›

EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

1…171819202123»

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited 12:35am Posts: 8,320
    The only thing we know about Fleming is that he was happy as long as the paychecks were coming. He initially dogged on the DN film and Connery’s casting, but as soon as that film became a hit he immediately changed his tune. If he knew a James Bond film would have been a hit with a black actor in the role he would sleep just fine at night on top of a pile of money.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 12:50am Posts: 6,477
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Bit of trivia
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    So Michael has two sons and Barbara has a daughter, and none of them had any interest in continuing on James Bond?

    Aaron-McGahon-Barbara-Broccoli-Michael-G-Wilson.jpg art by aaron mcgahon

    Maybe it's too much responsibility. You have the combined pressure of delivering a rebooted Bond franchise and dealing with Amazon. Quite intimidating to anyone that's entering the film business or hasn't had much experience in the industry. Gregg Wilson has been an associate producer on recent Bond films but maybe he didn't want the responsibility or Eon didn't think he was the right person to continue the franchise.

    There was something offhand in the recent podcast that hinted that Gregg Wilson recently did something wrong or off-putting from Eon's perspective (I doubt that this was his comment in the WSG about diversity because we know Barbara made similar comments). I have no idea what it was. Maybe he didn't have the same producer chops as Barbara and Michael, and they decided time was up.
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    The only thing we know about Fleming is that he was happy as long as the paychecks were coming. He initially dogged on the DN film and Connery’s casting, but as soon as that film became a hit he immediately changed his tune. If he knew a James Bond film would have been a hit with a black actor in the role he would sleep just fine at night on top of a pile of money.

    I agree completely. Fleming was always trying to sell the rights to whatever story to any number of companies. For him, it came down to money.

    Fleming was a bit like Robert DeNiro. "What's that, a script? I'll do it!"

    If it's a contemporary Bond movie, Bond can be any race (supposedly by 2060, the UK will be majority-minority). There are, in fact, Black and Asian people at Eton, Oxford, etc.

    If it's period, then I think he needs to be white because of the old boys club.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 12:46am Posts: 4,640
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    The only thing we know about Fleming is that he was happy as long as the paychecks were coming. He initially dogged on the DN film and Connery’s casting, but as soon as that film became a hit he immediately changed his tune. If he knew a James Bond film would have been a hit with a black actor in the role he would sleep just fine at night on top of a pile of money.

    I love Fleming's novels and think that DNA should always be there with the cinematic character (with EON I think that thread is what made those films work in terms of what they built upon, and was always there, no matter how far they strayed) but I think it's a mistake to try and definitely say what Fleming would have wanted. Especially considering we're talking of hypotheticals and things he never had the chance to think about in the same way we do. His opinions towards his literary character were probably contradictory in interviews, and certainly how he felt about the first two Bond movies would not have been recognisable to us Bond fans. It certainly gives us no indication of this.

    If fans want to stick to Fleming's text and believe that's the blueprint of casting, fine. But it's such a specific thing getting an actor with black hair, blue eyes, and is 6 foot. You discount actors like Moore or Craig (even Connery if you go further with his brown eyes and Scottish accent). I genuinely don't believe, and can't see, how it's an argument to hold validity on.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited 1:34am Posts: 461
    The new James Bond and Friends podcast chat suggests Gregg Wilson did something wrong. No mention what, though. Perhaps he didn't pay his last income tax? Voted for Trump? Said he preferred Mission Impossible to Bond?

    🤭

    Anyway, here's an interesting article from Telegraph suggesting Amazon have made a Bond type product - Citadel - and it wasn't good.
    Vanishing without a trace is not a fate a 21st-century James Bond is likely to suffer. But the failure of Citadel is nonetheless a depressing sneak preview of what may lie ahead for Ian Fleming’s super-spook. Cheesy and hamstrung by too much executive meddling, Citadel took a sure-fire formula – spies hop around the globe shooting people – and missed the target by a mile.

    Apply the same treatment to Bond, and cinema’s favourite spy might well suffer a fate worse than the one Goldfinger had in mind when he strapped Sean Connery to that table and whipped out his laser. A cack-handed Prime Video might well leave Bond morally wounded, and anyone who suffered through Citadel will fear the worst.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/amazon-james-bond-citadel-russo-brothers/

    Looking at it from a more positive perspective, it's possible the mistakes in Citadel may be avoided with Bond. If certain elements in Citadel - plot, casting, use of locations etc - didn't gel then Amazon will know what to avoid when making Bond 26. Citadel getting negative feedback may not automatically mean Bond 26 will be similar.





  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,477
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The new James Bond and Friends podcast chat suggests Gregg Wilson did something wrong. No mention what, though. Perhaps he didn't pay his last income tax? Voted for Trump? Said he preferred Mission Impossible to Bond?

    🤭

    I want to know! They weren't spilling on the podcast...but why didn't they pass Eon to the next generation, or to a hybrid Barbara/Gregg situation? Somebody DM me.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 597
    I think Gregg was in charge of the Spectre plane sequence and some people didn't like that, just spitballing here.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,378
    Could it possibly be from The Rhythm Section underperforming?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,320
    007HallY wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    The only thing we know about Fleming is that he was happy as long as the paychecks were coming. He initially dogged on the DN film and Connery’s casting, but as soon as that film became a hit he immediately changed his tune. If he knew a James Bond film would have been a hit with a black actor in the role he would sleep just fine at night on top of a pile of money.

    If fans want to stick to Fleming's text and believe that's the blueprint of casting, fine. But it's such a specific thing getting an actor with black hair, blue eyes, and is 6 foot. You discount actors like Moore or Craig (even Connery if you go further with his brown eyes and Scottish accent). I genuinely don't believe, and can't see, how it's an argument to hold validity on.

    Heck, Fleming only wrote in Bond’s Scottish lineage as a nod to Connery.
  • George_KaplanGeorge_Kaplan Being chauffeured by Tibbett
    edited 6:12am Posts: 707
    When it comes to what Bond should look like, for me, it’s pretty simple.

    Does the actor look like he could hold his own in a fight, with all but the most physically privileged opponents?

    Does he look like he could seduce any woman he wants? Bearing in mind, he doesn’t have to be conventionally attractive; Casanova had a big nose, scars, and a wart on his chin and he did just fine.

    If the answer to both of these questions is ‘yes’, then he probably has the look to play Bond.

    Things like hair, eye, and skin colour have no bearing on either of these qualities. A fair haired man can be just as sexually attractive and alluring as a dark haired one, and a brown-eyed man can be just as physically proficient as a blue-eyed one. What’s important is how Bond's appearance communicates aspects of his character.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,673
    007HallY wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    MakeshiftPython wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I always think the tactic of claiming that one is the voice of the majority, by saying the like of 'many others I'm sure will agree with me' in an attempt to try and win an argument is a very bad faith tactic, especially when claiming that people who can longer speak for themselves would most certainly agree. In Sir Roger's case there was a bit of a fuss when some comments he made in France when asked about Idris Elba were mistranslated and obviously The Daily Mail got hold of them and you can guess the rest.
    I agree the topic isn't worth continuing with, despite all these rants about what Fleming would want etc.

    If you think Ian Fleming would want Idris Elba as James Bond I have a bridge to sell you. I just think this race crap is so trite. Theres much more interesting things to discuss about James Bond, but we're stuck at this rudimentary square one of arguing about James Bond's ethnicity as if this hasn't been already well established the last 70 years.

    :))

    You think Fleming would have wanted Craig as Bond? We’ve strayed far away from Fleming conception of Bond at this point. Even Connery Bond was a different beast from what Fleming put on paper.

    I don't think he would've minded terribly no. When you change a character's race, you change who that character is fundamentally. Pretending that it isn't is what makes this conversation so trite.

    Not necessarily. Which is what this argument I believe comes down to in Bond's cinematic form for a modern film.

    I know many will disagree with this regardless of their perspective, but I think it's a matter of specifics. Othello in his original Shakespearian form is unambiguously black. Shaft too. But Felix Leiter being black in CR '06 isn't a big deal. He could have been white or Asian American, or even Native American. I guess Moneypenny too in the Craig films. I don't see any fans complaining about this change. Why is it different? I'm genuinely curious. The essence of these characters have been maintained. They are the characters. Can Bond not be similar? Can a British mixed race, black, Asian, or hell, Jewish or even Greek heritage guy (ATJ or Theo James specifically) not take this role and be convincing?

    In your opinion, was the essence of M changed?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,320
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    When it comes to what Bond should look like, for me, it’s pretty simple.

    Does the actor look like he could hold his own in a fight, with all but the most physically privileged opponents?

    Does he look like he could seduce any woman he wants? Bearing in mind, he doesn’t have to be conventionally attractive; Casanova had a big nose, scars, and a wart on his chin and he did just fine.

    If the answer to both of these questions is ‘yes’, then he probably has the look to play Bond.

    Things like hair, eye, and skin colour have no bearing on either of these qualities. A fair haired man can be just as sexually attractive and alluring as a dark haired one, and a brown-eyed man can be just as physically proficient as a blue-eyed one. What’s important is how Bond's appearance communicates aspects of his character.

    Bingo.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,673
    George_Kaplan wrote: »
    When it comes to what Bond should look like, for me, it’s pretty simple.

    Does the actor look like he could hold his own in a fight, with all but the most physically privileged opponents?

    Does he look like he could seduce any woman he wants? Bearing in mind, he doesn’t have to be conventionally attractive; Casanova had a big nose, scars, and a wart on his chin and he did just fine.

    If the answer to both of these questions is ‘yes’, then he probably has the look to play Bond.

    Things like hair, eye, and skin colour have no bearing on either of these qualities. A fair haired man can be just as sexually attractive and alluring as a dark haired one, and a brown-eyed man can be just as physically proficient as a blue-eyed one. What’s important is how Bond's appearance communicates aspects of his character.

    Roger Moore couldn't take anyone in a fight.
Sign In or Register to comment.