Amazon’s first mis-step?

2»

Comments

  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 924
    Troy wrote: »
    As others said, this is likely done so they could just use a universal cover art for every country, including ones that bans gun imagery. That’s why FIRST LIGHT is ok having a gun featured, because that game’s reach isn’t as high as accessing a movie on a streaming platform.

    I’ve not heard of this before - which countries have a ‘no gun’ policy?

    This. I have not found one example of this. The idea that a certain country will ban streamers from featuring gun imagery on movie 'tiles' but not the movies themselves is ludicrous. The more logical thing would be a no-action movie policy.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited October 6 Posts: 19,284
    Adverts glorifying guns or using them aggressively in artwork have been moderated for many years, what Makeshift suggests is hardly inconceivable.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    Posts: 924
    mtm wrote: »
    Adverts glorifying guns or using them aggressively in artwork have been moderated for many years, what Makeshift suggests is hardly inconceivable.

    I agree, I can see that for street advertisements or network television, but not for a streaming platform when you know the movie is obviously going to feature gun fights.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 19,284
    That's hardly a fact though. It's happened, there will be a reason for it.
  • Posts: 2,238
    Calvin’s video in case anyone was curious :

    Check out these guns, SPECTRE.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 18,010
    This is beyond silly IMO. :))
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 7 Posts: 767
    Back in 2007...

    "Two ads for the movie Shoot Em Up have been banned in the UK. The national advertising watchdog said they could be seen to condone violence "by glorifying or glamorising" the use of guns, in breach of rules on social responsibility and violence.

    One poster showed actor Paul Giamatti pointing a gun while holding a mobile phone to his ear.

    Another showed Clive Owen leaping in the air and aiming two guns towards the viewer, though not pointing directly at the viewer.

    A third poster showed Owen with a gun by his side.

    The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received complaints that the ads were irresponsible. Others said they were offensive and insensitive towards families affected by gun crime, in particular the family of Rhys Jones, the 11-year-old who was recently shot dead in Liverpool. Three people said the posters might distress young children."
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,921
    I’d be curious to know what the specific reason is making them have to do this “no gun” business, because this seems to only concern Amazon’s Prime thumbnail imagery. Go over to Apple TV and the thumbnail for FRWL still has Connery holding up his pistol on the Orient Express. Same with other gun imagery in YOLT, OHMSS, LALD, TMWTGG, TSWLM, FYEO, SF, and SP. And again, the cover for 007 FIRST LIGHT stands as this.

    250606-007-first-light-james-bond-banner.jpg[img][/img]
  • edited October 7 Posts: 577
    The gun removal policy suggests Amazon regard Bond as a money grab.

    If you pay off Eon to take creative control you'll know James Bond
    1) has a licence to kill
    2) kills people

    What's the point acquiring creative control if you don't like the fact Bond has a licence to kill and kills people? Well, if you don't have any regard for the source material it's easy to make crass, foolish decisions.

    It's possible Amazon regard the Bond franchise as aimed at teenagers, that's their main target audience hence the need to remove the guns (which is inconsistent as the First Light poster has Bond with a gun and it's reasonable to assume the main gaming audience is teenagers or young adults). That's the only rational explanation I can think of but I may be giving Amazon an undeserved excuse when the most likely explanation is it was a stupid, disrespectful decision by people that have no idea who James Bond is and what he represents.

    My guess is Bond 26 will feature a James Bond that bears little similarity to Eon's original 1962 - 89 version.

    The Living Daylights was the first politically correct James Bond film. I recall the marketing mentioned Bond was no longer a womaniser due to the AIDS epidemic.






  • Posts: 2,238
    Amazon is releasing doctored Bond ads, but Bezos is a Trump suck up. And Trump is all about manly men.
  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    Posts: 767
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The gun removal policy suggests Amazon regard Bond as a money grab.

    If you pay off Eon to take creative control you'll know James Bond
    1) has a licence to kill
    2) kills people

    What's the point acquiring creative control if you don't like the fact Bond has a licence to kill and kills people? Well, if you don't have any regard for the source material it's easy to make crass, foolish decisions.

    It's possible Amazon regard the Bond franchise as aimed at teenagers, that's their main target audience hence the need to remove the guns (which is inconsistent as the First Light poster has Bond with a gun and it's reasonable to assume the main gaming audience is teenagers or young adults). That's the only rational explanation I can think of but I may be giving Amazon an undeserved excuse when the most likely explanation is it was a stupid, disrespectful decision by people that have no idea who James Bond is and what he represents.

    My guess is Bond 26 will feature a James Bond that bears little similarity to Eon's original 1962 - 89 version.

    The Living Daylights was the first politically correct James Bond film. I recall the marketing mentioned Bond was no longer a womaniser due to the AIDS epidemic.

    News flash for Amazon

    Deadpool & Wolverine was R-rated in the US.

    In the US film rating system, "R" stands for "Restricted", meaning that anyone under 17 must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian to see the film in a theater.

    Deadpool & Wolverine was also the second highest grossing film of 2024 and among the top ten grossing films since COVID.


    No need to start hiding the guns (or girls) for a Bond movie then, as it won't prevent it from to being big at the Box Office.

    No official James Bond film has ever received an R-rating; however, the 1989 Timothy Dalton film Licence to Kill was originally rated R in the United States before edits were made to secure a PG-13 rating, with some uncut versions of the film being released in other countries.

    Arnold Schwarzenegger stars in many R-rated films, including classics like The Terminator (1984), Predator (1987), Total Recall (1990), and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). Other examples are the action-packed Commando (1985), the sci-fi thriller End of Days (1999), and the recent Sabotage (2014).

    Many Bruce Willis films are rated R, including classic action films like Die Hard, Pulp Fiction, and The Last Boy Scout.

    Sylvester Stallone has starred in several R-rated movies, including First Blood (1982), Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), Lock Up (1989), and The Specialist (1994). His R-rated filmography also includes the modern R-rated Rambo (2008) and Rambo: Last Blood (2019), and Nighthawks (1981), his first leading R-rated film.

    Mel Gibson has starred in or directed numerous R-rated movies, including his directorial effort The Passion of the Christ (rated R for graphic violence) and acting roles in films like Mad Max (1979) (rated R for intense violence), The Road Warrior (1981), Lethal Weapon (rated R), Braveheart (rated R for violence) and Ransom (rated R for graphic, bloody violence).






  • SeveSeve The island of Lemoy
    edited October 7 Posts: 767
    Calvin’s video in case anyone was curious :

    They could at least have given Connery a bottle of beer to cradle in his arms, but I guess that wouldn't be politically correct either...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,921
    So, Bond movies should be R rated?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 18,010
    If they go the MR route and make Bond take down a nut who wants to blow up the world then it may work. Or a fantastic 50's/60's period piece would work exceptionally well. If they try for some semblance of 'realism' in a 'today' world then it will fail. Never thought I'd say this, but Bond movies are useless today in the face of rising fascism. Can't wait for my 4K YOLT! Pristine cold war nostalgia!
Sign In or Register to comment.