The What if thread...What if Amazon remakes the EON films?

17677787981

Comments

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited June 4 Posts: 1,942
    I think they'll take successful elements of the formula, like the team, the car, the watch, some gadgets, and there's plenty of Fleming left to adapt from books who have already had titles made into movies, so in that way, they could remake a few. But it would, I imagine, be called something else than Dr. No or whatever, because that would look confusing and silly on a streaming service, having two identical titles separated by a year. (This is me trying to get the giant squid fight into a movie!)
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,159
    I am reminded of when they remade the classics Robocop and Total Recall: Inevitably inferior and pointless. There's plenty of source material from other Bond media to make a new film series.
  • edited June 4 Posts: 2,071
    I don't think they'll remake the movies, but they could bring back old characters like Goldfinger, Tracy, Scaramanga, Tiger, etc.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 459
    They can start with Doctor No No A Million Thousand Times NO

    Leave it alone, do your own films and if they stink pass it on to someone better, Bezos
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 459
    I don't think they'll remake the movies, but they could bring back old characters like Goldfinger, Tracy, Scaramanga, Tiger, etc.

    The Largo Files
    Ernst Before Blofeld
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,869
    If you had told a Disney fan that Disney would re-make their beloved classic I do not think you would have been believed. I grant you that they changed the medium with the remake but still.

    I wonder if they look at all those legacy films and say, with some modern takes we could just remake some of the series. Fix some wrongs and right some rights. LOL!

    This would never be something that EON would consider but Amazon isn't emotionally attached to those films.

    Also be able to do away with some of the problematic scenes...Bond turning Japanese, stereotypes of southern law enforcement, homosexual hitmen, striking women when they fail to give you the right answer, etc.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 152
    I believe most of Bond films are products of their time, and remaking them would basically turn them into new works, unless they're set in the Cold War.

    I can see them bringing back older characters though, like a modern day Goldfinger, or a modern Hugo Drax (basically Elon Musk).
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 459
    thedove wrote: »
    If you had told a Disney fan that Disney would re-make their beloved classic I do not think you would have been believed. I grant you that they changed the medium with the remake but still.

    I wonder if they look at all those legacy films and say, with some modern takes we could just remake some of the series. Fix some wrongs and right some rights. LOL!

    This would never be something that EON would consider but Amazon isn't emotionally attached to those films.

    Also be able to do away with some of the problematic scenes...Bond turning Japanese, stereotypes of southern law enforcement, homosexual hitmen, striking women when they fail to give you the right answer, etc.

    Disney remaking their shit is believable.

    'Woking' previous Bond will just lead to Laurence Fox (aided by Robert Davi) style discourse to supplant the film's progress.

    Whatever point was being made, no matter how correct, will be lost on those who need to heed it the most.

    Do something original.
  • Posts: 15,742
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 459
    Ludovico wrote: »
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...

    The ghostbusters 'femake' was alright. Better than GB2, but not as good as the curiously vaunted original. Better than the Paul Rudd and stranger things child thing, too.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 5,044
    I don't think they'll remake the movies, but they could bring back old characters like Goldfinger, Tracy, Scaramanga, Tiger, etc.

    I believe they will bring some old characters back.
    I believe most of Bond films are products of their time, and remaking them would basically turn them into new works, unless they're set in the Cold War.

    I can see them bringing back older characters though, like a modern day Goldfinger, or a modern Hugo Drax (basically Elon Musk).

    As Barbara Broccoli said to Amazon themselves, Bond has already fought Elon Musk: in TND. She said that she was sad that her movie somewhat predicted the future.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,199
    I don't think they'll remake the movies, but they could bring back old characters like Goldfinger, Tracy, Scaramanga, Tiger, etc.

    Scaramanga did deserve better than the movie he got.
  • SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷SecretAgentMan⁰⁰⁷ Lekki, Lagos, Nigeria
    Posts: 2,648
    mtm wrote: »
    I don't think they'll remake the movies, but they could bring back old characters like Goldfinger, Tracy, Scaramanga, Tiger, etc.

    Scaramanga did deserve better than the movie he got.

    True. Lee really nailed the part. Lee would have been a great Bond himself. If Moore wasn't a good actor, Lee would have dominated him entirely.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,762
    What if they remade SP? Maybe they'll get it right this time?

    I don't need to see new versions of Dr. No, Goldfinger, Tracy, etc. It will just start to seem like fan fiction. Blofeld was always kind of a miss (love Savalas though) and I can see why they keep trying to get him right. Who loves ya, Telly?
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    edited June 4 Posts: 14,481
    Filming the novels updated in the style CR was can be magic.

    Different than remaking any existing film. Eet. Eez. Een Evitable.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,704
    It’s not a direction I would be excited for, but with the Broccoli family no longer in charge I don’t really leave anything off the table anymore, including remakes.
  • Posts: 16,522
    It’s not a direction I would be excited for, but with the Broccoli family no longer in charge I don’t really leave anything off the table anymore, including remakes.

    Same here.
  • RichardTheBruceRichardTheBruce I'm motivated by my Duty.
    Posts: 14,481
    I don't get to choose who I am. Or who Bond is.

    New creations by Amazon are considered alongside possibilities using Fleming novels and film content for the last 63 or so years ago.

    Bond history will play out.

    d8a2166afc1a26bfed3a322225519ad68a4bab0b.webp
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited June 5 Posts: 573
    I wouldn't mind if they reused the Fleming titles of the ones that weren't done very well the first time around

    e.g. DAF or MR

    I wouldn't mind if they reused the titles of some of the ones where the movie version didn't remotely resemble the plot of the Fleming novel, and tried to make the remake closer to the general outline or spirit of the novel.

    e.g. YOLT, DAF, TMWTGG, MR

    DAF with a more serious tone and Spang brothers instead of Blofeld in drag, or TMWTGG without the distraction of the Solex, the recycling of the comedy sheriff etc, or an MR that focuses on a missile system, rather than recycling TSWLM with a space station. YOLT could only be remade properly after setting up the arch enemy in at least one previous movie, so would have to wait a while.

    I don't see much point in reusing any of the non-Fleming titles, much better to concoct a new one.
  • Posts: 15,742
    Ludovico wrote: »
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...

    The ghostbusters 'femake' was alright. Better than GB2, but not as good as the curiously vaunted original. Better than the Paul Rudd and stranger things child thing, too.

    It didn't exactly succeed at the BO or critically.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,704
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...

    The ghostbusters 'femake' was alright. Better than GB2, but not as good as the curiously vaunted original. Better than the Paul Rudd and stranger things child thing, too.

    It didn't exactly succeed at the BO or critically.

    Funnily ANSWER THE CALL actually did about the same box office business as AFTERLIFE and FROZEN EMPIRE managed to pull.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 459
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...

    The ghostbusters 'femake' was alright. Better than GB2, but not as good as the curiously vaunted original. Better than the Paul Rudd and stranger things child thing, too.

    It didn't exactly succeed at the BO or critically.

    That's true, but a lot of its criticism was loaded.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,704
    I know I was disappointed, not because of the female angle. BRIDESMAIDS was one of the most hilarious films of that decade so I had confidence in them pulling off a GB film but was disappointed. I’m convinced GB should have never become a franchise. I enjoyed II but I admit that’s nostalgia talking. The first film was lightning in a bottle. AFTERLIFE was eye rolling bad. Didn’t bother with FROZEN EMPIRE.
  • edited June 6 Posts: 15,742
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...

    The ghostbusters 'femake' was alright. Better than GB2, but not as good as the curiously vaunted original. Better than the Paul Rudd and stranger things child thing, too.

    It didn't exactly succeed at the BO or critically.

    That's true, but a lot of its criticism was loaded.

    Maybe, but not all of them were done by trolls. In the end, the film failed to relaunch the franchise.
    I know I was disappointed, not because of the female angle. BRIDESMAIDS was one of the most hilarious films of that decade so I had confidence in them pulling off a GB film but was disappointed. I’m convinced GB should have never become a franchise. I enjoyed II but I admit that’s nostalgia talking. The first film was lightning in a bottle. AFTERLIFE was eye rolling bad. Didn’t bother with FROZEN EMPIRE.

    I'd agree that the very first movie was lightning in a bottle. I'd say that the cartoon was quite fun and clever at times, maybe they should have left it at that. Or they should have worked better on GB2, which truly started their downfall.
  • AnotherZorinStoogeAnotherZorinStooge Bramhall (Irish)
    Posts: 459
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    One word: Ghostbusters.

    And to think I was already scared of Amy Pascal...

    The ghostbusters 'femake' was alright. Better than GB2, but not as good as the curiously vaunted original. Better than the Paul Rudd and stranger things child thing, too.

    It didn't exactly succeed at the BO or critically.

    That's true, but a lot of its criticism was loaded.

    Maybe, but not all of them were done by trolls. In the end, the film failed to relaunch the franchise.

    That'd be to a variety of factors, but don't dismiss the role of troll. It has been a determining factor in commercial criticism long before these awful culture wars.

    As for the 'franchise', it's a franchise. So carefully marketed has gb been since its inception, it can survive ten poor films on the trot.
  • edited June 6 Posts: 2,071
    GB was never a great movie. It's like MIB, a product of its time.

    It's like Crocodile Dundee too. You will never be able to replicate the success.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,199
    I know I was disappointed, not because of the female angle. BRIDESMAIDS was one of the most hilarious films of that decade so I had confidence in them pulling off a GB film but was disappointed. I’m convinced GB should have never become a franchise. I enjoyed II but I admit that’s nostalgia talking. The first film was lightning in a bottle. AFTERLIFE was eye rolling bad. Didn’t bother with FROZEN EMPIRE.

    Frozen Empire was a bizarre experience: I loved Ghostbusters as a kid, had the Real GB toys etc. So FE should have been a nice nostalgic experience, watching that car going into the firestation etc. and yet I felt absolutely nothing at all, it's quite bizarre. It sort of works functionally as a movie but it's a really empty experience and feels like a mess of stuff all chucked together with barely any coherence. In terms of legacy sequels around that time, the Indiana Jones one has its faults but feels much more like an actual proper film with a script that knows what it wants to say.
    Unlike something like Terminator (which is one single story: they stretched it to a second film brilliantly, but there's nothing left in it after that), Ghostbusters was clearly designed to be a franchise as you have these four guys in a status quo situation at the end which leads to more stories. But it's never actually had a good sequel - like you, I have a soft spot for GB II out of nostalgia and because it's close enough in time to the original, but objectively it's not a great sequel at all.
  • Posts: 15,742
    GB was never a great movie. It's like MIB, a product of its time.

    It's like Crocodile Dundee too. You will never be able to replicate the success.

    Off topic, but yeah, every time I rewatch GB I find it surprisingly dated. It's great fun to watch, it has some genuinely scary moments and great comedy too, but it often feels dated. Not sure exactly what it is. It's a classic of its time rather than a timeless classic.

    Back on topic: Bond is more adaptable to its time and place. One of the reasons why I'm generally against remakes of classics, Bond or no Bond: you either make a lesser copy of a great film or you change it beyond recognition. Although they could adapt again a Bond novel that has been made in name only, or almost. But even the content of these novels have been plundered.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,762
    Agreed. I don't see much of Fleming left to be filmed that is filmic. LALD and DAF...ehh, do we really need to see Wint and Kidd kicking Bond? Or the Spang brothers, who were barely there? We're never going to see Tiffany tied to the tracks. Just because Fleming wrote it doesn't mean it will play on screen.

    Similarly the night barracuda swim or gold coin stash of LALD...okay but that's like maybe five minutes on screen.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,199
    It struck me the new Mission Impossible has a sort of equivalent of the barracuda swim, in that it's one character swimming on his own in a tense sequence, but it's a bit bigger.
Sign In or Register to comment.