Amazon MGM acquired creative control over 007

[MrKiddWint]

@Skyfail

Internally, they actually offer quite a bit of mobility, letting employees explore different roles across their various businesses.

But that could pose a problem. Would a person want someone working in hospital administration to be allowed in the operating room where they are undergoing surgery because the hospital is committed to employee mobility?

Making feature films for wide distribution requires a particular set of talents and outlooks (both developed over time), and demands people with those talents and aligned with those outlooks.

[raylan.givens]

But what sense should it make to do adaptions of the novels originated in the 50´s if you smooth the rough edges?

[Skyfail]

Well , there are a lot of checks and balances in place to make sure that you can’t pull the plug on their entire operation so to speak.

You have an internal job portal where you could apply for a certain role and the heads of that department would assess your profile and grant you an interview if they see you fit and capable enough to manage the new responsibilities.

There’s a lot of hand holding initially to make sure you find your footing.

[Pushkin]

Hi everyone. Have not been around much the last two months as I have stuff come up in real life (nothing bad, just very busy). I have read through the thread and enjoyed all the posts. Here are a few thoughts:

1. First and foremost, I would say let’s wait and see how things turn out before we assume Amazon will be horrible. While the EON did a good job at making Bond into the longest running film series, let’s not pretend everything has been perfect since '62.
2. A few of you were questionning why MW and BB were getting their family out of the business. While it had been clear that MW was pulling back due to his age, it doesn’t surprise me the BB wanted to do the same. She will be 65 this year and maybe felt she had done enough Bond and did not really want to dedicate another 2-3 years of her life on another film or 10-20 years on the next Bond. I guess Bond could have been passed down to another generation, but we don’t know how that would have worked out. I like the music by many children of the Beatles but none of them are at the same level as their parents.
3. Many of you had significant issues with the last 2 Bond films. I did not. Neither film is as good as CR or SF IMHO but I thought they were quality entries - particularly NTTD which I think will age well. We disagree. Perhaps worth remembering our perceptions of these films are “our perceptions” and not established fact. Some of you think TSWLM is the best film in the series. It’s near the bottom for me. We just experience the films differently and have different tastes.
4. Amazon has done some pretty creative stuff with their properties. I am very pleased with Reacher, Jack Ryan, and Bosch. I am hopeful they will hire the right people and give them the needed freedom to do the job (something that EON was not fully prepared to do). Maybe we will finally see a Nolan version of Bond (though some of you don’t want that either).
5. Many of you seem fearful of the spinoffs and the development of a Bond-verse. We have had about 60 years of film. Maybe the change will be good. If they do a series on Q’s grandchildren (or his cat’s philandering), you don’t have to watch it. But maybe they will do one you do want to watch. For me that would be a Felix Leiter series or a faithful adaptation of the books set in the 50s and 60s (i.e., similar to how they did Sherlock Holmes with Jeremy Brett). In a perfect world, we will get something as good as the Penguin series that might even elevate the films (let see how well Penguin supports Batman 2).
6. @secretagentfan - you know far more about the film industry than I do and I always appreciate your posts given your experience. That said, I don’t think its fair to talk about “algorithm”/“IP” (not sure if you did the latter in this thread) and the implied impact on the creative side before Amazon has even hired anyone. Many think they have done some good work with their properties and I am hopeful they will do the same with Bond.

p.s. On a totally non-Bond note, I am going to be spending about 5 nights in Munich in mid-March and I know many of you are from Germany. We are doing the highlights of Munich and day trips to Dachau, the Neuschwanstein Castle, and Nuremberg. Any suggestions would be appreciated for off the beaten path stuff or moderately priced dining in Munich or Nuremberg? Feel free to message me. Apologies to the Moderators if I am breaking any rules - I know it’s not a forum fo travel planning!

[Arbogast777]

@raylan.givens

But what sense should it make to do adaptions of the novels originated in the 50´s if you smooth the rough edges

Surely taking out an N-word here or a “gorilla” reference there would still leave us with a worthwhile adaptation, no?

[raylan.givens]

Of course, but where to stop with the adjusting? What I meant was if you have to take out everything insulting why bother at all with the conflicting source material…

[Binder]

isn’t that the slippery slope fallacy? The overwhelming majority of the source material won’t be insulting to the overwhelming majority of people. Any adaptation of pretty much any source material will involve decisions about what to include and what to leave out.

[MrKiddWint]

@Skyfail

Well , there are a lot of checks and balances in place to make sure that you can’t pull the plug on their entire operation so to speak.

I know. I was being a touch facetious. But my serious point is that producers of series/streaming product conceive of the formal elements of their works in a way different from the way a feature filmmaker does.

In a similar way, a runner who is proficient at the 100 meter dash probably never enters a 10k race. Both are running events, but require different skills and mindsets.

Or to take an example from my world: the different approaches of a film critic and a film scholar. I like Chris Fujiwara’s formulation that film criticism is “[t]he process of tracing out the effects of a film in writing that seeks to prolong and increase them.” I attempt this when I write about a Bond film’s formal elements, and its structuring narratives. An example would be my Robot Bond take on SP. For me, all the Bond elements are hung on a narrative about a state-sanctioned assassin recovering his humanity.

A film scholar would pay more attention to issues of production, how the film does/does not fit into the Bond universe/template, and what relationship it has to its time of production.

Of course, the division I have just outlined is not rigid. For example, my scholarly side shows up in my interest in how a film reflects/rejects the social relations of its time of creation. I regard the members here as Bond scholars, who bring a wealth of Bond universe knowledge to the films, which I lack. Hence, I am not bothered by Blofeld/Oberhauser. They are also passionate lovers of film-as-film. The differences between us are often rooted in how we balance the two sides of the equation. I believe for some of us, a film succeeds/fails first as a Bond product, where for me, pole position goes to its success/failure as a film.

To bring this response back to the issue at hand: what concerns me is a streamer/technological mindset not being up to the task of making an old-style Hollywood event movie. The makers may well love Bond films, but will approach the task with their streaming mindset/eye, while a Hollywood director of the old school will bring a different mindset/eye. A good example of this is the difference between Mendes’ mise en scene in SP (Classical Hollywood to me) and Fukunaga’s in NTTD (more of a gamer/small screen eye).

[sharpshooter]

@Arbogast777

I’ve said for years my greatest desire for Bond going forward is this:

The flagship theatrical film series the same as it’s always been. A huge cinema event every three years like clockwork.

Separately, a series on Amazon called “Ian Fleming’s James Bond.” Each episode would be a 2 hour faithful adaptation of each Fleming novel set in the 1950’s. A new episode every 6 months. A different actor than the theatrical films. No gun barrel, no Bond theme, no anything else reserved for the main films. These would be their own thing.

I’d be up for that. It’s important to me that the film series remains on the big screen. Casting Bond for a Fleming series would also be no less important when you consider he’d easily become the most prolific Bond in terms of screen time if all the books and short stories were adapted.

[secretagentfan]

@Pushkin

I don’t think its fair to talk about “algorithm”/“IP” (not sure if you did the latter in this thread) and the implied impact on the creative side before Amazon has even hired anyone. Many think they have done some good work with their properties and I am hopeful they will do the same with Bond.

I would love to agree - but this is the way Amazon (and Netflix) definitely operate. Everyone who gets hired will have to construct stories with the „research“ done by algorithms.

And you can see how the dip in quality happened between the original „Bosch“ series (based on the books, produced at a time when Amazon and other streamers just started out) and „Bosch: Legacy“ (when they retooled the show according to… algorithms and budget considerations tailored to the expected audience numbers).

As for „Jack Ryan“ - yeah, I enjoyed the show. But I was also aware how it had to work within the confines of many factors, ending up a very generic spy action thing.

Will Amazon start out big with Bond? No doubt. But it soon will look very closely at audience numbers and then „efficiently“ retool everything so that the next two films will arrive at a production budget that has to bring in the profits they want. After that… you know what will happen.

[secretagentfan]

@MrKiddWint

I like Chris Fujiwara’s formulation that film criticism is “[t]he process of tracing out the effects of a film in writing that seeks to prolong and increase them.”

What a great description!

@MrKiddWint

what concerns me is a streamer/technological mindset not being up to the task of making an old-style Hollywood event movie.

Absolutely agreed. And so far, the streamers have not succeeded at that. Also because they have no interest in it.

And the more years pass with that mindset the less audience members will miss that kind of movie.

[Orion]

A thought that occurred to me when i read a post on social media complaing about studio execs spitballing ideas around then insisting they be done;

Sean Connery being in Diamonds Are Forever and Brosnans films before MGM’s first round of bankruptcy would say that isn’t even CLOSE to new. Doesn’t immediately end in a bad idea.

[secretagentfan]

True. And there still are executives who are good with story and basic ideas.

But I would guess that getting back Connery for DAF was rather an impulse out of panic („get the successful guy back“) and Brosnan for GE („people like him“) than any reliable instinct for era planning.

Right now, I‘m calling it: Amazon will cast Cavill for the same reasons.

[sharpshooter]

@secretagentfan

Right now, I‘m calling it: Amazon will cast Cavill for the same reasons.

Before the Amazon news I would’ve said Cavill’s chances were slim and he’s too old. But now it feels very much like an option, especially if they crank out films every two years. Which was the norm from 1995-1999.

[Orion]

With the Amazon Scrooge McDuck level accounts, hopefully they can return to that.

[sharpshooter]

Amazon need their debut to be a success. A lot of people are worried they’re going to screw everything up, therefore going the popular blockbuster route would be wise: especially after the film we’ve just had. I don’t think ‘playing it safe’ would be viewed as a bad thing right now. There would be a sense of relief if anything. Lay the groundwork and go from there, with a clearer outline of a plan.

[west]

I think it will undoubtedly be measured as a sucess by box office (I’m sure it will have a theatrical release, I don’t doubt it’s in the agreement), and a very decent chance by audience reaction. It’s a Bond film, there’ll be a novelty of a new Bond, and a sizeable gap since NTTD. Most of the public either won’t know or care that Eon is no longer attached (do the majority of the Bond-going audience even know who/what Eon is/was?).

What us rusted-on fans think of it will be an entirely different story. There’ll certainly be a lot of interesting discussion, which is exciting.

[Pushkin]

@secretagentfan

Will Amazon start out big with Bond? No doubt. But it soon will look very closely at audience numbers and then „efficiently“ retool everything so that the next two films will arrive at a production budget that has to bring in the profits they want. After that… you know what will happen.

Some good points. I for one don’t think they need to go big. Bond a small scale could work very well. I am pretty confident both EON and MGM/UA were just as interested in making money.

Might they also try to jump on some other trends in film? Probably, but Eon did that too (e.g., LALD - Blaxploitation, TSWHLM - Jaws, Moonraker - Star Wars, LTK - Miami Vice).

[secretagentfan]

@Pushkin

I am pretty confident both EON and MGM/UA were just as interested in making money.

Definitely.

But EON was not risk averse (see casting Craig after DAD making tons of money), and they had a firm grip on their movies without having to directly answer a superior.

The new producers will be on a short leash.

That’s why people should forget about Nolan taking over. He does not need that micromanagement. He is better off with the position he has worked for: doing what he wants, ditching a studio when he feels slighted.

Good for him.

[Orion]

He is definitely enjoying that power while he has it.