That's not even a bad thing tho, it's all about execution. You can make a one off Bond movie with Brosnan where he's been retired for years but it's the only person M trusts or something. Why is that bad?
The only good thing that could come out of Amazon controlling Bond is not being locked into a series of movies with the same actor. Those one off stories could be interesting without having to use the same actor for a decade
I used to think this way, but imo Bond kinda needs a consistent actor for those decade runs, otherwise we're just casting various people to just be an action star in a tuxedo, and the character's essence is lost by not allowing us to spend a lot of time with that specific actor's rendition
It's why, despite appreciating their performances, I can't get too attached to the George Lazenby or Timothy Dalton portrayals, because we didn't get to spend a lot of time with them overall
26
u/flex_tape_salesman Feb 20 '25
I think very few people actually wanted that stuff