Comment by stumptown
2 days ago
After I read the article in the WSJ[1] I wrote a Bond spec script over break. The tricky thing with spec scripts based on other people's IP is getting the word out, because unsolicited submissions can put the recipient in a bind if some element of what you sent ends up – even accidentally – in the final product. It's silly, but it's the reality of screenwriting.
Fwiw I'm a former special operations veteran and an accomplished screenwriter. Here's my risk-mitigated pitch for HN's enjoyment.
==========
1. We want to preserve the Bond legacy. We also want to expand the world he inhabits. We can do both.
2. So much happens 'under the water line' of reality already. Psychological operations. Cyber warfare. Supply chain attacks. Transnational smuggling. There's literally gobs of espionage content that can be explored.
3. Ultimately bond is about heroes who preserve the realm when institutions fail. They become the cornerstone upon which the new institutions will be built.
4. We build a universe that predicts and reacts to our current reality, which, broadly, is about institutional failure. We are in a multipolar world now, and technology accelerates at the same rate as the danger. Can we demonstrate an escape route? A rallying cry for heroism in an unjust world?
5. We build a universe so rich with possibility that we can compartmentalize cleanly; for example, a show can live semi-independently of the film franchise.
6. Imagine a limited series about Chinese teenager working at a microchip factory in Wuxi. Alone, barely scraping by, forced labor. Then, over the course of a season, a Q Branch operative approachers her, recruits her, teaches her to smuggle out secrets, aides in her breathtaking escape when she’s caught. This characters
7. We build characters whose impact can be felt elsewhere. Q is later able to deactivate a missile - piloted by those smuggled microchips – fired at Bond in the big theatrical film.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/business/media/james-bond-movies-amazon-...
Also I wanted to create a separate post in response to the negative predictions. Obviously I can't predict the future, but in my experience creating any film is subject to significant pressure, internal and external, on the creatives involved. There are a LOT of really excellent scripts that get diluted in this way, and there isn't much that can be done about it.
That said, Amazon Studios is probably a loss leader for Prime, or at least certainly doesn't enjoy the same margins as other AMZN LOBs.
That's okay!
Amazon Studios execs can mitigate their risk by spreading it around. Do small stuff, a single, small film about someone in this universe. Someone doing a supply chain attack on behalf of Q Branch. A watchmaker approached for a Special Project. A deep-cover NOC who works for Lloyds of London who gets wind of a forthcoming infrastructure attack. It doesn't all have to be big explosions and major stunts; the seedy underworld of espionage happens not in soaring bunkers and Red Square, but behind a highway rest stop, or in a factory office, or in the Port of Marsailles.
No need to blow the budget all at once; begin slow, build towards the theatrical films in interesting, round-about ways. Take your time and iterate, see what works. Disney/Star Wars is doing this in reverse (Andor was wildly successful) and Amazon Studios has the chance to do it right!
With all due respect, because there are nice ideas in this, a wider Bond Cinematic Universe is the wrong direction. There is already a very established "BCU" in the film progression, and I believe that the cultural significance of that would be diluted, not enhanced, by adding side quests to the story.
Alternatively, to look at it from the perspective of your spec script, what about your spec script is enhanced by it being in the BCU. Ignoring the leg-up it would get from that, what is better about the story for it being Bond, over a new franchise? From what you've written here, nothing jumps out to me as benefitting from being Bond. Similarly, how are the Bond films improved by this? By having a missile deactivated by off-screen magic that you need another streaming subscription to watch the back-story of?
Thanks for your thoughts!
BCU is why AMZN bought the IP, so I'm just leaning into the business reality. My argument is that the films are the center of gravity, and it's fine to put other BCU properties 'in orbit' around them without having to have everything reference everything else like they did (brilliantly) at Marvel.
The films are holy, but deserving of a reboot. My spec - which I genuinely can't post here – dips into deep Bond lore but, introduces us to this broad world of espionage in which these other properties could orbit.
It's not too too different than Star Wars or even DC (like with Gotham), but what's so cool about this world of espionage is that there's so much to tap into that is both grounded AND cool. A whole constellation of espionage stories just under our psychic reality, perhaps moreso than comic books or scifi.
I’d watch this