• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Amazon takes over Bond franchise

Yeah, Canada famously has what seems like a pretty high required level of Canadian content.

And anything that results in more shows like Slow Horses is a good thing in my book.
As far as I know that applies to broadcast TV and cable services, but not streamers. Recently, a tariff was imposed on streaming services that 5% of their Canadian income must go to a fund to support the production of Canadian broadcasting.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

As far as I know that applies to broadcast TV and cable services, but not streamers. Recently, a tariff was imposed on streaming services that 5% of their Canadian income must go to a fund to support the production of Canadian broadcasting.
Dunno about Canada, but for the UK it definitely applies to streamers. The content doesn't just have to localised, but use domestic locations, creators, crew, the lot.

That's one aspect of Amazon Bond I'm not worried about. It will still be British. It's just that it'll get diluted over too much trivial content and stop being a prestige brand.

I also worry it will stop associating with the luxury brands that are part of Bond's identity. Rolex (or now Omega), Aston Martin, Connery's Anthony Sinclair or Craig's Tom Ford suits, etc. That's something that distinguishes Bond from other generic spy properties, the prestige element.

(I realise not everybody cares about that, but I do--Bond is stylish)
 
Last edited:

So whilst it's possible we'll get "Bland, James Bland" (future Guardian review headline - alternatively "Neither shaken nor stirred")
Nice!😂

I was just thinking…Bezos’ Bond inhabiting a world in which 007’s agency has been co-opted by a company analogous to Amazon, with an owner who looks suspiciously like Bezos.* His mission? Taking down rival companies like “T-Moo”, “Ali Bubba” and “Wishes”.





* with the movie partially filmed on Bezos’ superacht?
 

I also worry it will stop associating with the luxury brands that are part of Bond's identity. Rolex (or now Omega), Aston Martin, Connery's Anthony Sinclair or Craig's Tom Ford suits, etc. That's something that distinguishes Bond from other generic spy properties, the prestige element.

(I realise not everybody cares about that, but I do--Bond is stylish)

I think that’s a valid concern. Bond’s style isn’t superfluous, he’s stylish for a reason.

Bond isn’t tasked with taking down ordinary organized crime families or terrorist organizations. He’s infiltrating nefarious secret societies, megacorps and black ops groups with mind boggling resources at their disposal.

The power players in those groups are most often moneyed- new or old- and are accustomed to noticing subtle details that signal affluence mark one as a peer or outs you as a pretender. “Looking (or otherwise seeming) like you belong where you are” is a powerful social engineering tool and a cornerstone of spycraft.

So Bond isn’t wearing Crockett & Jones chelseas, driving Astons and so forth just because he’s well paid & stylish. They’re essential gear to his missions- they help him seem the part. He can look, sound and behave in all ways like someone who is part of the elite. If he showed up in Monte Carlo in a polyester tux, a Timex and Stacey Adams driving a Jeep, he’d never be seen again after his first day at the baccarat table.

(Which is also a real constraint on what you can do with the character and who you can cast.)
 

I think that’s a valid concern. Bond’s style isn’t superfluous, he’s stylish for a reason.

Bond isn’t tasked with taking down ordinary organized crime families or terrorist organizations. He’s infiltrating nefarious secret societies, megacorps and black ops groups with mind boggling resources at their disposal.

The power players in those groups are most often moneyed- new or old- and are accustomed to noticing subtle details that signal affluence mark one as a peer or outs you as a pretender. “Looking (or otherwise seeming) like you belong where you are” is a powerful social engineering tool and a cornerstone of spycraft.

So Bond isn’t wearing Crockett & Jones chelseas, driving Astons and so forth just because he’s well paid & stylish. They’re essential gear to his missions- they help him seem the part. He can look, sound and behave in all ways like someone who is part of the elite. If he showed up in Monte Carlo in a polyester tux, a Timex and Stacey Adams driving a Jeep, he’d never be seen again after his first day at the baccarat table.

(Which is also a real constraint on what you can do with the character and who you can cast.)
I really couldn't imagine Bond walking into Casino de Monte-Carlo in a JC Penney suit, wearing a Timex. Maybe Armani, at the lowest, but more likely something bespoke.
 



The power players in those groups are most often moneyed- new or old- and are accustomed to noticing subtle details that signal affluence mark one as a peer or outs you as a pretender. “Looking (or otherwise seeming) like you belong where you are” is a powerful social engineering tool and a cornerstone of spycraft.
I was recently hearing about all of the details British intelligence created for a fake dead sailor to make Operation Mincemeat work during World War II and it was really impressive. They didn't want the Axis to be able to find any details implausible.
 

Even his belts cost a small fortune!
I’m into fashion, so I know the names and which ones are ostensibly worth the asking price. But I also have a strong practical side that would prevent me from buying the best of the best, even if I had the money.

I recently watched videos of a cobbler do destructive tests breaking down pairs of high-end minimalist leather sneakers, priced $750+. They had leather used by companies like Coach & Louis Vuitton, and the soles were glued, stitched AND nailed to the top, making them fully resoleable. Some even had steel shanks. These were sneakers meant to last a decade or more, properly cared for. Doing the math, that’s an average of $75/year or so over the lifespan of the shoe.

But while I routinely make decisions based on such economies- especially for footwear- I still couldn’t bring myself to pay that much for a pair of sneakers.

(See also Terry Pratchett’s character, Sam Vines’ “Boot Theory”.)
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top