James Bond became an icon in the 60s and early 70s. Somewhere in the 80s, Hollywood caught up to the character with Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, the Bourne franchise, Kingsman, Jack Ryan etc. If Amazon wants to stand apart from all of those, it needs to go back to the 60s with Bond. Otherwise, it will blend and be forgotten.
Broccoli Family finally loses control of James Bond creative decisions
5,302 Views |
118 Replies |
Last: 53 min ago by YouBet
It’s taking around $1 billion to have 007 stewards Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson cede creative oversight of their family’s storied movie franchise, sources tell Deadline.
— Deadline (@DEADLINE) February 20, 2025
The deal, when it closes, is expected to unlock a universe around 007 akin to Marvel and Star… pic.twitter.com/tXfXUuYL9t
Mentioned this on the trailer thread, but the one thing that gives me hope is that Amazon has made some really good content in this general genre with Jack Ryan, Reacher, Hanna, etc. If they put the right people in control it could work.
Either way, unfortunately, it will likely water down the franchise just because of the amount of content. Just like Star Wars used to be really special because you only got new content once every few years at most, now we've got multiple new series every year. Even if they were all great (and we know the track record there), you take away from it being the event that it once was.
Either way, unfortunately, it will likely water down the franchise just because of the amount of content. Just like Star Wars used to be really special because you only got new content once every few years at most, now we've got multiple new series every year. Even if they were all great (and we know the track record there), you take away from it being the event that it once was.
TCTTS said:
For the record, Nolan apparently met with the Broccolis a few years ago about directing the first post-Craig entry, but they were so controlling at the time, and wouldn't afford even Nolan the creative freedom he's no doubt earned by this point, that the one meeting is reportedly as far as talks ever got. But yeah, it would obviously make total sense now for Amazon to approach Nolan and let him do whatever the hell he wants.
That said, Amazon no doubt wants to do all kinds of shows, spinoffs, origin stories, etc set in this world as well, and I don't know that Nolan would be game to participate in/oversee any of that, even only as an executive producer. Though, maybe he can just set the tone with the first movie, then let Amazon take the reins from there.
Confirmed...
Quote:
Broccoli's ire surrounded Amazon's desire to expand the James Bond franchise into its own universe akin to Marvel or Star Wars. Broccoli and Wilson, children of legendary 007 producer Albert R. Broccoli, and always held the line on quality control when it came to the British spy, keeping the series as a stand-alone big-screen brand.
Quote:
Broccoli's ire surrounded Amazon's desire to expand the James Bond franchise into its own universe akin to Marvel or Star Wars. Broccoli and Wilson, children of legendary 007 producer Albert R. Broccoli, and always held the line on quality control when it came to the British spy, keeping the series as a stand-alone big-screen brand.
With today's news, Amazon can now proceed in extending the life of Bond.
In the past, filmmakers including Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan have expressed an interest in putting their stamp on Bond; both however, required complete creative control, which wasn't possible under the reign of Broccoli and Wilson. Now, with the producers on the side, Amazon can move forward to attract a top-tier director.
Also available to come to life in the new deal finally are a slew of Bond villains and women in their own series or features. The last time an attempt was made to spin off the Bond franchise was in 2003 with a stand-alone movie about the spy's girlfriend Jinx, played by Halle Berry in Die Another Die. Bond scribes Neal Purvis and Rob Wade were attached to pen that, with Stephen Frears circling, but Broccoli and Wilson put the kibosh to the idea due to creative differences.
It is all about who you put in charge of it. Cruise is putting out an awesome new MI movie every 3 years or so.fig96 said:
Mentioned this on the trailer thread, but the one thing that gives me hope is that Amazon has made some really good content in this general genre with Jack Ryan, Reacher, Hanna, etc. If they put the right people in control it could work.
Either way, unfortunately, it will likely water down the franchise just because of the amount of content. Just like Star Wars used to be really special because you only got new content once every few years at most, now we've got multiple new series every year. Even if they were all great (and we know the track record there), you take away from it being the event that it once was.
We are at four full years since the last Bond release and no new movie in sight. No casting, no story, nothing.
I honestly don't mind the longer gap between actors/iterations. The Craig movies were so distinct and memorable that seven/eight years between the next actor/iteration feels about right to me. Given this news, my guess is, at the earliest, the first movie films in 2027 for a 2028 release. But if it's Nolan or someone of that ilk, and considering that at least the broad strokes of the 007 extended universe will need to be loosely planned as well, the first movie probably won't film until 2028 for a 2029 release. Which is fine by me. Build up the anticipation again, but then, yeah, once that first movie hits the flood gates will open and there will easily be a new movie or show every couple of years, if not every year from then on.
Yeah, it can work either way.TCTTS said:
I honestly don't mind the longer gap between actors/iterations. The Craig movies were so distinct and memorable that six/seven/eight years between the next actor/iteration feels about right to me. Given this news, my guess is, at the earliest, the first movie films in 2027 for a 2028 release. But if it's Nolan or someone of that ilk, and considering that at least a broad swath of the 007 extended universe will need to be planned as well, the first movie probably won't film until 2028 for a 2029 release. Which is fine by me. Lets build up the anticipation again, but then, yeah, once the flood gates open, there will easily be a new movie or show every couple of years, if not every year from then on.
You couldn't get more different than Die Another Day and then Casino Royale and we only had 4 years between the two. Felt like forever, but it was worth the wait.
Because no one is attached to anything, I think 28 or 29 would be right. They could want to use the first movie to start the entire cinematic universe, and if so, you just hope that all those numbnuts learned from how awful DC did everything they did trying to copy Marvel.
Now THIS is a great idea. If we indeed have to do the whole 007 universe thing, across both film and TV, have Chris set the tone/vibe by directing the first movie, but then have his brother Jonathan - the brilliant creator/showrunner of the Westworld and Fallout adaptations - oversee the TV stuff, if not the entire universe. Could be the perfect pairing, especially considering Jonathan already has a deal at Amazon (with Fallout)...
Jon Nolan creative controller, the first movie or two directed by Chris who has ideas for Bond.
— James Prescott, Superhero (@JamesPrescott77) February 20, 2025
Make a Spectre series as well.
There’s so much potential. Not gonna lie, I’m concerned but if they do it right it would be awesome.
A new film every 3-4 years with a new series or maybe two in between would be ideal, I'm just concerned they won't show that level of restraint.Guitarsoup said:It is all about who you put in charge of it. Cruise is putting out an awesome new MI movie every 3 years or so.fig96 said:
Mentioned this on the trailer thread, but the one thing that gives me hope is that Amazon has made some really good content in this general genre with Jack Ryan, Reacher, Hanna, etc. If they put the right people in control it could work.
Either way, unfortunately, it will likely water down the franchise just because of the amount of content. Just like Star Wars used to be really special because you only got new content once every few years at most, now we've got multiple new series every year. Even if they were all great (and we know the track record there), you take away from it being the event that it once was.
We are at four full years since the last Bond release and no new movie in sight. No casting, no story, nothing.
fig96 said:A new film every 3-4 years with a new series or maybe two in between would be ideal, I'm just concerned they won't show that level of restraint.Guitarsoup said:It is all about who you put in charge of it. Cruise is putting out an awesome new MI movie every 3 years or so.fig96 said:
Mentioned this on the trailer thread, but the one thing that gives me hope is that Amazon has made some really good content in this general genre with Jack Ryan, Reacher, Hanna, etc. If they put the right people in control it could work.
Either way, unfortunately, it will likely water down the franchise just because of the amount of content. Just like Star Wars used to be really special because you only got new content once every few years at most, now we've got multiple new series every year. Even if they were all great (and we know the track record there), you take away from it being the event that it once was.
We are at four full years since the last Bond release and no new movie in sight. No casting, no story, nothing.
I think there is room to do a major Bond movie every 3-4 years, the series, and some outside movies (Felix, M, Moneypenney, Paloma, 006, etc)
But if you spread the Bond movies too far, the actor ages quickly, which may necessitate recasting/rebooting. No one wants another old ass Roger Moore Bond.
Guitarsoup said:torrid said:It could be argued they were testing the waters for a female spy superhero, be it a complete replacement for James Bond/007 or new franchise. But if that is the direction they wanted to go, they got the casting completely wrong. Bring on Ana de Armas.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:Broccolis are the ones that made the female 007 in No Time to Die.torrid said:
I think the Broccolis are more likely to keep the traditions that made the series a success for sixty years. Amazon is more like to turn 007 into a Jane Bond trans superhero.
At least is didn't wind up at Disney.
It was a female 00 agent, not a female Bond. And i'm pretty sure the Broccolis are the ones who are adamant against turning Bond into a female.
Considering they made it a plot point to call her 007 specifically, I think this is dead on
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a27280651/james-bond-producer-wont-ever-be-female-007/
Try watching this. I even set it to the right time, so you don't have to watch all of it.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:torrid said:It could be argued they were testing the waters for a female spy superhero, be it a complete replacement for James Bond/007 or new franchise. But if that is the direction they wanted to go, they got the casting completely wrong. Bring on Ana de Armas.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:Broccolis are the ones that made the female 007 in No Time to Die.torrid said:
I think the Broccolis are more likely to keep the traditions that made the series a success for sixty years. Amazon is more like to turn 007 into a Jane Bond trans superhero.
At least is didn't wind up at Disney.
It was a female 00 agent, not a female Bond. And i'm pretty sure the Broccolis are the ones who are adamant against turning Bond into a female.
Considering they made it a plot point to call her 007 specifically, I think this is dead on
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a27280651/james-bond-producer-wont-ever-be-female-007/
kthxbye
I'm all for an aging Roger Moore again, but I'm a sucker for those movies.Guitarsoup said:fig96 said:A new film every 3-4 years with a new series or maybe two in between would be ideal, I'm just concerned they won't show that level of restraint.Guitarsoup said:It is all about who you put in charge of it. Cruise is putting out an awesome new MI movie every 3 years or so.fig96 said:
Mentioned this on the trailer thread, but the one thing that gives me hope is that Amazon has made some really good content in this general genre with Jack Ryan, Reacher, Hanna, etc. If they put the right people in control it could work.
Either way, unfortunately, it will likely water down the franchise just because of the amount of content. Just like Star Wars used to be really special because you only got new content once every few years at most, now we've got multiple new series every year. Even if they were all great (and we know the track record there), you take away from it being the event that it once was.
We are at four full years since the last Bond release and no new movie in sight. No casting, no story, nothing.
I think there is room to do a major Bond movie every 3-4 years, the series, and some outside movies (Felix, M, Moneypenney, Paloma, 006, etc)
But if you spread the Bond movies too far, the actor ages quickly, which may necessitate recasting/rebooting. No one wants another old ass Roger Moore Bond.
Regarding the timeline, I think you're right that every 3 years would do the trick. The first 16 James Bond films were released in a 27 year span for an average of 20 months between films. But that was before the time needed to film and do post production has gotten to where it is now. And then like you said, you don't want burn out.
Back then you didn't have the number of entertainment options we do now, so the time it took in between movies seemed like an eternity. Now you watch a movie, can't wait for the next but in the meantime you watch and finish 7 new series and see the Aggies go 8-5 for 2 straight seasons it feels like no time has passed at all.
Good God, you're like arguing with my wife, who will refuse to admit there's even the slightest possibility she might be wrong. She/you just keeps hanging on to that one point.
So I'll go ahead and throw in the obligatory, "Okay, honey you're right, you win" just so we can move on from this f****** argument.
So I'll go ahead and throw in the obligatory, "Okay, honey you're right, you win" just so we can move on from this f****** argument.
Guitarsoup said:Try watching this. I even set it to the right time, so you don't have to watch all of it.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:torrid said:It could be argued they were testing the waters for a female spy superhero, be it a complete replacement for James Bond/007 or new franchise. But if that is the direction they wanted to go, they got the casting completely wrong. Bring on Ana de Armas.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:Broccolis are the ones that made the female 007 in No Time to Die.torrid said:
I think the Broccolis are more likely to keep the traditions that made the series a success for sixty years. Amazon is more like to turn 007 into a Jane Bond trans superhero.
At least is didn't wind up at Disney.
It was a female 00 agent, not a female Bond. And i'm pretty sure the Broccolis are the ones who are adamant against turning Bond into a female.
Considering they made it a plot point to call her 007 specifically, I think this is dead on
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a27280651/james-bond-producer-wont-ever-be-female-007/
kthxbye
Context is key...
"James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli has ruled out a female replacement for when Daniel Craig steps down as 007."
Meaning the next Bond iteration/franchise won't see a female takeover the lead/titular role.
It's not going to happen, at least not in the next decade+ or so.
The obsession with this is so weird.
This is terrible. Prepare for a Bond universe that no one wants with prequels, spin-offs, and all sorts of stupid *****
This scene is specifically what I was referring to when I wrote my post. I even linked it previously in this thread so slow people like you could understand easier. She specifically made it a plot point that Nomi was 007. I never said that she was going to make a Jane Bond. I said she made a female 007.FL_Ag1998 said:
Good God, you're like arguing with my wife, who will refuse to admit there's even the slightest possibility she might be wrong. She/you just keeps hanging on to that one point.
So I'll go ahead and throw in the obligatory, "Okay, honey you're right, you win" just so we can move on from this f****** argument.
How is that difficult for you to understand? I can understand your wife's frustrations with you not understanding basic English.
But trashing your wife to a bunch of strangers to try to make a point on a message board when you read an interaction wrong is certainly a choice. She's lucky to have you.
Right, but if you go back to the posts above, many think that Broccoli had Nomi be 007 as a plot device to see what fan reactions would be to give a female the 007 number. It was not well received at the time, and I think that public acceptance between 2021 to now would make that reception much lower with everything that has happened the last 4 years.TCTTS said:Guitarsoup said:Try watching this. I even set it to the right time, so you don't have to watch all of it.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:torrid said:It could be argued they were testing the waters for a female spy superhero, be it a complete replacement for James Bond/007 or new franchise. But if that is the direction they wanted to go, they got the casting completely wrong. Bring on Ana de Armas.FL_Ag1998 said:Guitarsoup said:Broccolis are the ones that made the female 007 in No Time to Die.torrid said:
I think the Broccolis are more likely to keep the traditions that made the series a success for sixty years. Amazon is more like to turn 007 into a Jane Bond trans superhero.
At least is didn't wind up at Disney.
It was a female 00 agent, not a female Bond. And i'm pretty sure the Broccolis are the ones who are adamant against turning Bond into a female.
Considering they made it a plot point to call her 007 specifically, I think this is dead on
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/culture/culture-news/a27280651/james-bond-producer-wont-ever-be-female-007/
kthxbye
Context is key...
"James Bond producer Barbara Broccoli has ruled out a female replacement for when Daniel Craig steps down as 007."
Meaning the next Bond iteration/franchise won't see a female takeover the lead/titular role.
It's not going to happen, at least not in the next decade+ or so.
The obsession with this is so weird.
Before there's more pissing going on about which chromosome plays 007, can we all agree that it's time to retire the stupid Walther PPk? Cmon, a spy is really gonna use a .32 ACP plinker as his service weapon????
Pssssss- I own one, only because I'm a Bond fan :-). But, it's a dumb gun
Pssssss- I own one, only because I'm a Bond fan :-). But, it's a dumb gun
...take it easy on me, I'm a normal horn
Phoebe Waller-Bridge was brought on by Daniel Craig himself to punch up the script/make the female roles in No Time to Die more rounded, and as has been reported, the female 007 bit was almost assuredly her idea. Sure, Broccoli had to approve it, but this wasn't the Kathleen Kennedy situation some of you seemingly want it to be. It was a winky, one-time thing meant as character beat to further deepen Bond's plight in the movie mentally, nothing more.
Could be a good thing, will probably be ****ed up in short order.
I used to hate on the Rings of Power series, but I did not realize Amazon does not own the rights to The Silmarillion.
Basically they are having to work with a few appendices to the Lord of the Rings novel and can't really go into the depth and lore without breaching copyright. There are key characters and story lines that they can't even touch. It's like trying to film the story of Jesus while having the rights to the Pauline letters but without rights to the Gospels.
They screwed up in some other ways but I think a lot of the griping about the story itself is a bit unjustified. I don't think they should have made it at all without all of the rights.
In this case, I think since they will own everything they have a much better shot of getting it right.
Basically they are having to work with a few appendices to the Lord of the Rings novel and can't really go into the depth and lore without breaching copyright. There are key characters and story lines that they can't even touch. It's like trying to film the story of Jesus while having the rights to the Pauline letters but without rights to the Gospels.
They screwed up in some other ways but I think a lot of the griping about the story itself is a bit unjustified. I don't think they should have made it at all without all of the rights.
In this case, I think since they will own everything they have a much better shot of getting it right.
Definitely Not A Cop said:
I thought Season 2 of WOT was much better.
I don't hold much hope for this series under Amazon. If they go about this smartly by bringing in someone like Nolan and telling the hacks with an eye toward politics to pound sand, then there is no reason that quality 007 movies can still be in our future. If they choose to force changes on the character that go against Ian Fleming's creation and the interpretation of same that we have been watching since 1962, then I will just not watch. And I say that as one who first watched a Bond movie - You Only Live Twice - on TV at around age 5.
Hard to believe it will be four years this fall since No Time to Die was released. It's going to be hard for me to accept a new Bond following Daniel Craig.
A lot of people said they never would accept Daniel Craig.Canyon99 said:
Hard to believe it will be four years this fall since No Time to Die was released. It's going to be hard for me to accept a new Bond following Daniel Craig.
Overall, I think he proved them wrong. The individual movies had their ups and downs, but I really enjoyed the organic progression of the character through the Craig films.
This was said with Connery, Moore, and Bronson. Not so much for Lazenby or Dalton as those guys got 1 and 2 films respectively, and the latter saw a 6 year gap following his last movie before Brosnan took up the role.Quote:
accept a new Bond following
A few excerpts from Matt Belloni's latest newsletter...
This is super interesting as well...
https://puck.news/what-is-amazon-going-to-do-with-james-bond/
Quote:
So, what actually happened? I spoke to a couple of Bondworld people who speculated that, with Wilson turning 83 and stepping away from the family business, Barbara was forced to contemplate a tougher and lonelier path on future films. (The children of Broccoli and Wilson, especially Gregg Wilson, have been involved in past Bond movies but were not seen as stewards of the franchiseat least not yet.) And despite all the speculation, there was nothing Bond-related in serious development at Eon. Broccoli had met with actors, as she always does. But it's nuts: Movies were pre-selling at festivals based on Aaron Taylor-Johnson being cast as the next Bond, but there was never any real movement with himor any potential Daniel Craig successor, for that matter.
In fact, one person who spoke to Barbara recently about Bond said she has been genuinely stumped about how to replace Craig after five creatively and financially successful films together. Broccoli was even questioning how the next iteration of the character should look and act. Not a sign of enthusiasm.
Quote:
If I'm Hopkins or Salke, my first call is to Chris Nolan. He's been open about his desire to make a Bond movie, and a major reason it didn't happen was because the Broccolis wouldn't cede control. (Their fights with Sam Mendes on Skyfall and Spectre are a fun bar story.) Waiting a few years for Nolan to finish The Odyssey, and giving him carte blanche and the 120-day theatrical window he gets from Universal, would be a small price to pay for a guaranteed hit and franchise re-starter. Plus, he and Emma Thomas would produce it, too.
I say that because Amazon has paid a massive amount of money for a franchise that is now missing its creative engine. Remember, before Casino Royale in 2006, many wondered whether it was time for Bond to, uh, die. But then the Broccolis reinvented him. Maybe this is an opportunity for a cool, young filmmaker to do something fresh and interesting. But in the wrong hands, the character is an unintentional parody. If they reinvent too much, the generational fans will revolt.
I gotta say, there isn't much belief around town right now that Amazon can pull this off. Yes, they recently brought in real film executives in Courtenay Valenti and marketer Sue Kroll, and they're building out an international distribution infrastructure. (Universal has the right to release the next Bond overseas, where the films make most of their money, and after that Amazon can take over.) But will Bond now get one of those Red One 27-day theatrical windows? Or, potentially, none at all? Amazon sources say they're committed to theatrical for big movies. But that's now. What about in a couple years, when C.E.O. Andy Jassy might be pressuring Hopkins to deliver a jolt to Prime? Ultimately, that's Amazon's actual business.
This is super interesting as well...
Quote:
And remember, Ian Fleming's Bond is set to enter the public domain in 2035, so the clock is ticking. In a decade, the Broccolis and another studio could potentially put out a Bond movie that competes with their own joint venture.
https://puck.news/what-is-amazon-going-to-do-with-james-bond/
CNN thinks Tilda Swinton should be the next bond.
Guitarsoup said:
I'm not really a fan of the Broccolis. They have done good and bad.
I also don't really trust Amazon, but I think they likely recognize the importance of this assets. They have said that Bond things need to be on the big screen.
I would love movies or series about peripheral characters.
Tell me you wouldn't love a stand alone movie about Ana de Armas' character from No Time To Die. Doesn't have to involve Bond or MI6. Just AdA as a CIA spy in Cuba?
No. Not every single IP has to be turned into a "universe" with spin offs, TV shows, etc.
I have ZERO hopes Amazon does right by Bond and I'm sure the Broccoli ancestors are rolling over in their graves.
I can't wait for the bald black woman Bond, or an afghan refugee Bond who grew up in England so is de jure "British" by Amazon standards.
I hope I'm wrong, but this sucks. At least the real James Bond died in no time to die.
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Random thoughts from a this big Bond super fan:
(1) The MI6 world is big enough for stories outside of Bond. That being said, I don't know that I need a "Bond competitor" with a series focused around other 00s. I saw that with one caveat: Alec Trevelyan 006 (Goldeneye). I like the idea of a series based on a 00 mole.
(2) If you don't focus on other 00s, where do you take the universe? The obvious one is Spectre, kind of similar to how Netflix did Kingpin within the Daredevil series. Outside of that, you could do a political-style series based on M and the inner workings of MI6. I don't know that Q or Moneypenny need their own series, though (I did have a wild momentary day dream of a satirical and lighthearted Ted Lasso style rip off featuring Q and Moneypenny that made me laugh for a second).
(3) Maybe go into how 00s are recruited and trained? I could see something akin to the Kingsmen in that regard, but for MI6.
(4) As for Bond, I think he should be saved only for the big screen. Maybe cameos in side projects, but as the main driving protagonist. Other agents fight smaller battles season to season leading to a climax encounter between Bond and the villain in a major feature.
(1) The MI6 world is big enough for stories outside of Bond. That being said, I don't know that I need a "Bond competitor" with a series focused around other 00s. I saw that with one caveat: Alec Trevelyan 006 (Goldeneye). I like the idea of a series based on a 00 mole.
(2) If you don't focus on other 00s, where do you take the universe? The obvious one is Spectre, kind of similar to how Netflix did Kingpin within the Daredevil series. Outside of that, you could do a political-style series based on M and the inner workings of MI6. I don't know that Q or Moneypenny need their own series, though (I did have a wild momentary day dream of a satirical and lighthearted Ted Lasso style rip off featuring Q and Moneypenny that made me laugh for a second).
(3) Maybe go into how 00s are recruited and trained? I could see something akin to the Kingsmen in that regard, but for MI6.
(4) As for Bond, I think he should be saved only for the big screen. Maybe cameos in side projects, but as the main driving protagonist. Other agents fight smaller battles season to season leading to a climax encounter between Bond and the villain in a major feature.
I'd bet 90% plus of "Bond fans" couldn't tell you who Lazenby is or have any idea his film exists.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:This was said with Connery, Moore, and Bronson. Not so much for Lazenby or Dalton as those guys got 1 and 2 films respectively, and the latter saw a 6 year gap following his last movie before Brosnan took up the role.Quote:
accept a new Bond following
MW03 said:
Random thoughts from a this big Bond super fan:
(1) The MI6 world is big enough for stories outside of Bond. That being said, I don't know that I need a "Bond competitor" with a series focused around other 00s. I saw that with one caveat: Alec Trevelyan 006 (Goldeneye). I like the idea of a series based on a 00 mole.
(2) If you don't focus on other 00s, where do you take the universe? The obvious one is Spectre, kind of similar to how Netflix did Kingpin within the Daredevil series. Outside of that, you could do a political-style series based on M and the inner workings of MI6. I don't know that Q or Moneypenny need their own series, though (I did have a wild momentary day dream of a satirical and lighthearted Ted Lasso style rip off featuring Q and Moneypenny that made me laugh for a second).
(3) Maybe go into how 00s are recruited and trained? I could see something akin to the Kingsmen in that regard, but for MI6.
(4) As for Bond, I think he should be saved only for the big screen. Maybe cameos in side projects, but as the main driving protagonist. Other agents fight smaller battles season to season leading to a climax encounter between Bond and the villain in a major feature.
These are great ideas! My favorite villains are the opposite agents like GoldenEye and From Russia with Love. It might be interesting to see Bond's mirror images.
True Bond fans (as opposed to "Bond fans") should know of Lazenby and his single movie. As Bond movies go, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a pretty good one with a memorable villain (Telly Savalas).fig96 said:I'd bet 90% plus of "Bond fans" couldn't tell you who Lazenby is or have any idea his film exists.Cinco Ranch Aggie said:This was said with Connery, Moore, and Bronson. Not so much for Lazenby or Dalton as those guys got 1 and 2 films respectively, and the latter saw a 6 year gap following his last movie before Brosnan took up the role.Quote:
accept a new Bond following
I do like the idea of 006 - Sean Bean was fantastic in that role. Off the top of my head, I only recall another 00's appearance with 008 in Octo***** (but I probably have missed some, perhaps - was the No Country For Old Men actor a former 00? Somehow that just popped into my head).MW03 said:
Random thoughts from a this big Bond super fan:
(1) The MI6 world is big enough for stories outside of Bond. That being said, I don't know that I need a "Bond competitor" with a series focused around other 00s. I saw that with one caveat: Alec Trevelyan 006 (Goldeneye). I like the idea of a series based on a 00 mole.
(2) If you don't focus on other 00s, where do you take the universe? The obvious one is Spectre, kind of similar to how Netflix did Kingpin within the Daredevil series. Outside of that, you could do a political-style series based on M and the inner workings of MI6. I don't know that Q or Moneypenny need their own series, though (I did have a wild momentary day dream of a satirical and lighthearted Ted Lasso style rip off featuring Q and Moneypenny that made me laugh for a second).
(3) Maybe go into how 00s are recruited and trained? I could see something akin to the Kingsmen in that regard, but for MI6.
(4) As for Bond, I think he should be saved only for the big screen. Maybe cameos in side projects, but as the main driving protagonist. Other agents fight smaller battles season to season leading to a climax encounter between Bond and the villain in a major feature.
I'd be okay with combining 1 with 2 but just have 007 involved somewhere else. Surely Spectre has nefarious stuff going on in multiple locations at the same time, and 007 can't be everywhere at once.
For 3, that sounds like a one-off kind of thing, not sure much can be built off it.
Agree that Bond himself should only show up in big screen movies. I can see using the small screen series to set up Bond's next mission or something.
Featured Stories
See All
9:07
17h ago
5.1k
5 Thoughts: No. 6 Tennessee 77, No. 7 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
16:07
19h ago
3.0k
Disparity from deep dooms No. 7 Texas A&M against No. 6 Vols, 77-69
by Olin Buchanan
4:43
20h ago
770
Game Highlights: No. 6 Tennessee 77, No. 7 Texas A&M 69
by Matthew Dawson