this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Movies

8835 readers
72 users here now

Lemmy

Welcome to Movies, a community for discussing movies, film news, box office, and more! We want this to be a place for members to feel safe to discuss and share everything they love about movies and movie related things. Please feel free to take part and help our community grow!


Related Communities:

!books@lemmy.world - Discussing books and book-related things.

!comicbooks@lemmy.world - A place to discuss comic books of all types.

!marvelstudios@lemmy.world - LW's home for all things MCU.


While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by the Lemmy.World Terms of Service: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

  1. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, or advocating violence will be removed.

  2. Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally insult others.

  3. Spam, self promotion, trolling, and bots are not allowed

  4. Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem.

    Regarding spoilers; Please put "(Spoilers)" in the title of your post if you anticipate spoilers, as we do not currently have a spoiler tag available. If your post contains an image that could be considered a spoiler, please mark the thread as NSFW so the image gets blurred. As far as how long to wait until the post is no longer a spoiler, please just use your best judgement. Everyone has a different idea on this, so we don't want to make any hard limits.

    Please use spoiler tags whenever commenting a spoiler in a non-spoiler thread. Most of the Lemmy clients don't support this but we want to get into the habit as clients will be supporting in the future.

Failure to follow these guidelines will result in your post/comment being removed and/or more severe actions. All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. We ask that the users report any comment or post that violates the rules, and to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ryan213@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Amazon Bond or no new Bond at all?

I'm good with how the franchise ended in the last movie.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Franchise? Ended? That's an oxymoron.

[–] ryan213@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

As long as it can be milked it will be milked. They'd never end a franchise voluntarily.

[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The problem might be that you don't know what the word oxymoron means

[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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).

[–] catsarebadpeople@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

So much effort to continue being wrong

[–] gift_of_gab@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I mean, they did kill him off in the last one...

[–] Codilingus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

They killed Craigs' Bond, 007 isn't tied to one person. "Bond will return."

[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] peoplebeproblems@midwest.social 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago

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?

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That name sounds made up.

More power to her though, fuck Amazon.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All of the Bond films were produced by someone named Brocolli.

[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Albert R. Broccoli was the original co-producer of the Bond franchise (along with Harry Saltzman). Barbara Broccoli is his daughter, who helped him with production through the '80s and took over the franchise starting with GoldenEye in '95.

She's responsible for the more modern era of Bond that started with Pierce Brosnan, and also the rebooted era with Daniel Craig. She specifically rebooted the franchise because of Austin Powers, which satirized the Bond films and basically turned their tropes into a joke. She had to reinvent Bond so people would stop comparing her films to Austin Powers.

[–] eyes@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

There's a great podcast called "Kill James Bond" that posits the theory that every time a spoof comes out it scared the studios so much that they had to reboot it.

[–] AshMan85@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Good, I hope she doesn't let then ruin it

[–] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Roger Moore era of James Bond already did that…

[–] EveningPancakes@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I think your phone autocorrected Timothy Dalton

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I give Dalton a lot of credit. He was making Bond in the middle of the AIDS era. They had to cut out the wild, promiscuous sex and even denied him cigarettes. It was like making a Superman movie where the actor had to be in Clark Kent's clothes and never wore the cape.

[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What's wrong with Dalton? I liked Living Daylights. Licence to Kill was alright too. They went too far in the "gritty" direction on the latter in my personal opinion, but at least they were trying something new, especially since some of the later Moore films went a little too far in the "wacky" direction (cough cough Moonraker)

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

Dalton did a great job with what he was given. The first few minutes of Brosnan's movie brought back the cigarettes and casual sex. Dalton's Bond was 'cleaned up' for the AIDS era.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Moonraker is my favorite. If that kicks me out of the fan club so be it. Daniel Craig is my favorite Bond though.

[–] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong, I like Moonraker, and Moore's Bond for that matter.

It's just that sometimes you're watching a spy movie and the US launches a space shuttle into orbit, which is met by a space shuttle owned by ~~Elon Musk~~ some billionaire space tycoon (which he stole from himself), then they both open up and a bunch of army guys and billionaire goons float out and have a laser gun space battle, and you kinda have to step back and wonder how you got there.

[–] ineffable@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

And considering that the book has nothing to do with space...

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

arguably the Daniel Craig ones did that by being actually fairly believable spy movies that made slight sense.

Bond is about using a magic watch to blow up vaguely Russian people and sleep with barely legal teenagers

[–] cobysev@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

[...] sleep with barely legal teenagers

Funny you should say that. Roger Moore gave up the Bond role when he realized that his Bond girl co-star was younger than his own daughter. He felt really icky having romance scenes with her and decided it was time to end his contract.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

If Bond is about that, why does the Daniel Craig Bond use almost no gadgets?

At least the first 3 movies, the only gadgets is like a handgun that detects who uses it, a Bond car from the Sean Connery era, some explosive necklace and ... a phone.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 points 3 months ago

actual answer: because austin powers made gadgets uncool. there's an interview with craig abut that.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's pretty much what I just said?

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

But why male models?

[–] Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago

That was their point. They were trying to draw a distinction between the Bond era prior to Craig, and after, where they argue that the lack of goofy gimmicks and at least slightly more grounded plots that represent the Craig era are the departure from the definitive Bond years.

[–] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Timothy Dalton movies at least performed better consistently (albeit it two movies isn’t as consistent as one needs). Not to mention that Roger Moore is a fucking creep. The women on screen didn’t seem to want him so much as they feared him. Connery is clearly desired by women and Brosnan is just the ideal Bond in my head (I blame the N64). Roger Moore has such awful movies by comparison and his arrogance IRL just makes it that much worse.

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

There's a post above this that says Roger Moore quit because the new Bond girl was too young and he was uncomfortable with that.

I'd say it's unfair to call him a fucking creep. Calling his character a creep would be the right way to put it.

[–] mean_bean279@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Idk if I’d believe that, but take a look at his Wikipedia political views. The guy was a total dick. He believed that Britain shouldn’t be in the EU currency because of his love for the queen, and he criticized the new films for being too politically correct. Link

[–] MutilationWave@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Interesting. I'd still call him an out of touch dick not a creep.

Bah I can't pay my taxes, it will kill my retirement fund he said. Then moved to his four other homes in four different countries.