It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
To be fair, I think turning the show into an anthology series and using the real time format for something else is a better angle than last time (basically more 24 but no Jack Bauer). But then why call it 24 at all? Could have worked if this was the second season but they did nine series of the original show. The name is too tied to that for them to try and turn it into an anthology series now.
Jack Bauer is 24. There's really no way of doing the show without him imo. I'd watch more if they managed to get Kiefer back but at the same time, I felt that Live Another Day was one of the best they've done and was a really good ending. May as well leave it in the past.
Exactly. It's no secret that bean counters or high up executives are creatively barren and out of touch, but even in their field, how could the idea be considered remotely profitable?
Yeah I really don't get what their angle is here at all. Maybe could have worked if the original show had only gone on for a year or two but at this point it's too late to turn it into an anthology. The show went on way too long to for them to be able to use the name for something else.
I don't get who they're trying to appeal to by using the 24 name. It'll turn off potential new fans who didn't like the old show, and those who were fans won't like it because it's nothing to do with it. I don't see this going very well at all. There's brand recognition there sure but by using it all they're doing is misleading people. I think they'd be better off just calling it something else.
Imagine if EON announced that after 25 films about James Bond the spy, they were going to turn it into an anthology series with completely different characters in different worlds who all happen to share the name James Bond, starting with a legal thriller about James Bond the lawyer. Doesn't make sense.
I think it's even worse than that. At least there you can justify it by saying it's the same sort of genre/premise, a spinoff in the same world. But taking a show that went on for nine series and turning it into an anthology that has nothing to do with the old show except the real time format? What's the point?
You do have a point there. I'd be even more confused if this comes out and it isn't working in "real time" like the original series did. Does the TV world really need another court room thriller?
One of the characters in that film (the one played Sandra Bullock I think) is Danny Ocean's sister. But as you said, what connection can there be between her and the original trilogy? There is not a single reference, mention or even a hint in 11/12/13 that Clooney's character had a sister.
That's what's so hilarious about it all, @Creasy47. I've said this before, but for an industry that seems so desperate to pander to a female market, they really are lazy about it. They only tell female stories in a blockbuster sense with old, all-male properties, which women should find offensive, quite frankly. Hollywood can't be original enough to tell new stories to market towards their female audiences (and males, as I'd like to see these films too) so they simply take old brands and mutate them to fit the female "voice" in even sloppier reboots or remakes. Sony had to screw with the old Ghostbusters and horridly tweak it to replace the men with women, just as the Oceans film is swapping males and females in a lazy attempt to push a "progressive" message while simply using an old brand to create a sloppy seconds film with barren creativity.
If an original, all-female heist film was done there wouldn't be audience expectation like there's going to be with the Oceans name attached ("It was okay, but George and the boys were so much better"), as you are instantly inviting a bad comparison from the outset to the other films. With an original film you can do original characters not tied to another series, and tell an isolated story to set up a new heist series that has a different feeling to it. They're too slavishly connected to the Oceans brand and will no doubt force rubbish cameos and badly delivered callbacks to the past trilogy like Ghostbusters did.
In the end, that doesn't serve women in the industry well, or the goal of getting more of a female voice in the industry, because every film that fails gives studios less of an interest in pursuing those kinds of projects, especially now when profiting from films is increasingly difficult and the danger of flopping is often present unless you're Disney or Marvel. Ghostbusters was an absolute laughing stock and well deserved failure for the bad intent and execution involved in getting that film out, and that caused a doubt in whether female led films could be marketed. But people aren't upset about the content (a film with all women in it), it's all about how it's marketed and executed to them. These films rely too much on branding and have hollow centers, and in marketing the Ghostbusters film Sony and its associates made the imbecilic move of insulting those who called them out on their BS in making the film, as anyone who was critical of their horrid practices and marketing were considered to be sexist basement dwellers. In reality, they called out a bad film and one that was built as pro-female and anti-male.
The hope is that the films to take note of, Wonder Woman and Mad Max: Fury Road, are the examples studios follow in the future and not any of these reboot-centric films that can't even give women an original franchise to experience: it's always hand-me-downs from men, which is itself an insulting notion. Let's get back to making female led films like the two big successes above, that had strong and complex women in them without someone making a joke every two minutes about how the women were capable despite the fact that they had vaginas or where men didn't have to endlessly be put down at the expense of the so-called "progressive" message of the films that are ironically anti-feminist in execution.
I wish them luck. They'll desperately need it.
http://deadline.com/2017/11/twilight-zone-reboot-cbs-all-access-1202200631/
Also, read online earlier that production on one of two units of season two of Westworld has been temporarily suspended after one of the male series regulars suffered a serious fall at his home.
This was to be expected with all this scandal concerning Spacey.
That said, if they want to continue with it but without Spacey, I think they'd be better off simply re-casting Frank. A tall task, but he's the heart of the show.
http://www.comingsoon.net/g00/tv/news/901289-evan-rachel-wood-reveals-when-westworld-season-2-will-premiere?i10c.encReferrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8=
Last I heard, he was cast.
Looks like another winner from Netflix:
http://deadline.com/2017/11/hitman-television-series-derek-kolstad-john-wick-creator-hulu-fox-21-pilot-script-1202206934/
With a series order, I'm much more optimistic with this than I am the movies, which weren't remotely akin to what the Hitman series is all about. Kolstead handles mythology real well (as soon with the world-building of John Wick), so I have high hopes for this.
Yes, the second film was... pardon the expression... utmost shit.
http://deadline.com/2017/11/amazon-the-lord-of-the-rings-tv-series-multi-season-commitment-1202207065/