Colin Burnett, Washington University in St. Louis

James Bond was front and center at the 2025 Academy Awards – and in a somewhat curious way.

In a musical number, Lisa of Blackpink, Doja Cat and Raye sang the Bond theme songs “Live and Let Die,” “Diamonds Are Forever” and “Skyfall,” respectively. No Bond films had been nominated for an award, and none of these singers has a connection to the Bond franchise, though they did all recently collaborate on the single “Born Again.”

The strange exercise felt less like a celebration and more like a big flashing question mark for a screen icon whose future has never felt more uncertain.

Since the shocking news dropped on Feb. 20, 2025, that Jeff Bezos’ Amazon MGM Studios would assume creative control over the James Bond film franchise, commentators and fans have wondered why.

Why would the Broccoli family, which has long held the rights to Bond movies through their company, EON, cede control of the film series to a tech partner they’ve been at odds with?

Two possibilities have emerged.

First, EON’s Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli, the stepson and daughter of legendary EON producer Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli, may have reached a point of creative exhaustion. There could be something to this theory. According to Puck’s Matthew Belloni, the 83-year-old Wilson and 64-year-old Broccoli were having difficulty figuring out their next step after 2021’s “No Time to Die.”

Advertisement

A second reason could be Amazon’s impatience with EON. In December 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that Barbara Broccoli balked when Amazon Studios executive Jennifer Salke proposed several Bond spinoff projects, including a Bond series with a female lead, for Prime Video. Perhaps frustrated with the stalemate, Amazon may have made Wilson and Broccoli an offer they couldn’t refuse to get them out of the way and get production of Bond content rolling.

The speculation is certainly intriguing. But a more central question shouldn’t be overlooked: the “what.”

What, precisely, has Amazon MGM acquired? And what can it actually do with the Bond story?

Breaking down the Bond rights

In my research on the 007 franchise, I’ve discovered that this property has never been a traditional film series.

Long before “Star Wars” launched in 1976 and the Marvel Cinematic Universe launched in 2008, Bond relied on a range of mediums to tell its story.

The Bond franchise began in 1953, not with a film but with a novel, Ian Fleming’s “Casino Royale.” One year later, “Casino Royale” was adapted for American TV as a live anthology show. Four years after that, in 1958, a popular Bond comic strip made its debut.

It was only in 1962, with “Dr. No,” starring Sean Connery, that the now-iconic film series began.

Advertisement

Since then, James Bond has been spun off into a children’s animated show, choose-your-own-adventure books, a “Young Bond” novel series, video games, a reality show, radio dramas and more.

Here’s what’s crucial: With its new deal, Amazon MGM has a controlling stake only in the rights that EON holds. EON has licensed the right to produce future films and TV shows from Fleming since 1961. EON secured worldwide merchandising rights in 1964 and production rights to video games in the early 1990s.

Other 007 media – the literary, comic and audio series – are managed by the Fleming Estate and Ian Fleming Publications.

The James Bond media franchise is what I call a shared rights and licensing network.

No one company controls all of the Bond rights, and no one company produces all of Bond media. Though this arrangement is a complicated one, the sharing and licensing of rights has allowed Bond to emerge as a lucrative and fecund product line. According to my calculations, it now boasts over 330 original stories in 72 years of media production.

In other words, Bond is much more than the 25 films released by EON.

James Bond’s many lives

Until now, rights sharing and licensing have ensured that the Bond franchise remains creatively distinct from “Star Wars” and Marvel.

The companies that produce these series – LucasFilm and Marvel Studios – are owned by The Walt Disney Company. With their rights pooled under one corporate entity that also oversees all production, “Star Wars” and Marvel have been able to drive toward high levels of creative consistency and unity among their stories. Across films, TV, comics and video games, “Star Wars” and Marvel aspire to what media specialists call “transmedia storytelling.”

Advertisement

By sharing rights, the Bond franchise has arrived at a very different type of storytelling, one that fragments the story and multiplies the James Bonds to be experienced across distinct media. The effect isn’t transmedia storytelling, or even a Marvel-style multiverse. In Bond, characters can’t cross over to alternate realities and meet other versions of themselves.

James Bond exists in many different worlds and leads many different lives.

To name a few: There’s the Bond of Fleming’s 1950s and 1960s novels, who loses his first love, Vesper Lynd, and hunts down her killers, who are members of SMERSH, the assassination arm of Soviet intelligence agencies. Fleming’s Bond also lives on in the novels of Kingsley Amis and John Gardner, which were published in the 1970s and 1980s.

There’s EON’s silver screen Bond, who, from 1962 to 2002, never falls in love with Vesper, but loses his wife, Tracy di Vicenzo, to the crime syndicate SPECTRE and remains scarred by the loss. And in the modern era, there’s the Bond who appears in author Samantha Weinberg’s “Moneypenny Diaries.” Published from 2005 to 2008, the series depicts a version of Bond who has retired to a small Scottish isle with his lover, MI6’s Miss Moneypenny.

The effect of Bond’s shared structure is what I dub “threaded storytelling.” The novels present various versions of Bond’s life, at different points in history. The film series creates two of its own. The comic series offers yet more lives of 007.

Each version of Bond runs alongside the others in the market, focusing on a Bond character who exists only within his unique story world. This gives fans an unpredictable, ever-expanding canon of stories to follow and even compare, like one grand spot-the-difference game in time.

Where next for Bond?

The deal between Amazon MGM and EON awaits regulatory approval in the U.S. and U.K.

If it goes through, Amazon MGM will have a strong property on its hands. Over the decades, EON has reinforced certain elements to the character and the story: James Bond is a debonair hitman. MI6 chief M gives him high-stakes missions. MI6 armorer Q fits him with the latest gadgets. And Bond lives large, enjoying beautiful women, fine dining, Savile Row fashions and Omega timepieces.

Advertisement

Amazon MGM is unlikely to tinker with these Bondian elements. They’re also likely to preserve the movies’ “Bond formula” – the gun barrel visual that kicks off each film, elaborately designed credit sequences, film-specific theme songs, and the closing title card that reads, “James Bond Will Return.”

Yet some fans fear that Amazon MGM will develop “woke” storylines. Others foresee the product being diluted with countless streaming spinoff series.

To me, the more intriguing possibility is whether Amazon will try to create a more unified Bond universe, akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Yes, the Fleming Estate will continue to manage the novels, comics and radio. But with creative control over EON’s rights, Amazon MGM could, in theory, develop an elaborate transmedia strategy never before explored in this franchise.

A relaunched film series, perhaps serving as Amazon MGM’s “mothership,” would feed into satellite series in video games and streaming shows. These games and shows, in turn, would tie into and expand the universe of the films.

Were that to happen, the Bond franchise would truly enter a new phase and risk losing much of the creative flexibility it’s possessed in the past.

Colin Burnett, Associate Professor of Film and Media Studies, Washington University in St. Louis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Please leave this field empty

Want more stories
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

As I look back on the countless movies that have shaped my cinematic experience, one brave offering leaps to mind: Duel (1971), directed by the then-unknown Steven Spielberg. Having seen it for the first time just six years after its release, it struck an immediate chord with me—not merely as a film but as an immersive adventure during long, winding motorhome road trips down those nostalgic two-lane highways. After all, what’s a road trip without a bit of fear and exhilaration?

A Thrilling Premise

Duel is an unassuming yet masterful thriller, and it transports us into the boots of David Mann (portrayed by Dennis Weaver), a traveling salesman who becomes a reluctant protagonist in a deadly game of cat and mouse with an unseen truck driver in rural California. The movie begins innocently enough, but as Mann encounters a dilapidated Peterbilt, it transforms into a relentless chase that epitomizes the essence of road rage. The artful way Spielberg captures anxiety, frustration, and fear elevates Duel from a simple story to an engaging psychological thriller.

Relatable Tensions

As a fan of action-packed thrillers with heart-pounding car chases, I can’t help but revel in the film’s extraordinary use of vehicles as its main characters. The timeless duel between Mann and the monstrous truck illustrates a primal struggle of man vs. machine. Who hasn’t felt that rush of adrenaline while driving, especially when faced with reckless drivers? The movie resonates deeply with anyone who has ever been on the road, creating a unique connection that persists even after more than five decades.

The cinematography, predominantly shot on location in California, adds to its authenticity, and those dusty roads remind me of childhood summers spent on family road trips. Spielberg’s direction couples beautifully with Richard Matheson’s intelligent screenplay, which coaxes tension from every frame. What’s brilliant about this film is how it manages to elevate an ordinary incident into an epic survival story.

Sound and Fury

One of the film’s most compelling features is its minimalistic approach to sound. The absence of dialogue amplifies the eeriness and tension. The growl of the truck engine serves as a character in itself, conveying menace and power without uttering a word. Spielberg’s ability to utilize sound and silence strategically keeps viewers on the edge of their seats—a technique that would define his future projects.

From the pulse-quickening moments where Mann finds himself sandwiched between track and truck, to the visceral final confrontation, every scene is carefully crafted to maintain suspense. The artistry in storytelling is evident as the viewer is left guessing about the truck driver’s motives—an enigma that intensifies the film’s allure.

Timeless Legacy

Duel is not just a thrill ride; it has left an indelible mark on cinema and continues to influence filmmakers today. Spielberg’s take on road rage feels timeless, and the film’s status as a coveted cult classic attests to its lasting power. Critics laud it as one of the greatest television movies ever made, and it proudly sits in the annals of American film history.

This masterclass in suspense is more than just a movie; it’s a nostalgic experience that can turn a road trip into a thrilling escapade—even if you’re just driving to the grocery store. As I reflect on this film, I must highlight that it’s a testament to the art of storytelling; a simple narrative framework, developed with supreme direction and compelling visuals, can create anxious anticipation and excitement.

Advertisement

Final Thoughts

Ultimately, Duel still resonates with viewers who appreciate its raw intensity, thrilling car and truck chases, and the fear of being prey in the vast, open roads. I wholeheartedly believe it stands the test of time, and if I were to rate it, it would earn a perfect 5 out of 5 stars in my book. A classic that perfectly encapsulates action, drama, and innovation in filmmaking, Duel remains an unforgettable ride that sparks both nostalgia and adrenaline, even fifty years later. If you haven’t seen it yet, rev up your engines and experience this cinematic gem—you won’t regret it!

Related links:

Duel ( Wikipedia)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel_(1971_film)

Duel ( IMDb) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067023

Looking for an entertainment experience that transcends the ordinary? Look no further than STM Daily News Blog’s vibrant Entertainment section. Immerse yourself in the captivating world of indie films, streaming and podcasts, movie reviews, music, expos, venues, and theme and amusement parks. Discover hidden cinematic gems, binge-worthy series and addictive podcasts, gain insights into the latest releases with our movie reviews, explore the latest trends in music, dive into the vibrant atmosphere of expos, and embark on thrilling adventures in breathtaking venues and theme parks. Join us at STM Entertainment and let your entertainment journey begin! https://stmdailynews.com/category/entertainment/

and let your entertainment journey begin!

Advertisement

Maria San Filippo, Emerson College

Writing during what seems – in retrospect – to have been the wildly carefree summer of 2019, Washington Post film critic Ann Hornaday lamented that “sex is disappearing from the big screen.”

Fast forward two years, and, improbably enough, it’s conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat who’s pleading for “sex and romance [to] make a comeback at the movies.”

Both commentators blame this sexual stagnation on what they see as an abstinence-only policy in Hollywood, fueled by the Weinstein effect on one hand and family-friendly franchise fever on the other, where libidinal energy has been sublimated into buff-yet-sexless superheroes. To Hornaday and Douthat, sexual prudence seems to be tipping into prudery.

Hornaday and Douthat are correct that the traditional sex scene – a tasteful “pas de deux” between glossy stars, typically straight and vanilla, presented as a spectacle for our visual pleasure – has become increasingly rare.

But after devoting hours to watching sex scenes as research for my book “Provocauteurs and Provocations: Selling Sex in 21st Century Media,” I can reassure the randy and romantic among us that sex onscreen isn’t disappearing. Far from it.

Instead, over the last decade, it’s simply changed – and mostly for the better.

What’s hot: honesty and humor

Today’s sex scenes are first and foremost fun – as ideally sex itself should be – and emphasize the truthful over the tasteful.

Advertisement

In some cases, you’ll see likable, relatable characters revealing perverse predilections, such as the all-consuming hots that Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s protagonist in the TV series “Fleabag” has for a clergyman she dubs “Hot Priest.” Or when Kathryn Hahn’s character in Joey Soloway’s directorial debut “Afternoon Delight” drunkenly confesses to her gal pals that she’s “masturbated to that scene for two decades.” The scene she’s describing? The gang rape from “The Accused.” What’s more, her friends agree it’s hot.

Other moments make for embarrassing yet endearing waypoints en route to real intimacy. In Desiree Akhavan’s “The Bisexual,” a bout of postcoital queefing cracks up a couple and dispels the awkwardness of their morning after. And in a carnal scene from Michaela Coel’s “I May Destroy You,” neither sanitary products nor a blood clot manages to kill the moment. It’s the latest woman-created show – joining “Girls”, “GLOW” and “I Love Dick” – to shatter the taboo against mentioning, much less showing, menstruation during sex.

Other filmmakers bulldoze the boundaries of which bodies the culture industry deems fit to depict. For this we have “Girls” creator Lena Dunham largely to thank; the actress famously insisted on baring all in the face of brutal fat shaming and portraying her show’s privileged protagonists’ sexual escapades in all their cringe-inducing candor.

Alongside defying the opposition and outrage meted out to artworks or artists deemed obscene or unattractive, some filmmakers have sought to redefine the sex scene altogether.

In my view, some of the most arousing sex scenes put to celluloid are ones where clothing stays put and verbal foreplay takes center stage. In “Laurel Canyon” and “Take This Waltz” – again, works created by women – would-be philanderers engage in dirty talk as a means to sublimate their desire, but in such smoldering terms as to arouse the viewer. https://www.youtube.com/embed/C_8fbYOtG90?wmode=transparent&start=0 Sexually charged dialogue permeates ‘Take This Waltz.’

Romcom’s morning after

While not clinching my case that the sex scene is flourishing, these films repudiate Douthat’s assertion that there’s “a cultural void where romance used to be.”

It’s all part of redefining what romance looks like on screen.

Advertisement

And I don’t mean merely making the couplings and casting more inclusive: “Crazy Rich Asians” relies on the same Cinderella-style premise as “Pretty Woman.” I’m talking about the sunsets-and-soulmates wish fulfillment fantasies that, for decades, served as the template for most romantic comedies: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl.

As my new edited collection “After ‘Happily Ever After’: Romantic Comedy in the Post-Romantic Age” points out, recent films like “Appropriate Behavior,” “Before Midnight,” “Medicine for Melancholy” and the Netflix series “Love” rejuvenate the romantic comedy genre by actually addressing the realities and complexities of intimacy.

In these works, issues of coming out, growing old, being Black and staying sober are what drive the plots – and true love doesn’t conquer all.

Queering the scene

Regrettably, outside of art cinema, queer male characters rarely get naked or have sex onscreen. But given that straight sex on screen got a huge head start on queer sex, it’s no surprise that same-sex couples aren’t getting it on with gusto at the multiplex.

Queer male intimacy more often finds mainstream success by inviting viewers to relish unrequited romance in films like “Weekend,” “Moonlight” and “God’s Own Country.” Even films focused on queer women are getting in on the swoon-worthiness of not getting off, a phenomenon mocked by Saturday Night Live’s recent parody “Lesbian Period Drama.”

In some cases, queer filmmakers have stretched the boundaries of the sex scene by exchanging explicit sex acts for erotic insinuation, as with the suggestive shots of one woman’s hand penetrating the other’s armpit in Céline Sciamma’s “Portrait of a Lady on Fire,” or the infamous scene of Armie Hammer’s character slurping cum from a hollowed-out peach in “Call Me by Your Name.”

Safer is … sexier?

An outgrowth of the #MeToo era is the on-set intimacy coordinator – a professional trained to ensure that safe practices are in place when shooting sex scenes. In many ways, their presence is long overdue in an on-set environment where nudity quotas were, for a time, the norm.

Rather than delivering a cold shower for spectators, these more ethically and safely executed scenes are arguably sexier – perhaps in part because the performers feel safer and less inhibited, and perhaps because viewers might feel less morally compromised while watching them.

Advertisement

As in real life, consent is what makes scenes of sexual degradation and endangerment hot. A film like Jane Campion’s “In the Cut,” in which Meg Ryan’s character is clearly heard consenting to having rough sex with Mark Ruffalo’s character, is exemplary in this regard. So, too, are the intimacy-coordinated sex scenes in last year’s “Normal People,” along with those in “Duck Butter,” which even gave the performers the opportunity to co-script the scenes themselves.

[Over 106,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Though I find that Hornaday’s and Douthat’s laments leave out a lot, I share their view that preaching abstinence takes a blinkered approach to art, as to life. The repercussions of rendering sex invisible – unseen and unacknowledged – aren’t just aesthetic. In times of political division and social unrest, sexual freedoms and sexual minorities are more strictly regulated and persecuted.

This threat of silencing makes it all the more important that filmmakers continue screening and – as radical sex theorist Gayle Rubin titled her landmark 1984 essay – “thinking sex.”

So far, filmmakers are meeting the challenge.

Maria San Filippo, Associate Professor of Visual and Media Arts, Emerson College

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Looking for an entertainment experience that transcends the ordinary? Look no further than STM Daily News Blog’s vibrant Entertainment section. Immerse yourself in the captivating world of indie films, streaming and podcasts, movie reviews, music, expos, venues, and theme and amusement parks. Discover hidden cinematic gems, binge-worthy series and addictive podcasts, gain insights into the latest releases with our movie reviews, explore the latest trends in music, dive into the vibrant atmosphere of expos, and embark on thrilling adventures in breathtaking venues and theme parks. Join us at STM Entertainment and let your entertainment journey begin! https://stmdailynews.com/category/entertainment/

and let your entertainment journey begin!