The report outlined that the fallout is due to differences over the creative direction of the franchise, with Amazon reportedly in favour of “Marvel-style” ideas to expand the franchise, such as spinoff shows and films.
No, for fucks sake. No!
Broccoli is reported to have baulked at the pitch, telling friends that Amazon are “fucking idiots” who are taking the franchise “hostage”. She has reportedly expressed her disinterest in continuing to work with Amazon for any Bond films. NME has reached out to Amazon MGM Studios for comment.
“Fucking idiots” indeed. And too predictable, to be honest.
Welp… rest well for now, 007. To say it has been a great run is an understatement. Amazon will likely get bored of this toy eventually and perhaps it will end up in competent hands again and we can simply laugh at whatever trash is produced.
Amazon has some good shows, like Invincible, Fallout and The Boys, but then there’s Rings of Power. RoP alone is enough for me to be okay with a Bond pause.
Hard to leaf a good impression when all these people believe themselves to be broccstars, impossible to bond like that
I bet they’re not telling us the real reason. Bezo’s mid-life crisis stepped in and he wanted to play Bond.
Honestly doubt it. Bezos’ sex scandal involved cheating on his wife with a single age appropriate woman, whom he is currently in an exclusive relationship with.
/me imagines the Donald Pleasance Bloefeld as James Bond.
Ah, the old Michael Jackson and Nick Cage syndrome.
Bond hasn’t been good since they couldn’t use the Soviets anymore as an enemy. Modern producers aren’t willing to sacrifice Chinese money to make a real enemy.
Even for the internet, this is stupid.
No, this is actually a thing
Oh I’m sure “a movie can’t be good unless it makes the people I hate the bad guys” is a thing, it’s just shitheaded.
No, friend, it’s a thing that Hollywood producers will revise scripts and implement last minute edits in order to avoid offending the Chinese people so they can get the dollars from the chinese audiences. Beijing will happily ban a movie if they feel it casts China in a negative light.
Interesting that China is the only country that comes to your mind.
Why not the US? A clash between MI6 and the CIA would be cool!
The only type of Bond show I’d be in favor of is a TV series that faithfully recreates the Bond novels in their respective era (1950s-'60s). I would love to see the books remade as a drama series. Hour-long episodes for each book, maybe multiple episodes if the story was really detailed.
That would be an amazing series, and a unique take, as film Bond is nothing like book Bond. Except for the Daniel Craig era. That’s about as close to book Bond as we’ve ever had. That, and Timothy Dalton’s License to Kill film. Book Bond was a very dark and gritty character.
Plus you cannot tell me that Bond didn’t survive in that last movie.
It even says “James Bond Will Return” at the end. So like duh, he didn’t die
(I know but I really want to believe we’re not done with Daniel Craig as Bond)
One of the themes in no time to die is that 007 is just a name that can be given and exchanged to anyone. Bond will return but it won’t be Daniel Craig.
What I don’t get is that they link this James Bond to every single movie that has happen and essentially said that Craig was the embodiment of those characters…and now he’s actually gone. So are they going to have just someone else be James Bond with the same name?
That’s kind of a common question amongst the short stories too.
The part that bothers me is that 007 is assigned to Nomi in No Time To Die. So it sort of makes me wonder why they would assign a different name to the same cover?
We do know that M was the same character in Goldeneye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World is Not Enough, Die Another Day, Casino Royale, Quantum Solace, and Skyfall. So James Bond 007 is clearly a code name for that MI6 cleaner.
Idk. I think they just don’t explain it because they enjoy that little bit of stuff being confusing as covert stuff should be.
My head canon is that anyone that chooses to work in the 00 program as an agent is put though arduous mental problems ala: Jason Bourne until they ARE James Bond. This explains all the James Bonds throughout history
I always assumed that James Bond was a code name anyway, so they can give it to another agent to replace him.
The films disproved this theory. Every actor has shared experiences across the movies, so it’s not a codename. Well, except for Daniel Craig, but his Bond was a reboot.
George Lazenby’s Bond submitted a letter of resignation to M, then cleared out his desk, pausing to reminisce on gadgets and memorabilia from the Sean Connery films as each film’s theme played. So they’re the same character.
George Lazenby’s Bond also got married to a countess named Theresa, and his new wife was murdered by Blofeld. Roger Moore’s Bond visited the grave of Theresa Bond in the opening of For Your Eyes Only, to pay respects to his late wife.
In License to Kill, Timothy Dalton’s Bond refuses to catch the garter from Felix Leiter’s new bride. When she asks Felix what’s up, he explains that Bond was married once, a long time ago.
George Lazenby’s Bond did research into genealogy for an undercover role and looked up his own heritage. He found the coat-of-arms for the real-life knight Sir Thomas Bond, who had the Latin phrase, “Orbis non Sufficit,” or, “The World is Not Enough” emblazoned on it. Pierce Brosnan’s Bond claimed in The World is Not Enough that the expression was a family motto.
So they’re all the same Bond, except for Daniel Craig, who was a reboot. They showed the start of his career, and he was James Bond before he even became 007, so that was his actual name. Also, he was given an undercover name to use for the poker tournament, but used James Bond at the hotel front desk and told them the reservation could be found under the undercover name. If James Bond was already an alias, why give him a second one on a mission?
Daniel Craig is done with Bond, so I doubt we’ll see him again in the role.
I saw the credit at the end as, “We’re not done with the franchise, more Bond films will be made.” Not necessarily that this particular James Bond will return. That caption is a standard on almost every Bond film ever, so of course they had to include it.
Although I admit, in my movie theater viewing, there were a couple little old ladies sitting near me who waited to the end of the credits with bated breath, then heaved a sigh of relief when they saw the caption. It was so cute!
If you’re talking OG Moonraker, instead of “look, people like star wars, let’s do that!” Moonraker, I would put in many $ to this venture (like $10, maybe)
Moonraker is my favorite Bond movie. Hands down and unapologetically.
That sounds great. Highly doubt that’s what Amazon has in mind, though.
Wow, brilliant idea.
Very much like Roger Moore as The Saint, though updated, and less “30 minute 1960’s escapism for 13” black-and-white tv".
I’d go for period adaptations of the books as a streaming show. Finally get a real version of Moonraker for example.
This would be such a smart direction to go with it
If Amazon can’t continue with Bond, maybe they can sell the franchise to Disney, paving the way for a Bond/Doctor Who crossover in which Bond is a rogue timelord known as The Bachelor.
Daniel Craig’s Casino Royale was so good because it did something new; it flipped the series on its head and that was a refreshing change of pace. Realistically gritty action thrillers have dominated the genre ever since. Diluting that with Marvel-esque writing or generic spin-offs would be such a letdown.
I’m not sure what I want next from the Bond franchise, but a Marvel influence is definitely not it.
Next James Bond takes place around Amazon fulfillment centers around the world, and Alexa plays a key part in it. Bond is a black, young female agent this time because diversity (her father was Bond 009), and she has super powers from computer chips running in Amazon cloud.
Amber Ruffin as Jane Bond confirmed?
The thing about the Marvel Cinematic Universe is they already had a massive comic book universe to build from with thousands of stories and characters, and that excludes the ones they already licensed out. Only other IP that can match that catalog is DC, and they keep retreating back to Batman and Superman. Building a cinematic universe from a single character or premise requires way more planning and preparation than studios are willing to spend on.
I actually don’t even know if it’s the planning, studios don’t have the patience for it, the Infinity Saga took 10 years to build to the crescendo they hit around Civil War and that was enhanced by the surprisingly wide appeal of Guardians of the Galaxy, a refreshing shift to Thor(which they eventually overplayed) and the major cultural moment of Black Panther to get there
God I’m so tired of Marvel.
I know people like it, and that’s okay, but every action movie is now Guardians of the Galaxy. The earlier marvel movies are fun too, but by Ironman 2/3 there was so much product placement and it all felt very stale and sterile.
I say it every time this comes up, and it sparks anger, but the movie that did it was Civil War.
Iron Man flinches from a punch Cap throws. A human with peak capable strength does that to the same goddamn dude who took a fucking tank round and just had scorch marks on his armor.
Then in infinity war, the Two stone wielding Thanos frightens Hulk? Bullshit, get out of here. Hulk would have flattened him.
Can’t stand those films. I like the Raimi Spider-man films and the first Iron Man. That’s it. All the other Marvel films are repetitive and boring. I stopped watching them around Iron Man 2/3 as well.
Same goes for Star Wars. Rogue One was good. Stopped caring about the franchise after episode VIII (which I actually enjoyed). There are too many shows and spinoffs now and I got burnt out. Never thought I’d see the day when I’d stop being a Star Wars fan but I literally can not stand any of the shows. They’re all boring.
You didn’t like the first Guardians of the Galaxy?
Also pretty much agreed on Star Wars. Rogue One was great and it’s been a lot of slop since. I did enjoy the first season of Mandalorian and the episodes of Andor I’ve seen so far.
Guardians was okay but nothing special. I was turned off from the film from the very beginning, when the “Awesome Mix” consisted of nothing but the most basic bitch, overplayed songs in existence. I know it’s nitpicky but it sent the message that this wasn’t going to be the kind of film for me.
Which is fitting because Marvel films are the KISS-FM of Hollywood. If Top 40 was a movie franchise, it would be Marvel.
They tried to milk it too much. The initial MCU was good. Phase 1/2. Now it’s just exhausting. Too many characters, too many shows that either don’t seem to be canon or are completely ignored by the films, too many characters to keep track of.
Marvel peaked with endgame. It’s been downhill ever since
I defended the Marvel offerings post Endgame longer than I should have, there’s some good stuff in there like No Way Home and Shang-Chi but it’s reeked of producers trying to rush the build it took to make the final two Avengers films so anticipated and fun. Even if you hate all of those films and think they are bland you have to admit there was something exciting about the long form storytelling they were doing and the experience of seeing those in the theater was a cool shared experience with so many people around the world. I hope they can recapture that lightening with the Russos coming back but somehow I doubt it
Long way to say, I love the MCU and still agree that’s the last thing Bond, LoTR, Star Trek, fuck name an IP and it shouldn’t be trying to Marvel itself. Let Marvel be Marvel
I really enjoyed Loki. I haven’t finished it yet but I was happy to have the context when I watched Deadpool and Wolverine.
Those are both offerings i really enjoyed too, like I said, hoping they can right the ship, now that they are ditching the multiverse and pivoting towards Doom they may have an avenue
I’m tired of marvel as well but comparing movies to guardians of the galaxy attempting to make it seem like a bad thing isn’t really doing what you think it might. GotG is now a gem in the marvel movies cuz it’s doing it’s own thing and telling it’s own story and does it very well.
You’re trying to tell us you wouldn’t be thrilled to go see “Jeff Bezos’ Amazon Presents Amazon’s James Bond™: The End of The World Is Not Enough: Part 1: When James Met Q: Part 1?”
They’re still making new Bond films??
Yes. Yes they are.
I wonder if she would have changed her name if her dad hadn’t been famous with that name. Or if by the time you can legally change it, you’re inured to people’s reaction.
Because Marvel is doing so well right now.
Marvel doing less well than before is still doing a lot more well than I’m doing
Amazon Bond or no new Bond at all?
I’m good with how the franchise ended in the last movie.
I stopped after the first Daniel Craig.
Nothing against him, he’s a great actor. Just didn’t like the direction of the franchise.
The 70’s Roger Moore stuff was campy (which wasn’t the best, but you knew that going in) but at least that had it’s antecedent with Roger Moore playing The Saint in the 1960’s.
It’s been around for so long that it affects different generations. I prefer the Daniel Craig ones over the others just because that’s what was entertaining to me at the time even though I’ve watched some of the older ones.
Franchise? Ended? That’s an oxymoron.
I mean, they did kill him off in the last one…
They killed Craigs’ Bond, 007 isn’t tied to one person. “Bond will return.”
That never stopped anyone. Prequels, multiverses, crazy unbelievable hat trick escapes…
Uh…OK? Explain?
As long as it can be milked it will be milked. They’d never end a franchise voluntarily.
The problem might be that you don’t know what the word oxymoron means
It’s a contradiction in itself. Just like a voluntarily ended movie franchise.
Methinks you sit in a glass house:
ox·y·mo·ron (ŏk′sē-môr′ŏn′) n. pl. ox·y·mo·rons or ox·y·mo·ra (-môr′ə) A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.
“Franchise ending” is definitely oxymoronic, as all it takes is someone else wanting to produce it. At best you could say “the current iteration of a franchise has ended”.
Bond itself is a great example. It seemingly ended after Sean Connery (there was a short hiatus), then again after Roger Moore and they couldn’t get Pierce Brosnan so eventually stop-gapped with Timothy Dalton. Then another short hiatus after Pierce, until it went in a new direction with Daniel Craig, which could be described as revamped/reworked to follow the mood of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (though if you read that book, you understand Sean Connery’s Bond better).
So much effort to continue being wrong
franchise /frăn′chīz″/ noun, plural franchises
(removed other meanings)
- a series of related works (such as novels or films) each of which includes the same characters or different characters that are understood to exist and interact in the same fictional universe with characters from the other works
I’m not seeing how ‘a franchise ending’ is oxymoronic.
