[HN Gopher] Where is James Bond? Trapped in an ugly stalemate wi...
___________________________________________________________________
Where is James Bond? Trapped in an ugly stalemate with Amazon
Author : gnabgib
Score : 99 points
Date : 2024-12-27 01:11 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wsj.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com)
| gnabgib wrote:
| https://archive.is/sBNln
| upghost wrote:
| I feel like I should duck and cover after saying this, but after
| seeing what Amazon did to Lord of the Rings and what they are
| supposedly trying to do to Warhammer, I'm not surprised the
| creative owners are extremely reluctant to hand over the keys to
| Amazon.
|
| It would be a very different "Bond".
| Athas wrote:
| What are they supposedly trying to do with Warhammer (40k)? I
| am aware that Amazon has the rights and are working on
| developing something, but apart from the Secret Level episode
| (which was good), has there been any details?
|
| While some of what Amazon has made is terrible, much is good.
| They produce so much that the average quality is pretty close
| to the global average, so I find predictions challenging.
| upghost wrote:
| The rage bait on the internet claims they are changing the
| lore to accommodate DEI. Don't shoot the messenger plz. I'm
| just saying I understand why the creative content owners are
| concerned about Amazon retconning lore and maybe want to see
| how things like Warhammer play out first.
| __alexs wrote:
| GW have been trying to add diversity to Warhammer for ages.
| Most of it is good actually?
| lbcadden3 wrote:
| Actually Games Workshop started that, probably just being
| accelerated by Amazon.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| It might be a moot point anyway. If we can consider Disney
| a bellwether1, expect more content producers to step back
| on the diversity front.
|
| Personally I think it completely depends on the story and
| artistic direction. Wolf Hall (casting mostly reflects
| historical appearances of characters portrayed) can exist
| next to Bridgerton (explicitly colour-blind casting). Both
| have their merits.
|
| 1: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/dec/18/chanel-
| stewart-...
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| Amazon has a diversity team in the entertainment side of
| business that literally changes casting and content to fit
| their DEI goals. It often happens in awkward and forced
| ways, and that is affecting things like this Bond
| controversy. Most of this is motivated simply by Amazon's
| own DEI culture. But part of it is because the award shows
| have criteria for eligibility (for best picture etc) that
| require meeting diversity and other requirements that have
| nothing to do with how entertaining the show is. Since
| those creating or participating in these shows don't want
| to be ineligible, they do whatever it takes, including
| retconning.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I worked for AWS for 3.5 years. Their only culture is to
| treat all employees like shit, a PIP culture and one that
| they know they can continue being tech's worst employer
| (despite the newest Leadership Principle) because all of
| the H1B visa holders will do damn near anything to keep
| their jobs.
|
| This isn't an H1B Visa _holder_ rant. It's an indictment
| to the program that keeps them beholden to a company.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > But part of it is because the award shows have criteria
| for eligibility (for best picture etc) that require
| meeting diversity and other requirements that have
| nothing to do with how entertaining the show is. Since
| those creating or participating in these shows don't want
| to be ineligible, they do whatever it takes, including
| retconning.
|
| Perhaps I'm a little bit too rebellious to be a culture
| fit for the movie industry, but if this is the case, I
| would be _very_ encouraged to create an a show that is
| outstanding, but violates the DEI criteria of the award,
| so that the awards become a target of ridiculation for
| not including "my" show because of stupid DEI criteria.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I wonder if these are the same people who whined about DC
| casting a black woman to play an orange alien from Tamaran?
|
| They also criticized Disney for having a Black Captain
| America in the movies even though it was clear to any
| Marvel comics fans that this was always going to be the
| case.
| Fomite wrote:
| There have not been any details. There have been YouTubers
| making things up and desperately pretending Henry Cavill is
| their champion standing bravely against "woke".
| chuckadams wrote:
| Just Warhammer, not 40K. I would turn my mother over to the
| Inquisition to get to see the latter. Venerate the Immortal
| Emperor!
| Yeul wrote:
| Daniel Craig was already a very different Bond from Roger
| Moore.
|
| Although the Sovjets are the bad guys again...
| Joeboy wrote:
| He was also I think the first big internet casting
| controversy, although everybody's kind of forgotten that now.
| andrepd wrote:
| Such quaint times. Nowadays every media release has some
| people having extremely intense feelings of hatred towards
| it, amplified several fold by the Algorithm.
| ksec wrote:
| Before we all watched the movie, "Who was the idiot that
| picked Daniel Craig as Bond".
|
| After we watched it "Who was the genius that picked Daniel
| Craig?"
|
| Now I miss him. Often thinking if Tom cruise could do so
| many MI, I am sure Daniel Craig could do just one more
| Bond.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| Layer Cake was basically is Bond audition
| squarefoot wrote:
| Am I the only one who thinks Craig could have been a hell of
| a Russian spy villain in the original franchise?
| dghughes wrote:
| I've always thought Craig could play Putin in a movie, or
| his brother.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Next Bond movie: circa-1990 with Craig as KGB-era Putin.
|
| Start a tradition where previous Bond actor gets one turn
| as a baddie.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Craig was arguably more like the Bond in the books - a
| government assassin. I grew up watching the bond movies with
| my Dad (who'd read the books), and to me Sean Connery was the
| real bond, since he came first, but Roger Moore playing it
| for laughs was entertaining too. I never cared for any of the
| others.
| EliRivers wrote:
| I thought Roger Moore played the sociopathic side of Bond
| quite well; the same level of bon mot whether he's playing
| cards or just sliced someone's head off.
| zahma wrote:
| And seeing where they're at with the plot line killing off
| Bond, it's definitely an inflection point to see how they
| reinvent the series. Until now, Bond never actually died, but
| Amazon might just find a way...
| eagerpace wrote:
| That was Craig's request as a way to close out his series.
| They will start fresh with a new timeline.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Until Fleming started writing the books with the films in mind,
| Bond was already a very different Bond.
|
| The books are uneven, IMHO, but "Casino Royale", the first of
| Fleming's novels -- written well before the "Dr. No" film -- is
| enjoyable and will give you a very different Bond from what you
| are used to. Insecure, self-doubting, no "gadgets"....
| "Diamonds Are Forever" was perhaps my favorite of the books
| though.
|
| (The film "Goldfinger" actually improved upon the plot of the
| original book in my opinion -- in the book Goldfinger actually
| tries to steal the gold from Fort Knox.)
| ttyprintk wrote:
| Agree about Goldfinger. Moonraker made an awful lot of money.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| My take after reading those is that the films are generally
| better works, but the other thing that's worth remembering is
| that Eon was out of the business of "adapting" Fleming novels
| after _Live and Let Die_. The follow-up (_The Man With The
| Golden Gun_) shares a title with a novel, but little else,
| and after that the films are mostly just a pastiche of
| whatever's-hot-in-Hollywood (e.g., _Moonraker_ having a space
| battle) and story elements pulled from lesser Fleming works
| and short stories.
|
| The exception obviously is the _Casino Royale_ with Daniel
| Craig, which most fans view as one of the best Bond films.
| I've forgotten the specifics, but that book was unavailable
| to Eon for decades due to some copyright and licensing
| shenanigans.
| rjsw wrote:
| > The exception obviously is the _Casino Royale_ with
| Daniel Craig, which most fans view as one of the best Bond
| films. I've forgotten the specifics, but that book was
| unavailable to Eon for decades due to some copyright and
| licensing shenanigans.
|
| Some info on the copyright issues here [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_Royale_(1967_film)
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Daniel Craig's more bitter Bond is far closer to the Bond of
| the original books. Dark, morose, bitter, at times very
| disenchanted (several resignation letters, if not
| resignations), spends time alone with a bottle, womanizing in
| the "not sexy" way...
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I am not interested in a different Bond. The entire point of
| Bond is that he is a male fantasy. There is no need to make a
| different Bond.
|
| Entertainment is full of brooding losers - thats not what the
| fans want.
| airstrike wrote:
| I mostly enjoyed Rings of Power, particularly Season 2, despite
| its differences from the source material and the atrocious
| direction and editing in some episodes
| tonystride wrote:
| I don't understand the hate for Amazon's LotR compared to what
| they did to Wheel of Time! I'll admit I'm not a huge LotR fan,
| but I didn't hate the time I spent watching the Amazon
| adaptation. Wheel of Time though, they drove a truck through
| that poor franchise. Then backed up over it, and drove over it
| several more times!
| IshKebab wrote:
| I haven't watched the Rings of Power though I have seen
| enough YouTube analyses of it to know I don't want to. I
| think the issue with it is that they spent $1bn on it, so
| you'd think they'd make sure the story and action scenes were
| top notch, not middling cliche.
| tonystride wrote:
| I get it, I just finished Arcane and that was pure _chef's
| kiss_. It can be done and it's so disappointing when it's
| not, especially considering the budget. Although maybe with
| that much money involved it's probably hard to keep one
| unified vision as I'm sure there are many interests
| competing.
|
| That being said, it was still better than Wheel of Time.
| I'd argue that LotR was watchable, where as WoT was
| absolutely not!
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _though I have seen enough YouTube analyses of it to know
| I don 't want to_
|
| Eh. Probably don't trust ragebait TV.
|
| YouTube optimizes for clicks and eyeball time, not honest
| considered takes.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| Do you like even reasonable accuracy to the canon of a
| fairly well fleshed out and documented universe?
|
| Do you like character development that rises above B-grade
| movie tropes?
|
| Do you find blunt multicultural recasting for the sake of
| awkward forced multicultural injection, shock value, virtue
| signalling annoying?
|
| Do you like epic battles between empires fought between
| more than 10 people?
|
| Do you like timelines to be somewhat realistic?
| ghjfrdghibt wrote:
| I'd forgotten about WoT. I was going to mention what they did
| to The Expanse when they took over the show but as a straight
| steaming pile of shit WoT takes it. I couldn't even finish
| the third episode.
| w0m wrote:
| I liked most of the first season of WoT; though it got more
| and more divergent (and felt worse for it) as the season
| went on. The final episode lost me. I've been meaning to
| watch the second season but haven't been able to bring
| myself to do it yet. (I say this as one who happily
| completed multiple rereads of the original series as new
| books came out)
| tonystride wrote:
| Agreed, it started out alright but got worse and worse as
| it diverged from the books. The finale of S2 is truly
| laughable. If you switch your expectations to
| fantasy/comedy you mighhhhht be able to enjoy it?
| cthalupa wrote:
| There's no world where anyone adapts the book series
| closely with live action. The series is simply too long,
| particularly for the level of CGI, etc., we expect out of
| this sort of "premiere" television. I think overall
| they've done a good job given how difficult the task is,
| though there's certainly some changes that I think were
| mistakes, and other things that while I might not
| outright believe are mistakes, are different from how I
| would have done it.
|
| I will say I agree that the last episode of S1 is my
| least favorite, but, they had a lot stacked against them
| and had to rewrite the final two due to Mat's actor not
| coming back after covid forced a filming break. That set
| off a chain reaction with a lot of far reaching
| consequences.
|
| I liked S2 more than S1. Quality went up on basically
| every metric for me, though the finale still wasn't as
| epic as I would have hoped for... but is probably about
| all you can hope for without a LOTR-like budget. If they
| somehow make it to Dumai's Wells, hopefully they have
| more money then.
| cthalupa wrote:
| I'd consider myself a WoT megafan. I've read the full series
| more than 10 times since AMoL, and did a re-read of the
| series before every book release when it was being written.
| I'm in the middle of a re-read right now, even - I just
| finished a chapter from A Crown of Swords right before
| opening HN and reading this article.
|
| And... I think the WoT adaption is fine. It's not exactly how
| I would have done it, and there are a few choices that I
| think are just bad, but on the whole I have enjoyed the show
| and think it captures most of the primary elements of the
| series.
|
| It's a 14.5 book series where the books average 600+ pages.
| Any adaptation is going to have to make massive changes, at
| least if they're filming it with real people. They also got
| dealt a raw hand with covid resulting in all sorts of set
| limitations and Mat's actor just... not returning after they
| filmed the first 6 episodes.
| phinnaeus wrote:
| Is that seriously why Mat just disappears?? Good grief.
| xracy wrote:
| Yeah, made for some continuity difficulties that I think
| they handled pretty well considering the circumstances.
| cthalupa wrote:
| Yeah. His storyline was supposed to track the original
| series much more closely, but filming got shut down for
| covid, and the actor didn't come back when it resumed.
| Deleted all his socials, etc. Didn't take any more work
| until just recently, too.
|
| No one knows what the deal was - lots of people
| speculated it was vaccine requirements when it was
| announced, but filming resumed before vaccines were
| available, so that couldn't have been it.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > No one knows what the deal was - lots of people
| speculated it was vaccine requirements when it was
| announced, but filming resumed before vaccines were
| available, so that couldn't have been it.
|
| Relevant:
|
| > https://www.reddit.com/r/WoTshow/comments/154r20d/barne
| y_har...
| xracy wrote:
| I reread the books after watching the show, and I have to
| say that I am in complete agreement with this take. I think
| there are 2 things that impact why people hate the
| adaptations.
|
| 1. Some people just don't like adaptations, and they need
| to understand what different mediums limit in terms of
| story telling. If you think of WoT as being 10,000 pages of
| content, and how you would shorten that to make it finish-
| able within a single human lifetime, then they have to
| change some things. But I gotta say, I think they capture a
| lot of the good of the books within the show.
|
| 2. Most people just have a picture in their head of what
| the thing is going to look like, and when that picture
| doesn't match up to what's made they're unhappy. And they
| don't understand why they couldn't just do the thing in
| their head because they don't understand the limitations of
| the medium.
|
| 2a. I think a thing that's important to a lot of people is
| the characters looking like the characters they imagine,
| and when casting is more diverse than that, people have a
| pretty negative reaction to the characters not "looking"
| like the characters. I think this ends up being more true
| the further from the description people feel like the
| characters are. ^This is a thing that has been hurting LoTR
| for a lot of people, in my opinion. I don't think it's a
| reasonable thing to expect.
| cthalupa wrote:
| For sure.
|
| I've also learned that some people just... didn't read
| the books all that closely, either. Or at least not
| character descriptions. Two Rivers people are described
| as being dark eyed and dark haired with fairly dark
| complexions - probably mediterranean - but people seemed
| to think they were supposed to look like they were from
| England, forgetting that Elaida explicitly mentions Rand
| is too fair skinned in EoTW. Or everyone outraged about
| Moraine/Siuan, apparently not understanding what RJ meant
| when he said they were "pillowfriends," despite lots of
| other fairly explicit hints at what the phrase meant.
| ivansmf wrote:
| I have not read the books, so I guess I'm the target
| audience. It was very hard to watch. The actors were fine,
| actually better than fine, but the writing was painful. There
| are lots of standard adventure and fantasy arcs that are just
| impossible to carry forward with the type of "modern" they
| wanted. For instance, you cannot have the most diverse
| village in the history of villages anywhere, then later the
| Orc (?) stares at one of the kids once and goes "you are not
| from this village, you are certainly from this other village
| because of how you look". How? Aura color? At least change it
| so the kid has a tattoo or some birth mark then. I could go
| down a long list of dumb stuff like this that makes me come
| back to reality instead of allowing me to stay with the flow
| and enjoy the fantasy.
| buildbot wrote:
| There's actually an in book way to explain that, the
| clothing is always described as specific to the two rivers,
| and only Aiel have red hair. I agree The show was awful!
| geraldwhen wrote:
| Wheel of time takes place in Brooklyn, in the Amazon
| cinematic universe though.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > And... I think the WoT adaption is fine. It's not exactly
| how I would have done it, and there are a few choices that I
| think are just bad, but on the whole I have enjoyed the show
| and think it captures most of the primary elements of the
| series.
|
| It's (and I say this as someone who sees themselves quite
| progressive) a bit too feminist.
|
| It seems determined to make Nynaeve and Egwene the heroes of
| the show, the badasses on which everyone, including Rand,
| rely on. Not content with them already having access to the
| Power, and being among the strongest among the Aes Sedai,
| Amazon made them even more powerful and heroic than the
| books.
|
| In contrast, in the books, Nynaeve and Egwene (it may be
| Elayne - in either case, two of these three) were actually
| rather "put out" by the fact that Rand was who he was and his
| access to the Power. Paraphrasing from the book:
|
| "They were shocked, and not a little annoyed and upset. The
| Tower had told them that they were the strongest they'd seen
| with the Power in centuries, perhaps the strongest ever, and
| along comes Rand, barely able to control it himself, and yet
| even with them both fighting with all their might, he
| controlled both of them so... effortlessly... and then to say
| he wasn't even using a fraction of the Power he'd drawn
| before!"
|
| I do give kudos to Amazon for respecting the diversity of the
| books, though.
| chrisweekly wrote:
| I might be in the minority here, but I couldn't stand the
| Wheel of Time book; given its popularity I gave it about 200
| pages before discarding it as poorly-written, under-edited,
| over-wrought, unoriginal, derivative drivel. Different
| strokes, I guess.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| I got a friend who is a proper 40k guy (paints, mini-dolls, the
| lot)(I call them mini-dolls instead of figures or figurines to
| piss him off, and it works!!!).
|
| He was initially excited to see "Superman" being involved, but
| now he also fears that this would turn to a shitshow.
|
| Worse case it tanks, Amazon has yet another TV failure, and the
| fans continue to enjoy their mini-dolls and pretend-battles.
| LanceH wrote:
| There is an expectation in the community that Games Workshop
| will only be concerned with the money and ownership of the
| property (for the money). They don't play well with others.
| They seem unconcerned about their customers in general.
|
| It's an abusive and expensive relationship. It's like an old
| school company that has no clue about inventory management,
| but they're in the 21st century now. They can have a million
| preorders for things which are _mass produced from molds_ ,
| and they can't manage to deliver them. Or books. Instead, any
| limited run ends up in the hands of scalpers.
|
| Now they move into the entertainment industry. What are we to
| expect there? It's a notoriously difficult industry to
| operate in. They have to deal with Amazon and whoever is
| producing, but can they leave their hands off something long
| enough to let it get made? I have serious doubts.
|
| They will meddle. I assume Amazon is negotiating to guarantee
| some level of control.
|
| I think the best hope for any good content will continue to
| be fan create videos.
| gradus_ad wrote:
| Right, it's so simple to make a good Bond film once you accept
| that you need to give the people what they want, people here
| being actual Bond fans (not "society") and what they want being
| classic male escapist fantasy.
|
| This push to "modernize" Bond is regressive once you realize
| male desire has not changed and thus there is nothing to
| modernize. Depictions of a cool spy dude getting beautiful
| women to fall for him is not "sexist" and not in need of
| modernization.
|
| More generally the "modernization" angle is all about making
| the films which appeal to both men and women, which is a losing
| proposition for Bond which is fundamentally a franchise for
| men. You are always going to create a more compelling piece of
| content by tailoring it to a specific group, and the vast gulf
| in the sorts of content men and women tend to enjoy
| (generalization of course with many exceptions, but generally
| true nonetheless) means any bridge spanning that gap will be
| flimsy and weak.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Bond could be bi.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| While I think this misses the above poster's point (Bond
| has always been a masculine-in-a-heterosexual-way fantasy,
| and going against that would alienate a majority of his
| core audience) it _would_ be interesting to have a Jack
| Harkness type of Bond.
| jjgreen wrote:
| Bond is bi
|
| https://www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/what-makes-you-think-
| thi...
| 3pt14159 wrote:
| The post doesn't definitively answer whether Bond is
| bisexual but argues for the importance of acknowledging
| the possibility. It highlights how the franchise's
| ambiguity opens the door for diverse interpretations,
| inviting viewers to see Bond through their own lenses and
| experiences.
|
| Personally, I don't think Bond is bi.
| dsr_ wrote:
| There are hints in the novels, but Fleming usually went
| with the default intolerance of the time.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| Do you really want to see Bond slapping women in 2024?
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-9hWeIjwLhs
| brickfaced wrote:
| Yes
| altairprime wrote:
| Yes please? If _only_ TV and movies would show the full
| range of human sexuality and not just cater exclusively to
| the vanilla fetish crowd. To quote the immortal words of
| the Joffrey gif from Game of Thrones, "talk shit get hit"
| can be comedic, dramatic and, in a well-crafted context,
| sexy content in a movie. Romance novels and fanfic have
| been well aware of this for an eternity, and certainly pull
| no punches when it comes to people slapping.
|
| The issues with Bond are that he's uniformly portrayed by
| white men who are _only_ portrayed sleeping and slapping
| _women_. Give us a Bond who sleeps and slaps men with the
| same abandon that he does women, and interest in Bond
| movies will go through the roof. And:
|
| An intelligence agency that only employs straight male
| secret agents is an intelligence agency doomed to fail from
| the start. I have to hope someday that the Broccoli family
| grows a spine someday and shows us a Bond who is a woman,
| being just as much of an arrogant slut as Sean Connery's
| Bond. They did a great job with that Bond, and certainly
| that's a desirable archetype! It's just gotten boring and
| overplayed to see that leading Bond role manner only played
| by the same boring and overplayed white men for decades
| now.
| JustExAWS wrote:
| > Yes please? If only TV and movies would show the full
| range of human sexuality and not just cater exclusively
| to the vanilla fetish crowd
|
| Did you watch the video? The flaps on the face had
| nothing to do with "sexuality". It was Bond slapping
| women to get information out of them.
| asdasdsddd wrote:
| I thought men and women are equal, what bond does to men
| is far worse
| diamondfist25 wrote:
| Should show what Daniel Craig got in casino royale.
|
| The nut smasher
| _boffin_ wrote:
| Sorry, but he was trying to get it moved over a bit to
| get an itch scratched.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| So would you be okay with Bond seducing and sleeping with
| men to get information?
| altairprime wrote:
| I've lived with a Bond fanatic before, and still have on
| my shelf a complete collection of every Bond movie. So,
| did I _rewatch_ fragments of a bunch of Bond movies
| through a slapcut alone? No, thank you, that 's a
| complete waste of my time. I'm already rather familiar
| with the source material, and I'm pretty sure I've seen
| that supercut before. Still, though. Can you imagine how
| much more entertaining Roger Moore's Bond would have been
| if he used a martial art centered around slaps, and did
| so completely in character with no acknowledgement that
| it's _wildly_ funny to Bond lovers? I would love to see
| that, no matter what the characteristics of the lead.
|
| Bond slapping people is about power and control
| fantasies. Bond was created at a time when women were
| finally wielding power of their own again in modern
| culture, and showed what was appealing to the men whose
| desires _preceded_ the rise of women having power
| independent of men. Decades have passed since that moment
| in time, but Bond has remained fixed in stone, with only
| the barest concessions to reality, _using_ women just as
| he always has - that is, needlessly different from how he
| _uses_ men, without any cause other than stereotypes
| inherited from the 1950s.
|
| The power fantasy of Bond is that Bond is a high-
| functioning sociopath, who has no problem using people
| for whatever meets their needs and then discarding them
| utterly. That power fantasy _used_ to be the exclusive
| privilege of straight white men. That is no longer the
| case. Seeing all Bonds be straight white guys who only
| slap women is _boring_. That power fantasy is played out
| and dull and on its way out. I don 't care if _some_
| Bonds are straight white dudebros, but it sure would be a
| lot more in character if they slapped _everyone_ - and it
| sure would be a lot more in character if some of them
| slept with non-women _on screen_ -- and it sure would be
| a lot more in character if some of them weren 't white.
|
| Asking an intelligence agency to stop sending people to
| hit people for information is nonsensical. Only showing
| people reacting by providing the information _is also
| nonsensical_. There are quite enough people out there
| that would bust out laughing at that attempt, not to
| mention a few that would outright try to bite his hand
| off the next time he swung at them. I do respect that the
| mores of the time were afraid to show Bond actually
| punching a woman, but with all due respect, that was,
| rounding up, about a hundred years ago. Intelligence
| agencies have moved ahead with the times. Yes, I
| pointedly mean that Bond should be doing just as worse to
| the women as to the men, when it comes to getting
| information -- whether that 's slaps, punches, CBT, or
| buying them champagne and getting their shirt off.
|
| There's a lot of us waiting in the wings to see the exact
| Bond power fantasy portrayed in that slapcut, by people
| that we _can_ imagine ourselves being. Generic white guy
| #12 is not going to qualify, no matter how cool he is.
| (And let 's face it: Foghorn Leghorn is a much better
| detective than Bond anyways.) Focusing on slapping is a
| distraction from the real problem: Bond was created, and
| has been maintained since, as a sociopathic power fantasy
| _for straight white men alone_. Until that broadens to
| represent that exact fantasy _for others_ , I see little
| hope for the future of the franchise.
|
| Don't change Bond-the-sociopath. Just remove the
| artificial restrictions on Bond's skin color and gender,
| and who he slaps, hits, flirts, and sleeps with.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > An intelligence agency that only employs straight male
| secret agents is an intelligence agency doomed to fail
| from the start. I have to hope someday that the Broccoli
| family grows a spine someday and shows us a Bond who is a
| woman, being just as much of an arrogant slut as Sean
| Connery's Bond. They did a great job with that Bond, and
| certainly that's a desirable archetype! It's just gotten
| boring and overplayed to see that leading Bond role
| manner only played by the same boring and overplayed
| white men for decades now.
|
| There was a scene in _The Americans_ where the husband
| and wife Soviet agents talked about / reminisced about
| their training. And that to the Soviets, sexuality was
| just another tool in the box. If you're seducing for the
| job, what does it matter? The husband was taught about
| seducing men, and the wife women, as much as the opposite
| sex (this is not an attempt to simplify / reduce
| sexuality, just how it is portrayed in the show).
| scarface_74 wrote:
| This wasn't about "seduction". The video shows Bond
| slapping women when they won't tell him what he wants to
| know.
| phinnaeus wrote:
| Agreed, this was blatant sexism. He does far worse things
| to men who won't tell him what he needs.
| justahuman74 wrote:
| Bond is violent with both genders
| altairprime wrote:
| The load-bearing word "is" here overlooks a rather
| striking imbalance (pun intended). I'm picturing two
| supercuts and the one where Bond hits men and is hours
| long, versus the one where Bond hits women and is ten or
| fifteen minutes long at best. So, yeah, "is" -- but was
| there some argument you intended to make that your
| statement supports?
| bbarnett wrote:
| What was the context? Often these women try to kill Bond
| in a sneaky way, or have shown themselves be spies.
|
| Anyone tries to kill me, it's all good.
| altairprime wrote:
| Yeah, clearly intelligence agencies got the memo on
| sexuality a long time ago! Portrayals will catch up
| eventually, I hope.
| everdrive wrote:
| When they're being hysterical, yes.
| duxup wrote:
| I don't have a problem with people being flawed even if
| they seem like the hero in other ways. Happy to see her
| slap him back too ...
|
| I worry sometimes we're headed for a situation where media
| and stories are almost whitewashed. There are some fandoms
| I'm into where fans go through past books and raise issues
| where "isn't this character being a bully here" and the
| answer is kind of... but they're also a kid at that point
| and kids do say mean things ... that's reality.
| fatbird wrote:
| _male desire has not changed_
|
| Speak for yourself. I find Bond through the Roger Moore era
| to be gross and masculine in a completely unrealistic way.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| Moore was unrealistic but the OP does not imply that we
| need to keep the style on the level of Roger Moore.
| fatbird wrote:
| OP is saying that the old Bonds (Connery, Lazenby, Moore)
| were suited to male tastes that haven't changed since,
| thus the attempt to modernize Bond is misguided at best.
|
| What I'm saying is that my (male) tastes _have_
| modernized, that the male tastes that made old Bonds
| popular are tastes I find gross and unrealistic today,
| and I don 't feel like I'm alone.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| I guess you're probably not.
| some_random wrote:
| I think the specifics are less important than the general
| tastes in this case, men still want to be highly trusted
| international "spies" gallivanting across the world
| fighting evil with women lusting after them every stop of
| the way, it's just that the details as to what that looks
| like have changed.
| fatbird wrote:
| I think the Craig movies are the high point so far of the
| series for a variety of reasons. They still have the
| swaggering machismo of Bond, but with more varied and
| interesting consequences. Bond still gets laid, but it's
| not treated as a mid-mission diversion (or post-mission
| reward) to which Bond is entitled. Craig proved there's
| lots of modernizing that can be done without touching the
| core conceit of being a 00 agent.
| altairprime wrote:
| I agree! Whatever else they are from a critique
| standpoint, I absolutely love how they've modernized the
| Bond-the-slutty-sociopath role into something that's
| actually plausibly what I would expect to find in today's
| reality. They did beautiful work with _that_ aspect of
| modernization and the Craig movies are most memorable of
| all of them to me now (though I will always hold a
| fondness in my heart for LASER BEAMS IN SPACE).
|
| They did not do so well with modernizing any of Bond's
| skin color, gender, or bedroom scene co-stars; nor did
| they portray him assaulting women for information like he
| would men.
| ozim wrote:
| Dude hate to hit you up with it but whole Bond is about
| being unrealistic just like Santa Claus.
|
| Being masculine in unrealistic way is part of the fun. Just
| the same as cars with machine guns in the hood or wrist
| watch with laser cutting through things.
|
| It is like nagging that in Star Wars explosions in space
| have sound and are not like actual explosions that would
| happen in space...
| fatbird wrote:
| There's degrees of "unrealistic" though, and it's tied to
| how relatable the Bond is. The old Bonds were a mixture
| of action hero spy guy and Playboy-style gentleman. Over
| time, the Playboy lifestyle has aged poorly and finally
| been peeled away from Bond.
|
| Now, you can argue that formula for Bond was unique, and
| what differentiates him from Bourne or Reacher, and worth
| keeping for that reason. But against that, you have the
| fact that I and a lot of other viewers find the Playboy
| lifestyle to be a really silly and distasteful fantasy
| that seems uniquely laughable now, and far harder to
| suspend disbelief for than generic action hero stunts.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >Speak for yourself. I find Bond through the Roger Moore
| era to be gross and masculine in a completely unrealistic
| way.
|
| Where are you in this collage? <https://imgur.com/0gL4oxd>
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| So stop watching it. That's the answer.
|
| The problem with all this "modernisation" (what a
| euphemism) stuff going on in entertainment is that you're
| trying to transform and change existing characters and
| franchises.
|
| It's just a money grab to capitalise on existing characters
| with existing fan bases.
|
| Inevitably it's ruined. Bond fans aren't watching Bond
| movies thinking "this is sexist". LoTR fans aren't reading
| a fantasy series with influences from Christianity and a
| white guys experience in WWI thinking "we need more
| representation of people of colour and genders".
|
| The solution to this is also trivial: Forget all the old
| stuff. Write new characters and stories. Or build fans for
| modern works.
|
| We're already seen this done: Avatar (not the blue alien
| one), Dragon Prince, Wheel of Time.
| booleandilemma wrote:
| Give the people what they want indeed
| https://youtu.be/q2y9LPC2s_8?si=nwRPU3rw-Pi1JubX
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Mission Impossible scratches most of my Bond itch, and it
| doesn't really have a lot of the womanizing stuff. What I
| want from Bond is for someone to steal a space shuttle.
| trhway wrote:
| Yesterday on NPR they said that during last 2 decades number
| of movies with sex decreased 40% and mentioned Marvel as a
| showcase. I guess that is modern escapism - very neutered, no
| sex and a lot of pointless and senseless, in all senses,
| [imitation of] violence. And judging by how much money it
| gets - that is what audiences want.
| paxys wrote:
| > I feel like I should duck and cover after saying this
|
| For stating the most popular opinion on the internet?
| shmerl wrote:
| Soundtrack in Rings of Power is very good. I liked the show
| overall.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7oaZxdAMzI
|
| What complaints did you have about the story?
|
| Fallout turned out pretty good. I wish they wouldn't have
| cancelled The Expanse, it was a good show.
| stuaxo wrote:
| A lot of the stuff on Prime is absolute dross.
| duxup wrote:
| >after seeing what Amazon did to Lord of the Rings
|
| I don't understand how streaming services with huge budgets are
| so constantly bad when it comes to writing. I found the Amazon
| Lord of the Rings series just empty and I quit on it, something
| I couldn't imagine doing. The dialogue was simply dreadful to
| listen to.
|
| How is it they so regularly skimp on the creative side of
| things and while they might have nice effects the content still
| seems so woefully unpolished/amateurish in other ways?
| huskyr wrote:
| Being good in selling stuff and running servers doesn't mean
| you are automatically great at producing movies and
| television series, even if you have a lot of money.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| Because good creativity is somewhat orthogonal to money after
| a certain level. Peter Jackson didn't make the greatest films
| of my childhood because he thought it would make him a lot of
| money. It was the inverse: he had to convince other people
| they would make money in order to access the resources
| required to make the greatest films of my childhood.
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| Money doesn't buy taste.
|
| And executive teams who are good at running a web service are
| not necessarily good at hiring creative production teams.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Dialogue is getting worse and worse in almost all newer films
| and series.
|
| Netflix boss tells writers to "have this character announce
| what they're doing so that viewers who have this program on
| in the background can follow along."
|
| https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-49/essays/casual-viewing/
|
| "Several screenwriters who've worked for the streamer told
| [the author] a common note from company executives is "have
| this character announce what they're doing so that viewers
| who have this program on in the background can follow along."
| ("We spent a day together," Lohan tells her lover, James, in
| Irish Wish. "I admit it was a beautiful day filled with
| dramatic vistas and romantic rain, but that doesn't give you
| the right to question my life choices. Tomorrow I'm marrying
| Paul Kennedy." "Fine," he responds. "That will be the last
| you see of me because after this job is over I'm off to
| Bolivia to photograph an endangered tree lizard.")"
|
| Sounds like all new productions reading this. We really live
| in idiocracy.
| kitsune_ wrote:
| I mean, I personally don't expect much from the creative machine
| that brought us Rings Of Power.
| pluc wrote:
| The vilain was Q all along
| m_mueller wrote:
| Have you given Season 2 a try? IMO it's much improved and
| overall very entertaining, including to many Tolkien fans. I
| take it over the Hobbit films any day.
| light_hue_1 wrote:
| The spoiled rich person who inherited control of Bond from her
| father has a problem with how Amazon wants to run it.
|
| There are no heroes in this story.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Well it's something she is at least invested in and cares about
| as a narrative and product, whereas Amazon solely wants to turn
| it into money.
|
| I don't think we're looking for heroes, necessarily, but if you
| care about a franchise, you want someone who cares about it
| deeply enough to preserve its ethos.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| I have a cousin who cares deeply about the family farm he
| inherited. He's obviously trash because he care about something
| he inherited not created, right? Hating people is ugly. Hating
| people because of their characteristics from birth is ugly.
| gooseus wrote:
| "Do you expect me to talk Bezos?"
|
| "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to provide me a formulaic plot to
| provide my algorithm another hook to drive up my streaming market
| share!"
|
| Though maybe the real plot is to irradiate the world's limited
| supply of James Bond properties, driving up the value of the only
| ones that remain?
| als0 wrote:
| Real life clip of Jeff Bezos
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtRzkcoXIlg
| dotancohen wrote:
| After the last movie, revealing his daughter and his supposed
| death, the next movie could focus on the daughter. Growing up
| an orphan, just like James did.
|
| They could call it Family Bond.
| briga wrote:
| >The two sides are at an impasse: Amazon needs Broccoli to
| furnish them with ideas for a new Bond movie, but Broccoli
| doesn't want to make a new Bond movie with Amazon.
|
| No offense to the Broccoli family or the franchise but these
| movies aren't exactly full of original new ideas. They've been
| rehashing the same formula since the 60s. It doesn't take a
| creative genius to come up with these plots and I'm pretty sure
| ChatGPT could generate new ones just as effectively
| choeger wrote:
| It's Bond. A certain resemblance is necessary. It doesn't
| suffice to add a few Martinis here, a PPK there, and end with a
| showdown against a super villain involving tech gadgets. The
| movie also needs sexism and humor, at least.
|
| Seriously, reinventing Bond while modernizing it but keeping it
| a Bond movie is challenging. A challenge that people should
| accept.
| LtWorf wrote:
| Bah throw it away. The books are racist AF and the whole plot
| i about how imperialism is actually wonderful.
| Animats wrote:
| Ah, the good old days of "Take up the white man's burden."
| Bond belongs to the era of Kipling, when the sun never set
| on the British Empire and the broad-backed soldiers of the
| Queen ruled the world.
|
| (Hm. A Bond movie set in 1890... That might work. Read
| Kipling's "Miss Youghal's Sais" for ideas.[1])
|
| [1] https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/tale/miss-youghals-
| sais.htm
| LtWorf wrote:
| Bond was born outdated when the british empire was gone.
| Now it's really time to invent something else instead of
| keep doing the same stuff over and over. No matter how
| much the visitors of this website might downvote me :D
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > Now it's really time to invent something else instead
| of keep doing the same stuff over and over. No matter how
| much the visitors of this website might downvote me :D
|
| Be fine with the fact that you are not the target
| audience of the James Bond movies.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| Moreover, there are almost zero examples of Eon films where the
| Eon ideas were _good_.
|
| The films are pretty straight-ahead adaptations of Fleming
| novels through _Live and Let Die_. After that, they were out of
| books they had rights to, and the films take a serious plunge
| in terms of actual quality. For my money, the only genuinely
| watchable non-adaptation example after LALD is _Goldeneye_.
|
| I mean, note the huge jump in quality when Craig came on when
| they finally DID have a Fleming novel they could work from
| again, right?
| cjpearson wrote:
| No love for _The Spy Who Loved Me_? Maybe Dalton isn't your
| favorite Bond, but his entries are at least par for the
| course rather than a serious plunge.
|
| I'd agree that the last 25 years has given us a lot of duds
| and _Casino Royale_ is the main exception. However, I think
| it's more likely that Purvis and Wade are the issue here, as
| the 1977-1997 era showed that Eon could make a decent
| original Bond.
| mrob wrote:
| I found Casino Royal to be a huge disappointment. As far as
| I'm concerned, the whole concept of "spy action thriller" is
| inherently ridiculous, so you might as well go all in on the
| wacky cartoon hijinks and have some fun with it. The
| franchise peaked with Die Another Day.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| This was my thought reading through the article. It makes it
| sound like the Broccoli family is this enlightened steward of
| this great and hallowed tradition. But its James Bond. It has
| been rarely more than shallow entertainment, and at its worst
| is dated, sexist, and tasteless.
|
| Also, while I understand everyone piling on Amazon for
| producing bad or mediocre shows (Rings of Power), they do have
| a number of pretty solid shows as well (Fleabag, Fallout, The
| Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, partially The Expanse, etc.). It is not
| as if other streaming networks are only producing solid hits.
| karaterobot wrote:
| The Daniel Craig Bond movies were a pretty significant
| reinvention, much welcomed and generally pretty good, with the
| highs much higher than the lows were low. I don't think it's
| fair or accurate at all to say that Casino Royale, Skyfall, or
| even No Time To Die were of a piece with the 60s movies in tone
| or style.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| One problem in dealing with large, young companies (especially
| tech) is that most of them have a sense of entitlement.
|
| I.e. "Sure, you have/are ____, but we're ____. We're the real big
| deal."
|
| I know Google was essentially laughed out of a Maps partnership
| inside a major warehouse retailer because Google refused to
| consider sharing the collected data with the retailer. "You
| wouldn't know what to do with it" was a direct quote.
|
| It feels like legacy Hollywood, for all its faults, understood
| how to square ego circles better to get deals done.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > One problem in dealing with large, young companies
| (especially tech) is that most of them have a sense of
| entitlement. [...] It feels like legacy Hollywood, for all its
| faults, understood how to square ego circles better to get
| deals done.
|
| I don't know much about this "tech culture", but are you sure
| that they really have this sense of entitlement? Couldn't it
| rather be that these "tech people" are simply less experienced
| in "deal politics" and bootlicking important stake holders?
| justin66 wrote:
| Jesus. For starters don't call dealing with your stakeholders
| "bootlicking."
| soared wrote:
| If you think tech is entitled, you haven't seen established
| players in longstanding industries. They aren't entitled, they
| are the king and if you don't play by their rules they just
| don't do business with you.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| Considering that James Bond movies are pure money-printers, it
| will take a lot of "DEI initiatives" to kill the franchise and at
| the same time it offers the best target to hurt the image of
| "misogyny and patriarchy".
|
| With that said, to address the worries of the average DEI person,
| I don't sleep with 10 female spies every week despite the fact
| that I have watched all 007 movies.
|
| So... Amazon can remove their finger and let the specialists do
| their thing and just sit back and rake the $bn's.
|
| But they won't...
| superultra wrote:
| Can you explain what you're talking about some more? Other than
| mentioning that Brocolli is fine with a gay non-white male (but
| has to be a male), where in article did you glean anything
| about DEI?
|
| I honestly think the anti-DEI crowd is nearly as unbearable as
| the brief reign of SJW in 2018. DEI is becoming a perennial
| bogeyman for some people...
| 5555624 wrote:
| While I prefer a Bond movie, after seeing how Amazon handled Jack
| Reacher, they might be able to do some sort of mini-series.
|
| As long as James Bond is a white, British male. You can't change
| the character after all this time, just for the sake of changing
| it. If they want to make someone else "007," fine, since someone
| will get the license Bond retires or gets killed.
| EliRivers wrote:
| What if they changed the character, not for the sake of
| changing it, but to bring out something new and interesting and
| creative that produced an overall better viewing experience?
| piva00 wrote:
| Yup, for example: I'd love to see what a good writing of a
| Bond played by Idris Elba would look like. The only
| requirement is good writing which seems to not be
| incentivised much in this world of lame data-driven
| corporations dictating taste.
| spockz wrote:
| I think a run with Idris Elba would be wonderful.
|
| But I'm not sure how they will pull it off at all.
|
| The original Bond was stereotypical of how women were
| treated, for Queen and Country. The Daniel Craig reboot
| made Bond have a soul and conscience, and more depth in
| character. This was also aided by more time having passed
| and the world's theater changed accordingly.
|
| Where can go that won't be a repeat of what Daniel Craig
| did? Go in the past or future?
| piva00 wrote:
| Going to the future could be interesting, exploring a bit
| more of sci-fi, a more Star Trek-y society where social
| justice isn't as large of an issue, new technologies of
| terror from a Bond villain marrying with Black Mirror-
| esque future.
|
| I could see this working broadly without triggering the
| neo-cons sensibilities about whatever they call
| "wokeness" but being able to explore cultural acceptance,
| horrors of new technology, etc.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| > Where can go that won't be a repeat of what Daniel
| Craig did? Go in the past or future?
|
| Why not just repeat Craig style? It would still be
| entertaining and I'd be happy without anything "new".
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| >I think a run with Idris Elba would be wonderful.
|
| I'd have liked to see that but I think it's probably too
| late now, he is only four years younger than Craig.
| superultra wrote:
| If you read the article you would've seen that Brocolli is fine
| with a non-white and/or gay person playing Bond; they have to
| be British and male though.
|
| I think that's the a good tact to take. Let's not pretend that
| Bond as a character hasn't changed over the decades.
|
| A good approach is how Machine Games approached Indiana Jones.
| The older movies, especially Temple, have some really
| uncomfortable scenes with women and Asian people. So they opted
| instead to portray Indy as we remember him, which is a gruff
| everyman who respects cultures and people and hates facists.
|
| Bond can be done the same way right
| 5555624 wrote:
| I understand Brocolli is fine with it. (I didn't say he
| wasn't.) I just don't see changing Bond's sex or race. Bond
| is an established character. if you want, say, an Asian
| female secret agent, come up with a new character.
| mrkpdl wrote:
| > I understand Brocolli is fine with it. (I didn't say he
| wasn't.) I just don't see changing Bond's sex or race.
|
| Your comment changed Brocolli from a 'she' to a 'he'
| though... So maybe you don't mind so much after all?
| duskwuff wrote:
| > The older movies, especially Temple, have some really
| uncomfortable scenes with women and Asian people.
|
| Good lord, yes. _Temple of Doom_ received criticism for its
| racist depiction of India even when it came out in 1984; it
| 's downright uncomfortable to watch today.
| rchaud wrote:
| So I take it you skipped the Sean Connery films then?
| roryirvine wrote:
| Er, Sean Connery was also a white, British male.
|
| Sure, he may not have visited Britain often in his later
| years, but that was for tax reasons and doesn't change where
| he was born.
| rchaud wrote:
| Er, no, Sean Connery was born and raised in Scotland. He
| literally had a tattoo that reads "Scotland Forever".
| Entirely different culture and history and relationship
| with the British military/imperial apparatus than Bond
| represents.
| roryirvine wrote:
| The demonym 'British' covers people from all four
| countries of the UK, including Scotland.
|
| Are you perhaps confusing British with English?
| blibble wrote:
| Scotland was very much a driving force in the empire
|
| Ireland too
| 5555624 wrote:
| Don't confuse the actor and the character. While Connery was
| not British, Bond was.
| dageshi wrote:
| Connery was British, he was from the British Isles, hence
| British.
| daseiner1 wrote:
| Connery was Scottish, Lazenby is Australian, Dalton is Welsh,
| Brosnan is Irish
| badgersnake wrote:
| I can see how Amazon's data driven culture is completely
| incompatible with creative endeavours. Given their recent focus
| on short-termism I'm not convinced it's that great for strategic
| thinking either.
| leoc wrote:
| They did play probably one of the most successful long games in
| the recent history of business. It does seem that now they've
| decided that it's time to take profits, though.
| badgersnake wrote:
| There's no denying they were great. I just get the feeling
| they're not great anymore. Too much short term nudging the
| metric.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| My take here is that they should just let it die.
|
| The Bond franchise it a remarkable thing, but I don't know how
| you make it "fresh" without ruining the charm. The Craig years
| were a soft reboot -- Bond was a freshly promoted 00 in _Casino_,
| and was thus explicitly not the same guy who bested Dr Julius No.
|
| I just don't know where they go from here that would be
| _interesting_ , and I 100% do not trust Amazon to treat the
| property well AT ALL.
| Animats wrote:
| > they should just let it die.
|
| Yes. Would Hollywood please kill off Bond, Star Trek, and Dune?
| They're all 1960s products that are way past their sell-by
| date.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| Bond is literally dead, at least in the films. In the last one,
| he got blown up.
|
| It's definitely time to let it go. Nobody is clamouring for
| "Bulldog Drummond" or "Biggles" any more and Bond lived longer
| than either of those.
|
| (although I still have the Corgi Aston Martin on my desk as a
| plaything)
| Applejinx wrote:
| And that is why.
| pkphilip wrote:
| Amazon has a real problem "playing nice" with any of the
| companies that signup on their platform. Even as a product
| seller, it is virtually guaranteed that if your product ever does
| really well on Amazon that Amazon will offer to buy you out and,
| if you refuse, develop a competitor who will then receive total
| priority on their platform.
| generalizations wrote:
| "Don't have temporary people make permanent decisions."
|
| I like that. Probably all that's needed to explain the stalemate.
| paxys wrote:
| Let's not pretend that the James Bond franchise is some bastion
| of high art and creativity that must be protected from corporate
| interests. The films are as cookie cutter as they come. The same
| plots, ideas, stunts have been getting rehashed for 60 years now.
| Amazon can do no better or worse with it than any other studio.
|
| Giving the character a break after the Daniel Craig era is a
| calculated business move, and a good one. They'll wait for public
| interest to drum up again in a couple of years and then magically
| resolve all their differences.
| wslh wrote:
| I just discovered that Harry Saltzman [1] was part of the company
| with the film rights to James Bond. His life was incredibly
| adventurous, filled with fascinating experiences. He sold his
| shares in the 70s. His obituary [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Saltzman
|
| [2] <https://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/29/obituaries/harry-
| saltzman...> <https://archive.is/ji1iT>
| gigel82 wrote:
| I'm more upset about them buying and burying the Stargate
| franchise (which was just prepping for a new show / reboot).
| intexpress wrote:
| Overall I feel like Amazon produced TV and movies have been
| pretty terrible
|
| Apple on the other hand are making some surprisingly good shows!
| Not always, but generally much better than Amazon.
| paxys wrote:
| Why is everyone falling for the most obvious negotiation tactic
| in the world? The copyright owners know that Amazon has money,
| way more than any regular film studio. Watch their reservations
| about commercializing the franchise magically disappear once the
| number is high enough.
| duxup wrote:
| > Don't have temporary people make permanent decisions.
|
| That seems like the entire streaming ecosystem as services
| compete to pay more for content than it is worth and ultimately
| many lose money.... And the content is hidden / hard to find.
| YouWhy wrote:
| > Don't have temporary people make permanent decisions
|
| IMHO, this one line summarizes remarkably well why Hollywood
| wrecks fictional universes: Star Wars, Game of Thrones, Fantastic
| Beasts, DC Universe, and even parts of the Marvel universe.
|
| I see the absence of an auteur capable of respecting themselves
| and therefore others as the root cause of cliched moves "war is
| bad so let's kill the God Of War". Clearly, the person making
| such a decision simply does not have a reputation to uphold; what
| remains is optimizing ticket sales, one movie at a time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-30 23:00 UTC)