Best and worst case scenario for the Amazon Bond

1101112131416»

Comments

  • Posts: 12,867
    I myself am, in fact, walking, talking woke trash \:D/
  • Bond420Bond420 Space Coast
    Posts: 2
    After rewatching all the films again' (I'm currently on "Spy"), It will be interesting on who they choose next. Just stay faithful to the character itself, and I'll be happy.
  • mtm wrote: »
    Apparently there were complaints that Superman turned woke because he cared about saving people. I think at some point you just have to accept that anyone using the word non-ironically is just one of the baddies.


    It’s sad isn’t it. The way America is being run that country could do with someone who actually cares about people in charge.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited September 20 Posts: 15,555
    You’re walking on thin ice @Scaramanga1974 and you know it.
    We have asked repeatedly that posts not be politicised, yet this simple request is ignored.
    This is the last time you’ll be told.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,771
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 3 Posts: 19,250
    Yeah, I don't really understand the thinking behind it (it could be a 'political' decision, or it might be a styling one and they might have decided to make them look like fashion shots, or just tried to make them match each other- most shots of Connery from each film he's without a gun) but regardless it's a bit weird; but also I can't really care about it all that much: it's just some small onscreen graphics. I don't think it's a sign of anything more egregious.

    It's funny really: in the 90s we had those photocomped VHS covers where they added odd little hands holding guns onto publicity shots of the actors and made them look weird: now they're removing the guns and making them look weird again! :D
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,891
    peter wrote: »

    I don't understand the point either mate, I mean if you watch a Bond film you know there's going to be guns.

    Just serves as another example why fans will be weary of Amazon's stewardship of the series
  • Posts: 6,038
    Oh they look awful, don’t they?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,250
    I mean, a couple do (I'm more offended by the mismatching shadows in the AVTAK one than the arms) but most of them look fine I think. I don't think it represents anything greater about MGM, it's just a thing.

    On a vaguely related note, I remember hearing about some rule that in UK, you can't, or didn't used to be allowed to, have a film poster where a character aims a gun at the viewer. Hence there was a TND poster where Wai Lin pointed her gun at the camera in the US version, but the UK version amended it so she pointed it off to the side a bit.

    So, I dunno, this could be about losing the guns, it could about generating artwork which can be used in all markets globally where some territory have tougher rules about showing guns than others, who knows.


    tomorrow_never_dies-p281575.jpg?v=1711404219&width=1920

    tnd.jpg


  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,771
    mtm wrote: »
    I mean, a couple do (I'm more offended by the mismatching shadows in the AVTAK one than the arms) but most of them look fine I think. I don't think it represents anything greater about MGM, it's just a thing.

    On a vaguely related note, I remember hearing about some rule that in UK, you can't, or didn't used to be allowed to, have a film poster where a character aims a gun at the viewer. Hence there was a TND poster where Wai Lin pointed her gun at the camera in the US version, but the UK version amended it so she pointed it off to the side a bit.

    So, I dunno, this could be about losing the guns, it could about generating artwork which can be used in all markets globally where some territory have tougher rules about showing guns than others, who knows.


    tomorrow_never_dies-p281575.jpg?v=1711404219&width=1920

    tnd.jpg


    Very true, but what irks me is the laziness. They could have whipped up some new images fairly quickly that wouldn't have appeared so cheap.

    And then on top of that, James Bond has a license to kill. Showing a gun in a holster wouldn't have caused an uproar, I'm sure. To delete the gun from the man is more than silly. Instead of not bringing attention to this, they've done the opposite: they've placed a glaring spotlight on it.

    I mean, the average person won't notice a gun in the posters, or not but; fans will. Hence why it's now a discussion that doesn't paint Amazon in the best light. It begs the question: what other things will they potentially be watering down.

    Instead of avoiding a non controversy, they've started a minor one, haven't they?

    This omission was stupid.

    Are they going to take the gun out of the 007 logo next?

    Stupid decision.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 2:08pm Posts: 19,250
    The gun has disappeared from the 007 logo before; I think you can find a few individual examples over the years (I remember a couple of films ago there was a 007 tie-in with a brand of trainers/sneakers with a gunless logo, and I reckon there's a chance that due to gangsta culture and all that those brands probably do have internal rules about showing guns on their products) but it seemed to be very much a thing in the Bond styleguide around the release of Die Another Day: there was lots of merch with a gun-less logo when that came out.

    s-l1200.jpg

    Have we even seen any other use for these images than the thumbnails on the Prime menu? Most films just get a publicity photo from the set of one of the actors rather than a load of bespoke images. I think some of the choices are odd: there must be other shots of Connery from Dr No (and I hate that shot anyway!) but there we go.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,771
    I can’t stand any of the stills. And I’ve never liked Connery’s pose in this one, 😂. Uncomfortable.

    I mean AI could have whipped up something more decent than these pics.

    And I do understand the sensitivity to gun culture, but we are talking about a secret agent. The most famous one in the world, where bartenders know his signature drink, as Moore jokingly made mention in interviews.

    I think that instead of omitting guns in known stills, they should have created new images or used other stills (Bond sitting at dinner with Dr. No; Moore hanging off the Golden Gate Bridge etc etc…), where not seeing a gun wouldn’t have created any kind of stir.

    But taking known stills and erasing Bond’s Walther was stupid and lazy and put a spotlight on it. They created a minor controversy when they didn’t have to.

    This little blip had an easy fix, and any minor controversy didn’t have to happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.