects. But I wish everyone the best of luck and hope the transition can be relatively painless. But it won’t be the same.”


    Debbie McWilliams commenting on Amazon and her retirement from Bond casting

    She's always been candid in interviews but wow this is pretty open.

    It's not a great sign, although she's not wrong in what she said and it reflects the general feeling across the board about this. I can imagine some other collaborators not wanting to return without EON.

    It's a shame. EON built up a good line up of talent over the decades and it showed in their films. It might well be a very fresh start then.

    Yes. I don't see why Amazon MGM Studios would want to hire NTTD crew. It would feel too similar to Eon. As you say, make a fresh start. However I think it would be a terrible shame if Bond 26 were completely filmed outside the UK. Hopefully a British studio will be used but anything is possible. No guarantees.
  • zebrafishzebrafish <°)))< in Octopussy's garden in the shade
    Posts: 4,372
    Amazon surely realises that a Bond universe without Bond in it won't work. Therefore I find it plausible that they will ultimately create several universes with different Bonds in it: The "big" Bond movies, then Young Bond movies or a streaming series for older kids and young adults (inspired by Charlie Higsons stories) , and probably an animated series (akin to ST Prodigy, but aimed at adults).
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,513
    Yes, I do think that young Bond is likely so that they can try to get a younger audience and expand the reach of the IP.
  • K2WIK2WI Europe
    Posts: 21
    bondywondy wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    “Producing a Bond film takes at least 2 years of their lives with little time for anything else. And with Michael retiring I think Barbara did not have the appetite to shoulder the burden alone. She has so many other interests, especially with her theatre projects.”

    “Looking at Amazon’s previous theatrical films does not fill me with any great enthusiasm,”

    “If they mess with the Essence of Bond they risk alienating a huge audience. Choosing the actor to fill the role is a huge task and not one I would hand over to subscribers of X.”

    “I have worked closely with Barbara and Michael for over 40 years and had the most amazing career, travelling all over the world in search of wonderful actors, and to be on hand on the various locations,” continued McWilliams.

    “I have now hung up my casting hat and have moved on to other film-related projects. But I wish everyone the best of luck and hope the transition can be relatively painless. But it won’t be the same.”


    Debbie McWilliams commenting on Amazon and her retirement from Bond casting

    She's always been candid in interviews but wow this is pretty open.

    It's not a great sign, although she's not wrong in what she said and it reflects the general feeling across the board about this. I can imagine some other collaborators not wanting to return without EON.

    It's a shame. EON built up a good line up of talent over the decades and it showed in their films. It might well be a very fresh start then.

    Yes. I don't see why Amazon MGM Studios would want to hire NTTD crew. It would feel too similar to Eon. As you say, make a fresh start. However I think it would be a terrible shame if Bond 26 were completely filmed outside the UK. Hopefully a British studio will be used but anything is possible. No guarantees.

    No guarantees for sure. That said, Amazon acquired Bray Studios last year, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if Amazon decides to make it Bond’s new production home.

    It’d be a shame if it left Pinewood, but at least by moving to Bray it’d still be based in the UK.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    K2WI wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    “Producing a Bond film takes at least 2 years of their lives with little time for anything else. And with Michael retiring I think Barbara did not have the appetite to shoulder the burden alone. She has so many other interests, especially with her theatre projects.”

    “Looking at Amazon’s previous theatrical films does not fill me with any great enthusiasm,”

    “If they mess with the Essence of Bond they risk alienating a huge audience. Choosing the actor to fill the role is a huge task and not one I would hand over to subscribers of X.”

    “I have worked closely with Barbara and Michael for over 40 years and had the most amazing career, travelling all over the world in search of wonderful actors, and to be on hand on the various locations,” continued McWilliams.

    “I have now hung up my casting hat and have moved on to other film-related projects. But I wish everyone the best of luck and hope the transition can be relatively painless. But it won’t be the same.”


    Debbie McWilliams commenting on Amazon and her retirement from Bond casting

    She's always been candid in interviews but wow this is pretty open.

    It's not a great sign, although she's not wrong in what she said and it reflects the general feeling across the board about this. I can imagine some other collaborators not wanting to return without EON.

    It's a shame. EON built up a good line up of talent over the decades and it showed in their films. It might well be a very fresh start then.

    Yes. I don't see why Amazon MGM Studios would want to hire NTTD crew. It would feel too similar to Eon. As you say, make a fresh start. However I think it would be a terrible shame if Bond 26 were completely filmed outside the UK. Hopefully a British studio will be used but anything is possible. No guarantees.

    No guarantees for sure. That said, Amazon acquired Bray Studios last year, so I wouldn’t be too surprised if Amazon decides to make it Bond’s new production home.

    It’d be a shame if it left Pinewood, but at least by moving to Bray it’d still be based in the UK.

    Seems very possible, yeah. Bond has left Pinewood before so not the end of the world, and I'm sure many of the same crew would be working there.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 25 Posts: 6,513
    How are the Young Bond books? I don't hate that idea as a series, but I don't know if they'd get too sanitized/eager...I mean, you'd have to show Young Bond sleeping around.

    You could work in Kincaid and maybe May.

    Kind of like a cross between Bond and Gossip Girl?

    I do think it's more likely we'll see Bond at various points of his life than a Moneypenny or whoever spinoff.
  • Bond sleeping around is going to be hard vetoed. Bond starts at 12 and ends at about 14/15 I think in Higson's series and Cole's takes Bond further on. That's an age where sex would be bad idea (considering the ages of the potential actors as well!) And I mean there's the Fleming story of Bond losing his virginity at 16 in a Paris brothel (but somehow I think that would be vetoed...)

    The Young Bonds do have Bond girls by the way, but there's just a light bit of romantic tension between the pair as they're more allies than anything else.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,558
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I for one would care to see a relatively faithful adaptation of Moonraker, my favourite novel- just updated in spots to incorporate today's technology. Or hell, even straight up as a period piece....

    You mean a documentary about Elon Musk?
  • Posts: 407
    If you wanna know what the new film will look like in comparison to the old series, just watch Beverly Hills Cop 4. That's what you're going to get.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,192
    Must admit I quite enjoyed that. Much better than 3 anyway.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,981
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I for one would care to see a relatively faithful adaptation of Moonraker, my favourite novel- just updated in spots to incorporate today's technology. Or hell, even straight up as a period piece....

    You mean a documentary about Elon Musk?
    Glad I wasn't drinking soda when I read that. LOL
    mtm wrote: »
    Must admit I quite enjoyed that. Much better than 3 anyway.
    I really liked it, and yeah WAAAAY better than that third one. Maybe even better than the 2nd by a little bit...
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,513
    mtm wrote: »
    Must admit I quite enjoyed that. Much better than 3 anyway.

    +1
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,864
    Stamper wrote: »
    If you wanna know what the new film will look like in comparison to the old series, just watch Beverly Hills Cop 4. That's what you're going to get.
    Yes, was thinking about this earlier. It successfully invoked the vibe of those first two classic films. Moments like Foley snooping around with gun to the theme, and poolside villain confrontation really hit the spot I was hoping for. Awesome helicopter sequence too.
Sign In or Register to comment.