Some observers feel that the franchise, by only limiting
itself to theatrical movies, remains vastly under-utilized by
21st century standards, where expectations are to exploit IP
across all mediums, push out merchandising for all age
brackets and have spin-offs and cinematic universes.
As unlikely as it may seem for Apple to be bidding on the rights to 007 in the first place, it seems vastly less likely for Apple to use them for anything less focused than a franchise of films or an iTunes-exclusive TV series. Disney-level, cross-media IP exploitation has to be among the most foreign concepts I can imagine for the company.
Not sure why they'd think that, there's been video games (some good ones, even), there are regular limited edition watch releases, perfume, there's plenty of product placement in the movies themselves (cars, bikes, drinks...). Could they do much more of it without going over the top? It's not that clear.
Could they do much more of it without going over the
top? It's not that clear.
Star Wars manages to produce prodigious amounts of merch and people eat it up. 188 different Lego sets [2]. 70+ trading cards [3]. 150+ video games [4]. Innumerable tee shirts [1]. They'll even put their brand on bags of fruit.
You can extract a lot of money from fans - especially if your franchise has inter-generational appeal.
I'm pretty sure Bond has grossed a lot more than Star Wars. I wonder how profitable Star Wars will be after the 24th installment. I'm guessing not very.
> The films in the cross-franchise Marvel Cinematic Universe have collectively grossed the most, amassing over $12 billion at the box office, although the Eon James Bond films have earned over $14 billion in total when adjusted to current prices
I'm not even sure Star Wars is in the top 3.
And I think interest will wane after the current crop of movies being ~12 let alone 24. Its all character exploitation at this point, and there aren't many left who's lives haven't been explored yet.
Star Wars was art and had integrity. Unfortunately selling Jar Jar Binks dolls is more "profitable". The Bond franchise is art and has integrity, let's hope it can keep it.
The funny thing about Apple is that it gets a whole lot of promo from TV series and such already. This because Hollywood pretty much runs on their platform (probably thanks to getting the GUI out there, being the launch platform for Photoshop, and thus the whole industry learned Apple by rote memorization).
Thus whenever the script required a computer, phone or something similar in the shot, it will be an Apple product. Because that was what the staff was carrying.
Can we get a 'British Gentleman' as actor for reboot of James Bond franchise?
like previously Sean Connery, Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan
All the James Bond USP got lost in recent years - where is the humor, the British gentleman behavior, the spectacular but not unrealistic script, etc ? So is James Bond really about a blond short humorless brutallo with little charisma? I don't think so.
Something that I always feel the need to point out: Bond in the books is a British gent, Bond of the movies isn't and never has been. He's a member of the lower orders who passed. The villains are pretty much always onto him as not fitting, but he styles it out. Sean Connery being Scottish worked perfectly for this. Kingsman, not a bond movie but understanding the genre completely, makes the theme explicit.
Seriously though, Britishness (in the genetic sense) is a fundamental part of James Bond's character. He isn't just British by citizenship, he's emblematic of Britain.
Firstly, maybe in the 60s, the idea of a black person being "British" would be scoffed at; today, with 3 or 4 generations of genetics here() and black people representing Britain at many levels, I don't think it would be a problem for most.
Secondly, 007 has always been an outsider and not a member of the Establishment - that's part of why he does things differently to the other 00s (although another commenter says that's not part of the books, only the films - I've not read them so can't say).
() ignoring the fact that there have been significant African populations in cities such as Liverpool and Bristol since Elizabethan times
> where is [...] the spectacular but not unrealistic script, etc ?
It's much more realistic now, but that's part of the problem.
The Bond we remember is a remnant from the 60s (I know it's older), with that era of geopolitics, scifi (and sex-/racism), complete with razor frisbee hats, cyborgs, zero gravity laser battles, and a super villain dying through floating up to the ceiling and popping like a balloon.
I loved those movies too, and while I didn't like the direction at the time, GoldenEye was a perfect update to that genre (at the time). While I think Casino Royale was a great movie, it was not a great Bond movie.
I have yet to see the new one, but the first Kingsman movie is the best Bond movie since GoldenEye, by bringing the elements that make a Bond movie to modern filmmaking.
Oddly when I first saw the movie version of Moonraker that scene shattered my suspension of disbelief.
Up until that film most Bond gadgets had been reasonably believeable as achievable by a sufficiently funded organisation. But suddenly secret fleets of Shuttles, space stations and laser-equipped Space Marines? Nope.
Someone who's never read the books, I see - and, by citing Roger Moore as "unrealistic" inhabits a reality where surviving re-entry in a disintegrating space station is a thing!
I'd love to see the humor come back. I think nobody would be better suited to do that than Quentin Tarantino. The only movie that would get me more excited than a Tarantino directed bond movie (ideally set during the cold war) would be a Lynch directed Lord of the Rings.
Ugh, god. Not Tarantino. Not for a Bond movie. Jesus fucking christ. Anything but that.
I absolutely love more than 50% of Quentin Tarantino's movies, and place the truly great movies eye to eye with Stanley Kubrick movies.
But fuck no. Not James Bond. If that ever happened, Tarantino would transform himself into an even bigger douchebag and disappointment than Kevin Smith. It would be a modern pop culture tragedy.
Disney seem to be the only company capable of taking stewardship of such huge important characters in a way that keeps fans happy.
They seem to understand that they need to respect the history of the IP and allow the brand to grow in as high quality way possible. Look at Marvel and Star Wars, both huge success stories.
In fact if Disney got Bond, the only mega IP / Brand / Universe I can think of outside of their control would be Harry Potter, and as a huge Harry Potter fan, I’d much rather HP was with Disney than Warner Bros.
I guess, I’m not that big into comic books, most of my exposure has been through cinema and the DC universe movies have overall been very disappointing... Characters like Superman and Batman are up there with the biggest & best of them though.
Who do you think would be a good steward for the DC Universe?
> But the emergence of Apple — which is considered such a viable competitor that Warners is now pressing MGM hard to close a deal — and Amazon shows that the digital giants consider Bond one of the last untapped brands (like a Marvel, Pixar or Lucasfilm) that could act as a game-changer in the content space.
So Apple want to get into film publishing business? Expect them to become DRM sick even more than they are now.
I generally agree with your posts but in this case I think you're forgetting that Apple (specifically, Steve Jobs) was squarely behind the big push to remove DRM from online music sales about 10 years ago[1]. Apple forced all the major and several indie record labels to remove DRM over the following years. That's not "DRM sick", that's about as healthy and consumer friendly as it gets.
All music streaming services use DRM, out of necessity; it's a service of convenience. You don't buy the songs, you listen to a broadcast of them. Consumer ownership doesn't apply, and if you do want to buy DRM-free songs, Apple and many other digital music vendors will gladly sell them to you. That way you don't have to use Apple Music or any other encumbered service.
DRM has nothing to do with convenience or streaming. There are DRM-free services which provide convenience of streaming all the same (Bandcamp for example).
You probably meant that DRM is related to renting (which again, is completely orthogonal to streaming, see above). I find the concept of digital renting to be weird in itself anyway, and the fact that it drags DRM along demonstrates it.
