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.
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 period 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.
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.
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".
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?
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?
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 programs ala: Jason Bourne until they ARE James Bond. This explains all the James Bonds throughout history
Well, they sort of have to be. They’re the janitors. Think Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction. They fix problems. Intelligence leaks, missing weapons of mass destruction, and almost certainly disposing of burnt assets.
Bond’s psychological profile deems him unfit for intelligence service - but that’s not his job. His job is to clean up whatever the intelligence service fucks up. In the beginning of Casino Royale it also states that you have to kill two targets - and as he says after shooting the guy “Yes. That was much easier.” (Or something like that). So he’s clearly fucked up at that point.
Circling back to the books - Bond is actually your everyday high level intelligence officer with a 9 to 5 job, except that a couple of times per year M needs someone he can trust who has a licence to kill
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!
That sounds great. Highly doubt that’s what Amazon has in mind, though.