SecondWindGroup
patreon
[COLUMN] Why Amazon's Purchase of James Bond is Bad News | by Darren Mooney
🕑 Added 2025-02-23 15:00:13 +0000 UTC
No, Mister Bezos, I expect you to buy. News came through earlier in the week that Amazon had bought the rights to the James Bond film franchise, effectively ending the control that the Broccoli family held over the icon for decades.
There is, perhaps, a small irony in the idea of the James Bond franchise being purchased by a bald man with a vaguely supervillainous vibe who also has ambitions of surpassing nation states in the space race. Given Amazon’s tendency to produce shows like The Boys and Invincible, which can feel like fan fiction written by Superman’s bald billionaire arch-enemy, one looks forward to a sympathetic eight-episode streaming retelling of the origin of the James Bond franchise’s bald weirdo supervillain, Blofeld, recasting Bond as an evil union organizer.
Joking aside, in some senses, this purchase was not a surprise. Amazon had recently purchased MGM, a studio known in part for its long association with the James Bond franchise. Many of the reports of that acquisition noted the tension in that purchase, with Amazon controlling the studio that released James Bond movies but not James Bond itself. Amazon had clearly been trying to cash in on the franchise, indirectly with the spy show Citadel and directly through licensed reality television game shows.
However, it still feels strange. Over the past few decades, studios have been eagerly snatching up brands and intellectual properties. Disney purchased Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm and Pixar to bolster its own brand. Netflix has tried to build out its own shared universes with projects like The Grey Man and to develop in-house takes on known quantities like the Narnia books. Warner Bros. have bet big, and continue to bet big, on their DC superheroes.
These intellectual property plays tend to follow the same pattern. Initially, fans are delighted to get more “content”, to have an artifact of their childhood return in a way that plays to their nostalgia. However, as the studio cranks the faucet, fans quickly find themselves drowning in “content soup.” What was once special and unique becomes common and generic. It’s a process of “cultural fracking”, an effort to extract maximum shareholder value as ruthlessly and quickly as possible.
Amazon has experience with this particular pipeline. The studio famously spent a billion dollars on The Rings of Power, a television spin-off from The Lord of the Rings, producing the most expensive television show in the history of the medium. However, the show could not maintain audience interest. Leaked internal documents suggest that only 37% of American viewers made it to the end of the first season. Its audience collapsed by 60% between the first and second season.
The James Bond franchise was one of the rare modern franchises to avoid that fate. As Star Wars, Star Trek, the Marvel Cinematic Universes and other brands found themselves consigned to the cultural purgatory of “always on” streaming shows, the James Bond franchise retained a touch of class and credibility. It was the Aston Martin of mainstream film franchises. A lot of that came from the fact that it was not owned by an international conglomerate, but by an individual family.
None of this is to suggest that the James Bond franchise was always good. In fact, much of it is quite bad. Nor is it to imply that the series was ever above chasing larger cultural trends, whether the Star Wars aesthetic of Moonraker and the blaxploitation vibes of Live and Let Die or the modern grounded reboot aesthetic and lore-driven focus of the recent Daniel Craig movies. It’s also impossible to argue that films with this much product placement were truly artisanal.
Indeed, it is notable that the franchise used to be much closer to modern multimedia franchises. Decades ago, the production team would crank out sequels on a tightly regimented schedule. Those films would typically be directed by a small pool of in-house talents like Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert and John Glen. There was Never Say Never, a stillborn spin-off franchise stemming from a rights dispute. There was even an animated spin-off, James Bond Jr.
However, as the franchise entered the modern age, it became a bit more refined. While other theatrical franchises turned to work-for-hire television directors and accelerated production cycles, the James Bond franchise slowed down. Instead of hiring anonymous journeyman filmmakers, the James Bond franchise embraced auteur filmmakers like Sam Mendes and Cary Joji Fukunaga. It slowed the pace of release, adopting an “it’s done when it’s done” approach to scheduling.
This approach undoubtedly frustrated certain conservative elements of fandom, who bristled at the long waits between the individual releases, who whined about delays in casting announcements and who complained that these films dared to make actual narrative decisions rather than simply algorithmically retreading old ground. However, at a point in time where almost every major franchise was diluting the value of its brand, the James Bond films still felt like events.
It's worth acknowledging that this approach worked. Of the past five films in the franchise, two rank among the five best-reviewed in the series’ long history and three make the top ten. Skyfall was the second-highest grossing movie of 2012, sitting squarely between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. No Time To Die was the fourth-highest grossing movie of 2021, the second-highest grossing English-language release of the year.
Despite his public ambivalence about the role, this approach also left enough room for Daniel Craig to become something approximating a movie star in the space between films. While Craig may not necessarily be a household name, he was able to alternate starring as James Bond with working with auteurs like Steven Soderbergh on movies like Logan Lucky and launching a second auteur-driven franchise with Knives Out. This is more than any of the big Marvel Studios stars have managed to do.
All things considered, this was a relatively healthy way to run a major franchise. It was financially lucrative, reasonably critically successful and it had the benefit of producing perhaps the franchise’s first breakout lead since Sean Connery, and Connery famously had to quit the role to capitalize on his fame. There was a sense that the decisions driving the series were being made by human beings, rather than by test audiences, focus groups and computer simulations.
While earlier James Bond movies could be bad – very bad, in fact – there was something to be said for the unique ways in which those movies were bad. Misfires like The Man With the Golden Gun or Die Another Day were awful, but they were awful in very peculiar and very specific ways. They are bad in a different way than something like, say, Captain America: Brave New World, a film that is trying so hard not to be actively awful that it can’t be bothered to do anything else.
The modern studio system pushes these properties towards familiarity and repetition. There were already shades of this in the Daniel Craig era, with the reintroduction of Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) in Spectre with a new backstory that ties him more closely with Bond. However, that sort of nonsense seems relatively quaint in a world where studios feel the need to explain the surname “Solo” or spend an entire season explaining why Christopher Pike (Anson Mount) must end up in a wheelchair.
Indeed, in a franchise landscape dominated by properties that are stuck in cycles of perpetual nostalgia, there is something to be said for the decision to give Daniel Craig’s James Bond a very clear and structured arc across his five films, from a very firm start in Casino Royale to a very definitive ending in No Time to Die. At a point when it seems like digital technology will allow actors to play their iconic roles forever, No Time to Die dared to draw a line under Craig’s tenure.
There was also something to be celebrated in the cultural specificity of the James Bond franchise. The series was a uniquely British institution. It had a distinctly British character. It is slightly frustrating to see that British identity brushed away so that the character can be used to market a gigantic American conglomerate. Nearly three decades after GoldenEye, it seems like the character has truly entered a post-nation-state era.
Then again, this is the reality of the modern entertainment landscape, where the realities of the business seem to make it impossible for these highly successful properties to exist without investment from some large foreign entity. Doctor Who, another quintessentially British institution, is currently co-financed by Disney so that it can be distributed internationally on Disney+, although at least in that case the company allegedly has no editorial or narrative influence.
To put it frankly, the Hollywood ecosystem would be a lot healthier if there were more franchises like the modern James Bond series. So, naturally, it looks like James Bond is going to become like any other major Hollywood film franchise. The ink was barely dry on the press release announcing the deal before Amazon owner Jeff Bezos began soliciting fans for casting recommendations. Most of the names provided were tired suggestions a decade ago: Henry Cavill, Idris Elba, and so on.
From the character’s iconic tuxedo to his drink order to his taste in recreational activities, the James Bond franchise was always a top-shelf item. As the character is dragged into the modern franchise age, to effectively serve as a loss leader positioned near the checkout of the world’s largest retail company, the worry is that he no longer has a license to kill, but has instead been licensed to death.
Comments
ewhac
Your column remided me of MovieBob's savage review of _Spectre_ back in 2015, where he analyzes why the Craig era of Bond films never really gelled (basically, the creators couldn't decide what to _do_ with Bond in the modern, post-Soviet era), and how _Spectre_ was an especially bad attempt at world-building-by-retcon. It's still on YooToob; you may care to have a look. Given all that, I have absolutely _no_ faith that NASDAQ:AMZN will do anything at all interesting or new with the franchise, and it will become as generic, trite, and uninteresting as _Mission:Impossible_ became. (Seriously, go back and watch the original TV series. It's a _completely_ different show, and _far_ more engaging.)
Mateusz Swietoslawski
The moment I saw this news I thought to myself "can't wait for Darren's column on this topic".
Davsau
Given how Daniel Craig’s run ended, I was kinda hoping this franchise would stay dormant for a decade and Bond movies could be a fun thing to throw on for friends and family who’ve never seen one. But if they have to do this (and they don’t) please let them pick anyone but Cavill. I am a Warhammer fan, for my sins, and the worst people on the internet will not shut up about him.
Darren Mooney
Oh yeah. I still love those, particularly over Christmas and New Year's. The perfect opportunity to just relax with a set of films I know inside and out.
Tim Wilson
I do think that it would be killing the golden goose to treat Bond like any other franchise. It might be the property that they treat properly to give the studio something of an air of creative legitimacy (which is ironic, because you can tell the era of cinema and modern events by what is in a James Bond film). I love the series and have done as a kid, at first at face value and now as some kind of bizarre and comforting time capsule but I think if we’re honest with ourselves, even the Craig films had 2 bangers, 2 stinkers and one that was fine but way too long and a bit too lore-heavy. So long as they can resist the urge to pump something out every couple of years it might be fine? Or I’ll be eating these words in about a fortnight. One of the two.
Snakeinthegarden
Richard Osman and marina Hyde were discussing this pre announcement last week and pitched Will Coulter for bond. Marina felt too sweet looking but bond needs to reflect masculinity of our times so would be nice to see a different type of actor next. However I think they'll try find someone more of the Sean Connery vibe and do a throwback 60s period piece cuz that's what the algorithm thinks I'm sure. Sad about this as bond season on RTE every year meant so much to me as kid as used watch as family.
LifeIsStrange
so what? I don't see what age has to do with it. Unless you think Bond should only be played by younger actors from this point on.
LifeIsStrange
I don't know what Silo is so that phrase means absolutely nothing to me.
Darren Mooney
I reviewed it on Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/damooney/film/the-lord-of-the-rings-the-war-of-the-rohirrim/ It didn't get its own column, because I worried it would repeat too many of my thoughts on "The Rings of Power", ironically, to bring us back to Amazon.
Darren Mooney
"This oughta generate some headlines about something other than union busting."
Darren Mooney
I mean, "protected the value" is obviously inherently subjective. But it's very telling that the first project Disney made with the intellectual property they purchased from him made more money than any movie ever at the domestic box office while, after a decade under their management, their latest streaming show struggles to chart against something like "Silo."
Darren Mooney
I love the idea of just keeping remaking "Thunderball."
Mike Carter
The idea that George Lucas protected the value of Star Wars given the amount of absolute dreck produced under his watch is absolutely charming in its naivety.
Skujat
Ah yes, nothing screams vision more than opening the metaphorical window and yell "Who do you want as the lead?". Did we not already get Amazon´s version of James Bond with Citadel? The only time i have ever heard of that show was on these columns.
Grey1
I'm thinking more of this Chronodome thing from The Flash. Especially since you can then tie it to luxury wrist watches.
Grey1
One-off Never Say Never Again remake? The ages match.
Farthugger
I find this news exceptionally irritating as someone who had just recently caught up on the Bond movies as a franchise, as I was hoping to see something interesting come out of the end of No Time to Die and a new bond actor era, but considering the way that Amazon has treated it's other recent acquisitions, like Lord of the Rings, we are basically guaranteed to see a new era of incomplete/cancelled projects and when the projects do come out, they are designed by committee drivel that were rushed into development for some check-ticking reason like the recent War of the Rohirrim. Speaking of, Darren, did you end up talking about that in-depth? I may have missed the column/podcast.
Darren Mooney
Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and a blonde extra shot only from behind step out of the shadows. Dalton quips, "Don't you know Bonds are always a good investment?"
Darren Mooney
Elba is fifty-two years old. He's older than Craig was when he left the role.
LifeIsStrange
Idris Elba isn't a "tired suggestion" at all, I think a black Bond is what we need in this day and age, anything that gets the alt-right manchildren's panties in a bunch is A-OK with me LOL
LifeIsStrange
I'm honestly kind of excited by this, for people like me who enjoyed Bond video games like Blood Stone it was dissapointing to see the Bond owners refusing to license out more games so i'm hoping Amazon is more willing to give us that sort of thing.
LifeIsStrange
Die Another Day was damn good IMO, never understood the hate for that one. I'm sad that planned Jinx spin-off never happened(blame studios getting cold feet on action movies starring women after the dissapointing box-office returns of Aeon Flux, Elektra and Charlie's Angels Full Throttle).
Antiphar
Also looking forward to the scene where Bonds played by Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland all beat the snot out of Blofeld played by JK Simmons
Darren Mooney
I actually referenced Yanis Varoufakis in my video on "Fallout." I don't think he's off-base.
Darren Mooney
Honestly, I don't think people care. I suspect that they have enough to worry about with actual worries - rising inflation, price of groceries, the lack of social mobility, a collapsing health service, a kleptocracy trending to fascism, climate change, collapsing education standards, the impossibility of finding a job that pays a living wage - that "James Bond turns to slop" isn't going to be that big a concern for people. Which, to be clear, is very fair. I certainly wouldn't rank it a higher priority than any of those problems, even if I'd argue it's just an expression of the same underlying forces.
Darren Mooney
It certainly does make me like "No Time to Die" - a film I'm about 50/50 - more.
Darren Mooney
I mean, it does feel like a CGI Connery is about 50% probability.
Grey1
"Perhaps this is the one that'll get enough people to take notice" Since badly received or outright bad entries in the series never managed to kill public interest, I'd suppose there'll always be enough people who'll be happy with the male-centered wealth porn power fantasy core of the show. As long as cars, watches, clothes, Bond Girls and action sequences will deliver on that, I think it'll roll on. Although it's an interesting idea that there'd be an approaching event horizon for 70s/80s nostalgia "brand" art based on our lifespans, and that these films and shows could eventually die out along with their corresponding generations since they won't keep their brand religions alive with a content soup approach.
Lil' Cass
This is an understandable worry and concern Darren❤
Grey1
"Most of the names provided were tired suggestions a decade ago: Henry Cavill, Idris Elba, and so on." Okay, hear me out: Henry Cavill... -and- Idris Elba! ...leading into a multiverse movie with cameos from all CGI-recreated Bonds, plus everyone who was ever rumoured to play the role.
Grey1
"to a very definitive ending in No Time to Die" Isn't it bordering on poetic that this is happening after No Time to Die?
Darren Mooney
I think “Casino” is Scorsese’s best film.
Darren Mooney
It is interesting how all of this ties together. Streaming services, consolidation, vertical integration, even AI. It all pushes in one particular direction.
Darren Mooney
I mean, that is/was quite impressive by the standards of the time, as the piece notes. But when you compare it to the amount of “content” Disney has pumped out with its “Star Wars” or Marvel brands within the past decade alone, it seems positively quaint.
William Alexander
This reminds me of Roger Ebert's review of Casino from 3 decades ago, which chronicles how Las Vegas got worse when it went from being owned by gangsters to being owned by stockholders: “The big corporations took over,” the narrator observes, almost sadly. “Today, it works like Disneyland.” Which brings us back to our opening insight. In a sense, people need to believe a town like Vegas is run by guys like Ace and Nicky. In a place that breaks the rules, maybe you can break some, too. For those with the gambler mentality, it’s actually less reassuring to know that giant corporations, financed by bonds and run by accountants, operate the Vegas machine. They know all the odds, and the house always wins. With Ace in charge, who knows what might happen?
Overzealous Euthanasiast
Oh ffs well that's a goner then. We are incrementally entering the age of corporate dilution to dissipation of art and culture. While previous attempts were flawed, would the future films be allowed to challenge existing hierarchies at all? Escape the CGI crunch rot economy or approaching AI glorified scams? There's usually some inherent propaganda within, but subtlety is clearly a fading concept for the mainstream content mills. Perhaps this is the one that'll get enough people to take notice, but even then I fear the underlying problems, their sources and motivations are far too entrenched, saturated and already progressed in their capture of almost every institution for those who care to do anything close to combating it. --+-- For every artistic medium hollowed out by Milton Friedman trickle-down acolytes/private equity vultures, there's 5 more public-to-private utility services who's corpses litter the ground around it. (I accidentally hit post after just typing the first 2 words, hopefully noone saw that brief moment lol)
YellaChicken
Millions of video games? 🤔
MDO
Once again, running things into the ground is the modus operandi of modern techno feudalism. Amazon didn’t buy the Bond franchise to make money off of it, but to take it under its power, its manorial estate. Amazon couldn’t have an independent franchise make money in its domain without paying the king its dues, and it would rather have an unproductive fief than a slightly productive interloper using its streaming services but not paying rent. All major tech companies are feudal lords now—read Technofeudalism by Yanis Varoufakis for the lowdown on why we no longer live in a capitalist era. We’ve gone back in time to feudal lords owning the digital landscape and any producers on that land paying “rent” to the streaming service. Individual self-determination and ownership of the means of production have been chained to manorial fiefdoms of content farms, where 30% or more of all value never leaves the lord’s control, regardless of whether the content is profitable or not. So it no longer pays to have profits, just spigots of content, useless wastes that exist just to extract wealth rather than to generate it. Nobody will be rich under this scheme, and all companies will eventually be serfs bound to their content’s streaming provider.
Mike Carter
The idea that Amazon will overexpose bond is hilarious. There's been 25 movies millions of video games , Young James bond books young James bond animated even books written using the name of a dead author if that isn't crass exploitative commercialism what is?? And repetition? Don't make me laugh. Bond has done the same movie literally 25 times. Exact same plot with just a surface level changes each time
