007 heading to streaming? Amazon buys MGM for $8.45 billion!

1202123252630

Comments

  • Looks like Amazon are trying to balls things up. Pity. No one wants a Bond TV series. Would cheapen the brand like the Treadstone bore as someone mentioned earlier. Only TV series that may work imo would be period Bond but I can't see it happening. Looks like we have a long wait for any Bond 26 news.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    @Mendes4Lyfe ... I could be wrong, but I'll say it anyways: worldwide audiences aren't going to see M:I flicks or John Wick flicks because they want to see a return to classic Bond.

    Most people on the street, anywhere in the world, probably don't think in these terms, my man...

    They go to see NTTD or Wick or M:I or Maverick, or Batman...coz they LIKE these films... Some of these audiences cross over because these groups of people enjoy a certain GENRE of film...
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    John Wick doesn't seem to be very Bondy to me at all. With MI Ghost Protocol I can see the Bond thing, but that was ten years ago and they went a bit more dramatic too, in the CraigBond vein. And produced a couple of brilliant films too.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,638
    I think a James Bond TV show like Sherlock/John Ryan/Jack Reacher would work. Just get the right people to write. James Bond could succeed if given the chance. Barbara Broccoli is James Bond's real life M.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    peter wrote: »
    I said, @Mendes4Lyfe ,that I didn't like the Brosnan Era, but "didn't worry since I knew a new era would bring a new tone"...

    (Which is a clunky sentence-- that's what you should have zeroed in on)...

    Like I said: read articles and posts three times before replying, lol.

    I didn't know what would come after Brozz, just as you have no idea what's coming after Craig. The point is, EoN make films for the GLOBAL AUDIENCE and not for some guy in Toronto, or some guy who goes by Mendes4Lyfe.

    It's called the film business, because it is a business and they have the unenviable task to assess what is the best film that could bring in the most eyeballs. It's a massive crap shoot and they know they're going to piss off people who take their films as a personal affront against them. But so long as there are more butts in seats, than not, they're doing their job!

    That's what all studios and films set out to do.

    Yeah, and the market for people wanting a return of classic bond is so wide even other franchises like mission impossible and john wick have moved in to take advantage of that fervor.

    I seriously doubt the filmmakers behind M:I and JOHN WICK have been looking at Craig’s films and thinking “wow, they’re not delivering classic Bond adventures, let’s take advantage of that and show those Bond filmmakers how it’s REALLY done!”

    This is in spite of the fact that both have heavily borrowed aspects from Craig films more than fans are willing to admit. Hell, JOHN WICK’s entire visual aesthetic is based off of SKYFALL’s neon driven Shanghai sequence “hey, let’s do what they did there and do MORE of that!”

    DwfBWe1VAAA2QYj.jpg:large

    And you know what? That’s great! It shows that Craig’s films have had an impact on cinema. Bond fans say they want Bond films to be the one setting trends rather than follow them. Well, here you go!
  • zb007zb007 UK
    Posts: 87
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe ... I could be wrong, but I'll say it anyways: worldwide audiences aren't going to see M:I flicks or John Wick flicks because they want to see a return to classic Bond.

    Most people on the street, anywhere in the world, probably don't think in these terms, my man...

    They go to see NTTD or Wick or M:I or Maverick, or Batman...coz they LIKE these films... Some of these audiences cross over because these groups of people enjoy a certain GENRE of film...

    Exactly if you asked them what classic bond was they probably wouldn't know what you where talking about that era isn't coming back either
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2023 Posts: 16,431
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    I think a James Bond TV show like Sherlock/John Ryan/Jack Reacher would work.

    Only one of those was any good though, and it ran out of steam in the last series or so.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    zb007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe ... I could be wrong, but I'll say it anyways: worldwide audiences aren't going to see M:I flicks or John Wick flicks because they want to see a return to classic Bond.

    Most people on the street, anywhere in the world, probably don't think in these terms, my man...

    They go to see NTTD or Wick or M:I or Maverick, or Batman...coz they LIKE these films... Some of these audiences cross over because these groups of people enjoy a certain GENRE of film...

    Exactly if you asked them what classic bond was they probably wouldn't know what you where talking about that era isn't coming back either

    Yes @zb007 … Sit some of these modern audiences in front of Dr No and they wouldn’t know what to do. They’d be on their phone inside of three minutes.

    That argument that Mendes made really was kinda plucked out of thin air.
  • edited April 2023 Posts: 2,270
    peter wrote: »
    zb007 wrote: »
    peter wrote: »
    @Mendes4Lyfe ... I could be wrong, but I'll say it anyways: worldwide audiences aren't going to see M:I flicks or John Wick flicks because they want to see a return to classic Bond.

    Most people on the street, anywhere in the world, probably don't think in these terms, my man...

    They go to see NTTD or Wick or M:I or Maverick, or Batman...coz they LIKE these films... Some of these audiences cross over because these groups of people enjoy a certain GENRE of film...

    Exactly if you asked them what classic bond was they probably wouldn't know what you where talking about that era isn't coming back either

    Yes @zb007 … Sit some of these modern audiences in front of Dr No and they wouldn’t know what to do. They’d be on their phone inside of three minutes.

    That argument that Mendes made really was kinda plucked out of thin air.

    I’ll actually provide a slight pushback to this statement in saying that I’ve shown friends both Dr. No, and From Russia With Love and they’ve enjoyed them throughly. Though for the most part, the modern audience doesn’t have the knack for films like that anymore. One friend told me he doesn’t watch movies made before 2000, it was sort of cringe worthy.
  • HildebrandRarityHildebrandRarity Centre international d'assistance aux personnes déplacées, Paris, France
    Posts: 484
    Kingsman is a deliberate attempt at reusing elements of old-school Bond films for people who miss in particular the camp from the more recent entries, it's even acknowledged in the dialogue of the first one. Yet, as a franchise, it has lost steam quite fast, which shows that it's not enough to justify entire movies.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,410
    Kingsman is a deliberate attempt at reusing elements of old-school Bond films for people who miss in particular the camp from the more recent entries, it's even acknowledged in the dialogue of the first one. Yet, as a franchise, it has lost steam quite fast, which shows that it's not enough to justify entire movies.

    Are you saying that making a bond film like TSWLM but updated for the 2020's would be a huge flop today?

    As far as I can see, that's exactly what the audience is looking for - some fun no holds barred escapism.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Kingsman is a deliberate attempt at reusing elements of old-school Bond films for people who miss in particular the camp from the more recent entries, it's even acknowledged in the dialogue of the first one. Yet, as a franchise, it has lost steam quite fast, which shows that it's not enough to justify entire movies.

    Are you saying that making a bond film like TSWLM but updated for the 2020's would be a huge flop today?

    As far as I can see, that's exactly what the audience is looking for - some fun no holds barred escapism.

    What makes you think they don’t want another CR or SF?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2023 Posts: 16,431
    Kingsman is a deliberate attempt at reusing elements of old-school Bond films for people who miss in particular the camp from the more recent entries, it's even acknowledged in the dialogue of the first one. Yet, as a franchise, it has lost steam quite fast, which shows that it's not enough to justify entire movies.

    It was also very much a twist on them rather than replicating the format; plus the budget was clearly a lot lower.
    I thought they were good fun though.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    Posts: 942
    Eon have been trying to replicate the Skyfall formula for a while, it pleased the largest amount of people by combining the Craig era’s grittiness with several elements of the traditional Bond formula that had been absent since DAD. No matter what direction the next movie takes, they will come back to trying to combine a fresh take with nostalgia about Bond’s previous highs.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    I think the nostalgia angle will be dialled down next time: they've been there and done that. I'm expecting a fresher take without the DB5/padded door stuff this time.
  • SeanoSeano Minnesota. No, it's not always cold.
    edited April 2023 Posts: 44
    Sorry, gotta uncloak here.

    Yeah, and the market for people wanting a return of classic bond is so wide even other franchises like mission impossible and john wick have moved in to take advantage of that fervor.

    John Wick is a four film series that tells an interconnected story which ends
    with the death of the main character. Seems a lot more like "Craig Bond" than "Classic Bond" to me. YMMV.

    MOD EDIT: Please spoiler tag such things in the future.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Ouch @Seano , I didn’t know that about the new film, 😂. Spoiler alert.

    But you’re 💯 % that sounds an awful lot like the Craig Era of Bond films vs the Classic Era (and what is the Classic Era now? Just Connery? Connery/Laz/Moore? Connery/Laz/Moore/Dalton?)….


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    I think it's the first two films: lost its way with Goldfinger :D
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    I think it's the first two films: lost its way with Goldfinger :D

    😂 😂 😂
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    Yeah, this insistence that JOHN WICK is somehow a return to Classic Bond style films is nonsense. Heck, Wick being declared “excommunicato” is that version of the universe’s way of making him a rogue agent.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    Posts: 13,978
    Personally, I think Mission Impossible: Fallout, should be where EON should look for inspiration. Fallout got the balance of action:drama in a way that they failed with the Craig era. They put more focus on drama and emotions, but the action has been sorely lacking since CR. The foot chase was the last memorable sequence in Bond. It probably doesn't help that with the exception of Campbell, the Craig era directors were out of their depth when it came to action.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,410
    Watch MI: dead reckoning blow everyone's socks off in a couple months. It's getting embarassing how far ahead tom cruises team is at the moment. EON really need to pull their finger out and up their game in the new era of films...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,188
    I thought FALLOUT wasn’t that great, so I wouldn’t want to see Eon go that direction.
  • sandbagger1sandbagger1 Sussex
    edited April 2023 Posts: 942
    The MI films have great action, but I can’t say I’m interested in the characters much (with the exception of Rebecca Ferguson’s Ilsa, but that’s largely down to Ferguson’s charisma - she’s great in everything), and that limits rewatchability for me a bit. Rogue Nation I’ve rewatched several times, Fallout less so, though that bathroom fight is really good. I think both are much better than Spectre, though, and I’d place RN over NTTD any day of the week.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    M:I has been crushing it in ways Bond hasn't in a very long time. Hopefully Bond takes away something from them for the next era. I'm incredibly excited for these next two installments. They're going to be insane.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    After Number 3, with the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman, the next films in the series all blend into one. I don’t know which is which, and I often forget large chunks of these adventures as soon as I leave the cinema.

    I also, admittedly, can’t stand the leading man, so combined with the spectacle that they are— that give me short term memory loss— I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how hard I tried in the past, I’m just not a fan and wouldn’t want Bond going in their direction.

    Bond is a great cinematic character that actors play, whereas M:I is Tom Cruise doing awesome stunts. In my opinion, Ethan Hunt hasn’t existed since the first film.

    And number 3 is my favourite (realizing that it seems to be the least of the series, what does that say about me, 😂?).

    No matter how flawed Spectre is, I’d still watch it over any M:I film… that’s not me being hyperbolic, it’s just the plain, boring truth.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,431
    I'd disagree there: the MI films from 4 onwards are a marvel of blockbuster filmmaking and story construction. Yes, perhaps in a mechanical way, but they're flawlessly put together, like a beautiful machine. So many films could learn from the ending of Rogue Nation; not least Casino Royale in fact, which felt that it had to cram in one more action scene despite the audience willing it to get back to the drama of the film.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,983
    I've always felt that I'd rate CR a bit higher if it had eschewed that final action sequence and stuck closer to the original novel's ending.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    mtm wrote: »
    I'd disagree there: the MI films from 4 onwards are a marvel of blockbuster filmmaking and story construction. Yes, perhaps in a mechanical way, but they're flawlessly put together, like a beautiful machine. So many films could learn from the ending of Rogue Nation; not least Casino Royale in fact, which felt that it had to cram in one more action scene despite the audience willing it to get back to the drama of the film.

    Oh I definitely don’t fault their technical wizardry, there’s no arguing that point. The talent behind the cameras is the best in the biz.

    But where they all jumble up to me is in the narratives. They are visually exciting, but I actually think they fail in the storytelling. I literally jumble the films after the third one. And that makes sense in some ways as they seem to construct a “story” around the set pieces they’ve decided to shoot.

    Considering that Number 3, to me, actually has a script, a story, characters with clear motivations, no wonder it’s my favourite.

    After this is what I remember about the films following the third one:

    Climbing the tower in Dubai, a sandstorm and the original Blomkvist as a villain and a fight in a parking garage— I think?

    An underwater sequence where Cruise claimed to hold his breath for 15 weeks (I kid), Henry Cavill and a bathroom fight scene, Angela Basset and Alec Baldwin, a BMW chase, breaking into something in Moscow, Paula Patton fighting Madeleine Swann… there are other scenes that flash thru my head, but I honestly wouldn’t be able to tell you if these scenes happened in films four five or six— or however many they’re up to.

    Once again, I should have emphasized the talent behind the camera to make the spectacle work, are the best of the best, but the stories, as much as I can call them that, are either so meaningless, my brain shuts down, or I’m an idiot (and I wouldn’t get in a fight with the latter, but im quite sure the actual stories come quite secondary to the visual set pieces…).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited April 2023 Posts: 16,431
    I actually think the storytelling is the impressive bit. The stories work perfectly: everything is explained, everyone has motivation, everything is resolved incredibly satisfyingly. Plot-wise they're genius. Ghost Protocol is a touch shakier than the two that follow, but that's because McQuarrie was brought in late on that one.
    The stories aren't deep, but neither are they in Bond. But here they work, where in something like Spectre the story just sort of falls apart. He knows how to construct these things perfectly.

    Something I love about Ghost Protocol was that I was watching the Blu Ray the other day and there's a deleted scene where the characters all describe a plot which is actually very different to that of the finished film! They had the big set pieces all mapped out but the script was unfinished, and left it until the studio shoot later in the process to work out precisely how they all joined up, because the indoors bits are basically where the exposition happens. And I don't think it shows in the finished film at all, and to do that on the fly shows some serious experience about how a story locks together.
Sign In or Register to comment.