James Bond and the Secret Agent Academy

2»

Comments

  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,950
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In principle, you can do whatever you want with Bond. Make him older, make him younger. Put him in different time periods etc. We've seen all this before, but ultimately the work itself has to hold up.

    Personally, I don't get the sense this is a Young Bond type thing (those books they were generally well written and gripping, although a bit outlandish, and I doubt they were the reason many young Bond fans are... well, fans today. They were good in my opinion though). The truth is I doubt any property under the current IFP will attract many new fans, and these spin offs are a bizarre and fruitless endeavour to a side of this franchise relatively few are invested in anyway.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Probably so. But you never know. So why not try it if the concept is compelling enough and the writing up to snuff? In a post EON Bond-world, it may be in IFP’s interest to take Amazon’s ambitions seriously, and their recent projects may suggest that they do: Double-O spinoff, Q’s own adventure, Felix Leiter’s continuation, Young Bond, Retired Bond. I suppose if IFP can pull it off, I’d rather their curated and shepherded projects serve as templates, if not direct adaptations, of Amazon’s inevitable sequels and prequels, and universe-building adaptions and interconnected multimedia.

    I guess, in short, what I’m trying to ask is, all things being equal, and anything not done being unknown, why not? Why not do as much as possible to ensure that Fleming stays relevant. Aside from not producing an award-deserving biopic, IFP have done a good job at contextualizing Fleming, wherever possible, within theaters of war, journalism, soldering, literature, film, politics, espionage and celebrity. They’ve successfully, and rightfully, positioned Fleming as the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of his day.

    He’s not relevant, as in widely popular (although his creation is), but his place in history is coming into ever clearer focus and importance; his works are enshrined as a testament to their time and genre; he’s the father of one of the most recognizable icons across literature and film and pop culture. The legacy is solidified and looks to be entering an unexpected, yet promising, new phase. So why not try something experimental and fun? While these things need to deliver, most essentially in quality, it’s been 70 years. One new fan is one new fan.

    The problem is even if Bond goes down an interconnected, world building, spin off route, I don't think IFP should be any sort of template for it. At least when you get successful spin offs (Batman's generally a good example with the Batman Beyond cartoon coming from the original Animated series - actually not far off this concept - and of course the recent Penguin series) there's genuinely a sense it's drawing off of the original works and expanding those stories. You can do whatever you want, but I'd argue there should always be a sense it's worthwhile. To me what IFP have been doing recently just feels like throwing a bunch of ideas at the wall in the hopes they get very specific audiences onboard (who may or may not have any interest in Bond anyway). A Felix Leiter spin off set in the 50s. A weird modern day Q murder mystery. Now whatever the hell this is. It feels a bit directionless and difficult to get completely new audiences invested.

    But like others have said perhaps many of us just aren't the audience. And it won't matter in the long run. If it fails it'll just be another little subchapter in James Bond history. Plenty of oddities in there.

    I’m confused how this new project, or any other, from IFP is all that different from what Batman is doing or has done. I’m genuinely confused how a book series about Bond training new recruits is somehow so far off from something like Batman Beyond. If you don’t like the concept, then fair enough. But I’m not seeing the problem. If you’re OK with Batman continually updating, expanding and probing its mythology for new takes, then I don’t get the distinction you’re making when it comes to Bond.


    Batman Beyond followed on from the Animated Series, expanding on a version of the character that had been developed and audiences had an attachment to/knew. Penguin does this too with The Batman. They weren’t just randomly using an existing IP to appeal to a radically different age group, shoehorning it into a radically different genre, without any context. Even Young Bond made its connection to Fleming quite clear.

    Yes, there’s a big difference between this and those examples.

    Ok. But Batman Beyond and The Penguin aren’t anything like each other. So, OK, those two particular shows were direct continuations of other Batman works. But the originating works have nothing in common either, save for broad strokes and common motifs. Would this spin-off be more acceptable if it were a direct continuation of Goldfinger or Brokenclaw or Never Dream Of Dying, or from any of the other Fleming and non-Fleming stories featuring Bond across most of modern media?

    I think some of this comes from the expected scope of these stories. Batman lives in a city, which is relatively easier to explore in both character and geography for a story than the entire world of James Bond. When they do new Bond content, it should be as big as possible - big characters, big locations, big action. That's what Bond is. Batman is already a quiet detective in the shadows, so you can explore those shadows. Bond is more open world, out in the open, and that's harder to nail down for a story, which is why it's probably best they stick to Bond in his world, and not try to build that world up around him while he's missing!
  • edited June 10 Posts: 5,383
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    Burgess wrote: »
    007HallY wrote: »
    In principle, you can do whatever you want with Bond. Make him older, make him younger. Put him in different time periods etc. We've seen all this before, but ultimately the work itself has to hold up.

    Personally, I don't get the sense this is a Young Bond type thing (those books they were generally well written and gripping, although a bit outlandish, and I doubt they were the reason many young Bond fans are... well, fans today. They were good in my opinion though). The truth is I doubt any property under the current IFP will attract many new fans, and these spin offs are a bizarre and fruitless endeavour to a side of this franchise relatively few are invested in anyway.

    Maybe. Maybe not. Probably so. But you never know. So why not try it if the concept is compelling enough and the writing up to snuff? In a post EON Bond-world, it may be in IFP’s interest to take Amazon’s ambitions seriously, and their recent projects may suggest that they do: Double-O spinoff, Q’s own adventure, Felix Leiter’s continuation, Young Bond, Retired Bond. I suppose if IFP can pull it off, I’d rather their curated and shepherded projects serve as templates, if not direct adaptations, of Amazon’s inevitable sequels and prequels, and universe-building adaptions and interconnected multimedia.

    I guess, in short, what I’m trying to ask is, all things being equal, and anything not done being unknown, why not? Why not do as much as possible to ensure that Fleming stays relevant. Aside from not producing an award-deserving biopic, IFP have done a good job at contextualizing Fleming, wherever possible, within theaters of war, journalism, soldering, literature, film, politics, espionage and celebrity. They’ve successfully, and rightfully, positioned Fleming as the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle of his day.

    He’s not relevant, as in widely popular (although his creation is), but his place in history is coming into ever clearer focus and importance; his works are enshrined as a testament to their time and genre; he’s the father of one of the most recognizable icons across literature and film and pop culture. The legacy is solidified and looks to be entering an unexpected, yet promising, new phase. So why not try something experimental and fun? While these things need to deliver, most essentially in quality, it’s been 70 years. One new fan is one new fan.

    The problem is even if Bond goes down an interconnected, world building, spin off route, I don't think IFP should be any sort of template for it. At least when you get successful spin offs (Batman's generally a good example with the Batman Beyond cartoon coming from the original Animated series - actually not far off this concept - and of course the recent Penguin series) there's genuinely a sense it's drawing off of the original works and expanding those stories. You can do whatever you want, but I'd argue there should always be a sense it's worthwhile. To me what IFP have been doing recently just feels like throwing a bunch of ideas at the wall in the hopes they get very specific audiences onboard (who may or may not have any interest in Bond anyway). A Felix Leiter spin off set in the 50s. A weird modern day Q murder mystery. Now whatever the hell this is. It feels a bit directionless and difficult to get completely new audiences invested.

    But like others have said perhaps many of us just aren't the audience. And it won't matter in the long run. If it fails it'll just be another little subchapter in James Bond history. Plenty of oddities in there.

    I’m confused how this new project, or any other, from IFP is all that different from what Batman is doing or has done. I’m genuinely confused how a book series about Bond training new recruits is somehow so far off from something like Batman Beyond. If you don’t like the concept, then fair enough. But I’m not seeing the problem. If you’re OK with Batman continually updating, expanding and probing its mythology for new takes, then I don’t get the distinction you’re making when it comes to Bond.


    Batman Beyond followed on from the Animated Series, expanding on a version of the character that had been developed and audiences had an attachment to/knew. Penguin does this too with The Batman. They weren’t just randomly using an existing IP to appeal to a radically different age group, shoehorning it into a radically different genre, without any context. Even Young Bond made its connection to Fleming quite clear.

    Yes, there’s a big difference between this and those examples.

    Ok. But Batman Beyond and The Penguin aren’t anything like each other. So, OK, those two particular shows were direct continuations of other Batman works. But the originating works have nothing in common either, save for broad strokes and common motifs. Would this spin-off be more acceptable if it were a direct continuation of Goldfinger or Brokenclaw or Never Dream Of Dying, or from any of the other Fleming and non-Fleming stories featuring Bond across most of modern media?

    What I'm saying both those Batman examples are works that took the creative opportunity to expand on those versions of the character and their worlds. They already had audiences who were invested in that film/tv show, and even if it expanded viewership, it didn't try to target a fundamentally different audience. That's the ideal way spin offs should work in my opinion. Even Young Bond was more for mid teens and had that connection to Fleming (so yes, a slightly younger readership, but more or less at the 12-13+ age range kids generally need to and will be to get into the films or even Fleming books. An 8-12 target audience is bizarrely low for this character, and I think it'll really struggle with some of the themes/ideas inherent in Bond. It's a tricky character to water down without losing something or relying on secondary characters. Simply put this feels way more James Bond jr than Young Bond).

    To be honest, if it were made a bit more clear this was an older version of Fleming's Bond (perhaps set in the past even), and centred around him a bit more, as well as being written for a slightly older YA reader, I think this would come off as more worthwhile. To be fair obviously no one's read it yet, and that could be the case, but like IFP's other spin offs I don't get the sense there's enough there to get the specific target audience they want for this. YA novels are already oversaturated, and this concept is strikingly unoriginal anyway. The implication is that Bond's barely in this and it's about these other teenage characters. What about Bond will attract readers to this, and what about Bond in these books will readers take away about the character? Ideally it won't be that he's just an old dinosaur who can't work gadgets, which I think is a bizarre thing to say from a PR standpoint anyway, or at least ill judged.
  • The problem is here (mind you I haven't watched any of the Batman spinoffs): if you like animated Batman, here's a spinoff with more of the same. Or if you like Pattinson Batman, here's a spinoff with more of the same.

    This spinoff appeals to no existing Bond fans. And yes, if a spinoff focused on say Pussy Galore (or Never Dream of Dying's Le Gerant or Gardner's Sukie Tempesta) it would be mocked (because unlike comic-world, there aren't that many important, reoccurring characters), but it would appeal to an existing audience of Bond fans who already enjoy the story and the character/style. That's why say something like the 00 stories or the Felix Leiter spinoff have the potential and this doesn't.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 15,166
    What I think kids need is a Bond pop-up book. Think about it: the volcano lair with rocket poking through the top, a couple of pages dedicated to operating gadgets with the sliding tabs.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,576
    mtm wrote: »
    I wonder what the truth about Bond's absence being more complicated refers to. Is that purely within the fiction of the new books or some kind of hint that there’s been some sort of issue stopping them using him?

    Curious about this too.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 10 Posts: 18,759
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I wonder what the truth about Bond's absence being more complicated refers to. Is that purely within the fiction of the new books or some kind of hint that there’s been some sort of issue stopping them using him?

    Curious about this too.

    From the way it is worded I think it must be the latter: that there's some sort of issue stopping them using him. That's my take on it anyway. If so, I wonder what that issue is? We know that Bond himself hasn't appeared as the main character in a literary Bond project since the Charlie Higson novella On His Majesty's Secret Service was released in May 2023. So perhaps there's a deeper reason for all of these spinoff projects appearing one after the other with Bond not featuring in his usual way?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 10 Posts: 18,224
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I wonder what the truth about Bond's absence being more complicated refers to. Is that purely within the fiction of the new books or some kind of hint that there’s been some sort of issue stopping them using him?

    Curious about this too.

    From the way it is worded I think it must be the latter: that there's some sort of issue stopping them using him. That's my take on it anyway. If so, I took winder what what that issue is? We know that Bond himself hasn't appeared as the main character in a literary Bond project since the Charlie Higson novella On His Majesty's Secret Service was released in May 2023. So perhaps there's a deeper reason for all of these spinoff projects appearing one after the other with Bond not featuring in his usual way?

    Yeah it does feel like a hint, doesn't it? Especially as they say they're addressing his absence which people have been asking about, which is a real world thing. It's hard to tell as they slip between talking about real things and authors and their playful fictionalised world with M etc.

    I do kind of wonder if Eon had put the brakes on new projects featuring Bond himself after NTTD and wanted a general pause on the character. Might even explain why First Light went off the radar for so long too.
  • Posts: 2,079
    If James Bond is going to be in the public domain, I understand that they are looking for ways to protect it.

    This may be the reason. Try to cover all possible bases.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited June 10 Posts: 9,002
    Maybe no work on Bond 26 can happen until this is resolved, but they are keeping quiet about it.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited June 10 Posts: 18,759
    mtm wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Red_Snow wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I wonder what the truth about Bond's absence being more complicated refers to. Is that purely within the fiction of the new books or some kind of hint that there’s been some sort of issue stopping them using him?

    Curious about this too.

    From the way it is worded I think it must be the latter: that there's some sort of issue stopping them using him. That's my take on it anyway. If so, I took winder what what that issue is? We know that Bond himself hasn't appeared as the main character in a literary Bond project since the Charlie Higson novella On His Majesty's Secret Service was released in May 2023. So perhaps there's a deeper reason for all of these spinoff projects appearing one after the other with Bond not featuring in his usual way?

    Yeah it does feel like a hint, doesn't it? Especially as they say they're addressing his absence which people have been asking about, which is a real world thing. It's hard to tell as they slip between talking about real things and authors and their playful fictionalised world with M etc.

    I do kind of wonder if Eon had put the brakes on new projects featuring Bond himself after NTTD and wanted a general pause on the character.Might even explain why First Light went off the radar for so long too.

    Yes, that's what I had thought myself and I remember you mentioning this possibility before. Possibly some exclusivity clause could be at play where Bond can only appear in the background before the character is relaunched in the films with a new actor. As you said before, Eon have the say over IFP and what they do now so it certainly seems possible.
    Maybe no work on Bond 26 can happen until this is resolved, but they are keeping quiet about it.
    I think it's most likely the other way around in that nothing substantive featuring Bond can go ahead on the literary front until Bond 26 is released.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 10 Posts: 18,224
    Well Eon aren’t involved with Bond anymore and Amazon have creative control; I think it’s possible Eon wanted a hiatus while they were figuring out where to take Bond next, or possibly they knew the Amazon deal was coming and wanted a stop on him; maybe it was actually a condition of the deal negotiations that the character wasn’t used until it was complete: that’s not impossible.
    In a way it would actually be pretty odd for Danjaq to be licensing out Bond on projects at the point they knew would be released under the tenure of Amazon: if I were Amazon I probably wouldn't want that as Bond would likely be my property at that time. So it's probably kind of natural we haven't seen him for a while.

    But now that’s over we’re seeing 007 starting to be used again. It's likely taking time to catch up because Amazon are probably figuring out what they want him to be used for, and IFP and other licensees are making new relationships with the new rights holders.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 5,050
    mtm wrote: »
    Well Eon aren’t involved with Bond anymore and Amazon have creative control; I think it’s possible Eon wanted a hiatus while they were figuring out where to take Bond next, or possibly they knew the Amazon deal was coming and wanted a stop on him; maybe it was actually a condition of the deal negotiations that the character wasn’t used until it was complete: that’s not impossible.
    In a way it would actually be pretty odd for Danjaq to be licensing out Bond on projects at the point they knew would be released under the tenure of Amazon: if I were Amazon I probably wouldn't want that as Bond would likely be my property at that time. So it's probably kind of natural we haven't seen him for a while.

    But now that’s over we’re seeing 007 starting to be used again. It's likely taking time to catch up because Amazon are probably figuring out what they want him to be used for, and IFP and other licensees are making new relationships with the new rights holders.

    It is similar to why we got Colonel Sun in 1968. We'll get a new Adult Bond novel soon.
  • Posts: 448
    The problem is here (mind you I haven't watched any of the Batman spinoffs): if you like animated Batman, here's a spinoff with more of the same. Or if you like Pattinson Batman, here's a spinoff with more of the same.

    This spinoff appeals to no existing Bond fans. And yes, if a spinoff focused on say Pussy Galore (or Never Dream of Dying's Le Gerant or Gardner's Sukie Tempesta) it would be mocked (because unlike comic-world, there aren't that many important, reoccurring characters), but it would appeal to an existing audience of Bond fans who already enjoy the story and the character/style. That's why say something like the 00 stories or the Felix Leiter spinoff have the potential and this doesn't.

    I think you’re missing the point that every adaptation of Batman or Bond, that’s not written by the original creators, is a new creation in need of proving itself on its own merits. Both BTAS and The Batman had to demonstrate to audiences why they were worthwhile. Just as the primary appeal of any story featuring Batman is, in fact, Batman, the hook of this story is Bond as a mentor.

    Whether or not there’s an audience for this work is yet to be known. But not attempting to build new audiences or entice current fans with new takes seems to be counterintuitive to artistic creation and financial success. I’m not saying this will be Shakespeare, or Fleming, but I’m saying that endeavors like this can be fun and have the potential to expand Bond’s reach, just as BTAS did when it was new and untested.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 2,610
    Damn, they're really milking Ian's success for all it's worth. They did manage to build a business out of it... Unless, what others have said is true. It's a sad state of affairs when the damn movies get precedence over the literary James Bond which is where it all started.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,224
    In truth I think most of us are here because of the movies.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,759
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well Eon aren’t involved with Bond anymore and Amazon have creative control; I think it’s possible Eon wanted a hiatus while they were figuring out where to take Bond next, or possibly they knew the Amazon deal was coming and wanted a stop on him; maybe it was actually a condition of the deal negotiations that the character wasn’t used until it was complete: that’s not impossible.
    In a way it would actually be pretty odd for Danjaq to be licensing out Bond on projects at the point they knew would be released under the tenure of Amazon: if I were Amazon I probably wouldn't want that as Bond would likely be my property at that time. So it's probably kind of natural we haven't seen him for a while.

    But now that’s over we’re seeing 007 starting to be used again. It's likely taking time to catch up because Amazon are probably figuring out what they want him to be used for, and IFP and other licensees are making new relationships with the new rights holders.

    It is similar to why we got Colonel Sun in 1968. We'll get a new Adult Bond novel soon.

    Interesting observation. What do you mean by that? I'm intrigued as Colonel Sun is my favourite Bond continuation novel.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 5,383
    Up next in IFP's line up - an M spin off with a horror twist!

    A mission to retrieve a stolen British bioweapon results in a devastating chemical explosion, killing hundreds of civilians as well as 009. Guilt stricken and with his job on the line, M - Sir Miles Messervy - attends the sight of the explosion with a team of chemical weapons experts in an attempt to rectify the situation. Things soon take a dark turn, however, as the bioweapon's toxins bring the victims back to life, and an army of walking, flesh eating zombies descend upon the world. Can M and his team stop them in time before the contagion spreads?

    "A wholly necessary addition to the world of Bond", says Simon Ward, Publishing Director at Ian Fleming Publications, "This book will appeal to fans of James Bond and Zombie Horror novels alike, drawing on the themes of responsibility, leadership, and the dark side of Britain's past. IFP look forward to seeing this novel adorn the bookshelves of our loyal readers or, failing this, those of your local charity shop."
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    edited June 11 Posts: 1,950
    I think they should have made comic book spin offs and explored that medium more for these wacky ideas. I'd even buy a zombie story in that format because it's meant to be fun twists on old stories. But doing proper off topic book series is weird at this point.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 5,383
    LucknFate wrote: »
    I think they should have made comic book spin offs and explored that medium more for these wacky ideas. I'd even buy a zombie story in that format because it's meant to be fun twists on old stories. But doing proper off topic book series is weird at this point.

    I'm surprised there aren't more odd James Bond comic crossovers or oddities. At least that I know of... for all I know there could some strange 1960s comic out there where Connery's Bond teamed up with Scooby Doo...

    But I agree, it's a bit odd that this sort of stuff is coming from what are meant to be the guardians of the Fleming-Bond literary legacy.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 448
    We’re thirty years shy of a century since Bond’s creation. Fleming’s legacy is solid. Is this a money grab of a kind? Yes. Is it the most cynical money grab of which I’ve read, seen or heard? No. Let them do what they’ve been doing: experiment and expand while preserving the legacy. It’s far less costly to test the waters this way than making a streaming series or movie.

    Books and comics are probably the most appropriate genres for this project, given the relatively low stakes. Anything aside from Fleming is fan fiction of a type. Pick and choose what you want to absorb. Like every Batman fan or Star Trek fan or Star Wars fan does. Whatever sticks will stick. Whatever doesn’t will be a footnote. But one does hope for the best results.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 811
    I don't like the perception this creates for IFP. And I don't believe they need some passcode from Amazon and thats why they're not making a new novel.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 11 Posts: 18,224
    And I don't believe they need some passcode from Amazon and thats why they're not making a new novel.

    They licence James Bond 007 from MGM, so you always need the approval of the licensor. IFP don't own Bond.
  • edited June 11 Posts: 5,383
    Oh, these decisions feel very PR motivated and actually quite logical in a way if we’re talking about expanding Bond. Regardless of the circumstances. But as is the case with these things what seems obvious and logical might not work in practice, especially if it involves creative works with an existing fanbase and trying to attract new audiences at the same time.

    It’s probably quite simple - if these spin offs are any good, people will read them, spread the word, and they might be a relative success. But having read some of IFP’s output - even when it was Bond focused - I’m not entirely sure they’re very consistent.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 811
    I'm aware. I'm talking about in spite of that, i still don't think they would be making a Bond novel regardless.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 5,050
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well Eon aren’t involved with Bond anymore and Amazon have creative control; I think it’s possible Eon wanted a hiatus while they were figuring out where to take Bond next, or possibly they knew the Amazon deal was coming and wanted a stop on him; maybe it was actually a condition of the deal negotiations that the character wasn’t used until it was complete: that’s not impossible.
    In a way it would actually be pretty odd for Danjaq to be licensing out Bond on projects at the point they knew would be released under the tenure of Amazon: if I were Amazon I probably wouldn't want that as Bond would likely be my property at that time. So it's probably kind of natural we haven't seen him for a while.

    But now that’s over we’re seeing 007 starting to be used again. It's likely taking time to catch up because Amazon are probably figuring out what they want him to be used for, and IFP and other licensees are making new relationships with the new rights holders.

    It is similar to why we got Colonel Sun in 1968. We'll get a new Adult Bond novel soon.

    Interesting observation. What do you mean by that? I'm intrigued as Colonel Sun is my favourite Bond continuation novel.

    I think by publishing Colonel Sun, IFP could keep the copyright on Bond. I'm not sure what the legal terms are for it. Anyway, it was better that IFP got the rights over Ann Fleming. She could have just as bad for Bond as Kevin McClory.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 18,224
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Well Eon aren’t involved with Bond anymore and Amazon have creative control; I think it’s possible Eon wanted a hiatus while they were figuring out where to take Bond next, or possibly they knew the Amazon deal was coming and wanted a stop on him; maybe it was actually a condition of the deal negotiations that the character wasn’t used until it was complete: that’s not impossible.
    In a way it would actually be pretty odd for Danjaq to be licensing out Bond on projects at the point they knew would be released under the tenure of Amazon: if I were Amazon I probably wouldn't want that as Bond would likely be my property at that time. So it's probably kind of natural we haven't seen him for a while.

    But now that’s over we’re seeing 007 starting to be used again. It's likely taking time to catch up because Amazon are probably figuring out what they want him to be used for, and IFP and other licensees are making new relationships with the new rights holders.

    It is similar to why we got Colonel Sun in 1968. We'll get a new Adult Bond novel soon.

    Interesting observation. What do you mean by that? I'm intrigued as Colonel Sun is my favourite Bond continuation novel.

    I think by publishing Colonel Sun, IFP could keep the copyright on Bond. I'm not sure what the legal terms are for it. Anyway, it was better that IFP got the rights over Ann Fleming. She could have just as bad for Bond as Kevin McClory.

    That's very interesting, I haven't heard that before, will have to read up on it. That would be Gildrose rather than IFP of course.
Sign In or Register to comment.