Hmm; none of this bodes particularly well, but it’s all weathered storms in the past, not that the business conditions of the past should be relied on as a steer or reassurance that this will all pass.
Suspecting next year may be free of Bond news, other than the 007 Store selling a 60 Years of Thunderball cuddly Golden Grotto shark for £46,500.89 + VAT.
Have to say - from my own experience as a very minor civil servant dealing with people from all walks of life from taxpayers, entrepreneurs, politicians, to students and opposite numbers in the EU apparat and the UK - you’re as likely to meet people open to reasoned argument as you’re not. Quite often I’ve sensed a decision or firm conviction has already been formed and no amount of analysis or evidence was able to move that. Not because of algorithms but plain old human nature.
I would not generally value old school ability to argue and discuss higher than that based on data. An algorithm does nothing fundamentally new that people haven’t been doing anyway - only more of it, faster and with a much broader database.
We pride ourselves of course of our superior intellectual approach to solving problems, our human abilities and capacity for reason and perspective. But game theory as well as our social reality proves we’re neither always doing the ‘sensible’ thing, we generally also rationalise obviously - and objectively - harmful decisions when the circumstances allow for it.
This is by far not always the case; how could it be when such a lot decisions are taken each day? But our own confirmation bias usually keeps us convinced we’re acting reasonable and to our best judgment - when it’s demonstrably not the case.
Especially on a corporate level decisions are usually taken by a small circle ‘in-group’ - and then supported by huge amounts of the necessary data/market research/economics 101 flavour-of-the-day.
Since we’re not talking international politics here but a fairly lowbrow entertainment industry that’s aimed at the lowest common denominator to charm us, I don’t think either approach must have the edge over the other; you can arrive at ‘James Bond jr’ and DIE ANOTHER DAY entirely without the help of the mighty algorithm.
If ever there were a film that seemed to be created entirely based on algorithms, it’s “Red One.”
Whether that’s a good thing or not is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
However, the main factor in the room was Johnson. Whatever he wants he gets. (Not from the new WB/DC, of course, let’s be grateful for James Gunn again).
Exactly.
This article, while I think intended to come across as a pro-EON piece, ends up not making them look very good at all. It wouldn’t have mattered which studio they ended up with after the MGM sale, they were going to be dealing with an algorithm. They’re just dealing with Amazon’s algorithm as opposed to Warner Bros. or Universal’s, or whoever else’s. EON themselves, as someone else already alluded to, was already dealing with an “algorithm” of sorts by simply copying the various trends over the decades.
What it boils down to is they’re facing pushback from the supplier of their funds for the first time ever and they don’t like it. I mean, God forbid the people who are supplying the money have some say over how their money is spent.
It’s easy to bash Amazon. But I have seen some quality programs from them too (e.g., Bosch and Reacher). While those were not movies, it tells me that they are able to work with people on the creative side and turn out quality stuff.
Hopefully EON and Amazon find a way to work well together.
I find it doubtful. Amazon’s going to want to have some of their ideas fleshed out in these films and EON’s not going to have it. This is the same production team that completely scrapped an entire Bond film because it was a bit too out there for them and then proceeded to give us Spectre, the most boring, uninteresting, lifeless, and least exciting “action” film released in a cinema in the past couple of decades (at least).
Unless Amazon hires Daniel Craig to pitch their ideas to EON. Then, that might work.
What you yourself note: “having creative control.”
Algorithms provide data, the correct interpretation of said data, and the correct course of action. They reduce the human contribution.
For me, that is a bit of mind reading–maybe apparent in your view, but not necessarily true.
Would expressing reservations have had an impact on the deal? What leverage/influence did Eon have with MGM/UA with regard to the decision to sell itself to Amazon? Maybe Eon realized that they were powerless to affect the deal, so kept their powder dry in the hopes that the oligarch’s conglomerate would behave reasonably.
Eon is standing its ground. What is rude about that? Full disclosure: I am an old AIDS/queer civil rights activist, so I may well have a higher threshold for rude. I was never a go-along-to-get-along homo.
And the stand Eon is taking is to maintain creative control. It may not be all tea, crumpets, and pinkies out, but sometimes winsomeness doesn’t work.
You are correct. I have had to deal with bureaucrats and funders who have been told by the algorithm that these are the services that under-resourced youth need, in opposition to what the youths themselves have said.
And they are resisting the stronger force. And as I noted above, as a gay man with a long history of resisting strong forces, I have a predilection for resistance, and for not bending the knee (acknowledging that there are plenty of gay men willing to bend said knee, and proclaim to any het who will listen: “I’m just like you! It’s those other fags who are the bad ones.”)
What we? The Royal We? Am I included?
Maybe for people that have hated Eon’s decisions, any oppositional force is welcome–even the algorithm. But as for a bloodless algorithm injecting new blood–I am skeptical.
But those who praise them do not regard them as fallible–they think they are market research on steroids. And they are being used in more and more areas of society.
Fine. Keep the dreck where it belongs in the oo7 store (excepting the La-La Land soundtracks, of course).
And thank you for “dreck.” My mother (of German and Austrian lineage–one parent an immigrant and the other the child of one) used that term all the time when I was growing up, and I haven’t heard it in years).
Copying trends in not an algorithm of any sorts. Such behavior still requires human discernment and decision-making.
That’s why it’s in quotes. Of course it wasn’t a literal algorithm.
This whole process between Amazon and EON could become quite entertaining, moreso than any Bond movie in a while. I wouldn’t be surprised if they proposed yet another film about Bond having to prove his relevance in this new, post-pandemic, on its way to being post-democratic world with Bond globe trotting to Italy for the umpteenth time, while battling this time against his long-lost step-sister who just conveniently has turned into a worldwide supervillain and then Amazon just looked at them like “You’re kidding, right?”
I know. But I think even saying it was a sort of algorithm is a huge stretch. Algorithms are far more insidious than research data.
No. The plot Amazon wants is a reborn Felix Leiter recruiting Bond to help secure Greenland (new exotic locale) for the United States, in order to exploit its mineral resources. But just as Bond is driving a tank through the streets of Copenhagen, he gets an urgent call to fly to Central America, where the Chinese are trying to drain all the water out of the Panama Canal, and hold the world hostage. This new Bond forgoes his Aston Martin for a souped-up Tesla with both ejector seat and flame thrower. (I have it on good authority that this is what that dinner at Mar-a-Lago was about).
In the entertainment industry at least executives and their underlings quote algorithms (not just the streamers, by the way) - but they also have to admit that these algorithms do not guarantee success. Just like market research etc.
The box office otherwise would only consist of mega successes.
Good one 
I hope you are right. Algorithms are becoming ubiquitous.
Worshippers at the First Church of the Algorithm in Burbank.
I guess this as good a place as any to post this. Both enlightening and sad. It’s an archive of a paywall article, so no preview, but it goes in depth into the current state of EON and Amazon.
Thanks YP.
Thanks a lot, @Yellow-Pinky, much appreciated!
That recalibration may even mean a shift away from Pinewood to filming abroad — anything to reduce the cost of building expensive semi-permanent sets.
This actually strikes me as the most significant detail. A move away from Pinewood when everywhere there’s pressure to keep the domestic entertainment industry happy wouldn’t sit well with the media. If Bond can’t afford Pinewood, how should other productions do it?
No Pinewood would indeed by a terrible blow. And maybe even a strategic blunder. To come back as Britain‘s biggest hero and pretending not to afford its designated stage - while being Amazon funded - would ring so devestatingly false.
Absolutely. All those venues that invested massively during the last few years to make the UK a production hub of the streaming age are eager to also keep tentpole film productions at home.
If Bond, after having had a spectacular run at the box office and having one of the planet’s biggest companies as backer now, goes ‘cheap’ by moving the production to foreign premises the signal is quite absurd. How would a production have to be funded to afford Pinewood then?
This comment is inline with what I read in an article about GLADIATOR II–one of the producers said that it might be one of the last films that had huge sets built for it. The desire seems to be there to continue the practice, but not the economic reality to do so.
Jean-Pierre Melville may have the last word after all.
They obviously expect - hope - AI and CGI together will render most of the set construction obsolete. Just as they bet on AI writing the scripts soon (and given the conformity on display in many modern films and series one can see where such a belief originated).
I won’t say it’s impossible because many younger people will likely have no problem with such a development. I doubt it will entirely take over these and other creative branches of the industry - or at least not for ever. But on the short and middle distance there’s definitely going to be a fundamental shift in the way films are produced, consumed - and probably also in how they are regarded by the audience.
