The Tartan

Halfway through the night at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony, there was a strange phenomenon: a choreographed song-and-dance number with a “James Bond” theme. The British franchise was also referenced much earlier in the proceedings — rather explicitly — by Oscars host Conan O’Brien, who mentioned its recent acquisition by Amazon. This was played off as a casual joke about Jeff Bezos. However, it is worth noting that there was no punchline — only prerecorded video clips of people dressed up as Amazon delivery drivers acting foolishly on the red carpet. 

So if one were to want to call this what it is (an advertisement), one should first acknowledge why such a thing is even necessary. Is “007” not quite the massive institution that people have begun to credit it as? This is certainly doubtful — it has, as a franchise, grossed over $7 billion globally. The history of the character goes back to early-1950s British literature, long before Bond was co-opted by film, his character supposedly inspired in part by the late Sir Christopher Lee. 

For movies that have historically done well for themselves, advertisement at the Oscars feels all the more unprecedented. It could, instead, be a sign of the times: something is happening to spy movies. 

Tom Cruise’s “Mission Impossible” franchise  is already feeling some ill effects. The seventh and most recent installment, “Dead Reckoning: Part One,” recorded the second-lowest box office revenue out of the franchise, despite having the highest production budget. The film’s reception was so underwhelming, in fact, that it is set to go without a “Dead Reckoning: Part Two” — the title of this subsequent film has since been changed to “The Final Reckoning” in an attempt to loosen theoretical ties with its cliffhanger-ended predecessor. Whether or not this will work (or at least go without a terrible PR nightmare) remains to be seen.

Back in Britain, the “Kingsman” spy franchise has taken a similar nosedive. While never nearly as lucrative as the two aforementioned series, the first two “Kingsman” films still did very well for themselves in context. 2021’s “The King’s Man,” however, tanked — failing to reach even the $150 million mark worldwide. It was certainly no low-budget project, either, costing 20th Century Studios around $100 million in total,amounting to a loss after marketing. Granted, this was a movie released towards the end of the COVID-19 lockdown, which saw fewer people in theaters just about everywhere, but the mediocre reviews continue to speak for themselves.

The final “007” installment to star Daniel Craig’s Bond, “No Time to Die,” received the lowest box office revenue out of all of his appearances as the character to date. Jeff Bezos will hope that this was the fault of the writers, the actors, and the marketing team, but in many ways, the transfer of Bond’s IP ownership and the titular character’s recast could well be perceived as examples of scapegoating. Once again, recent years have been exceptionally poor for spy films, which is still a niche genre overall. Were one to widen that scope to action films in general, the outlook becomes even bleaker given high-budget flops like “Fast X,” “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts,” “The Flash,” “Argyle,” “Captain America: Brave New World,” and more. 

The pressure is on Amazon to keep off of this list of names — but it’s worth noting that we’ve seen these sorts of tactics before, especially in recent years. The situation at the Oscars is reminiscent of the massive involuntary marketing seen for action films like “Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes” (for which “apes” mounted on horseback patrolled major city centers), “The Creator” (for which “robots” sat in on major sporting events), and once again, “Dead Reckoning: Part One” (for which the film’s biggest stunt was advertised before the trailers were even released). All three of these movies underperformed. One would not sound ridiculous for claiming that potential theatergoers in the post-COVID, streaming-ready world are becoming more picky about which films to go out to a theater to watch. This is not news. But then why are Amazon executives still making these plays, even though they’re not really effective long-term? Surely their analysts, who rake in the big bucks for this sort of thing, know more than I do. 

The answer comes down to the streaming medium itself, where extravagant shows of power reign supreme. Apple is the master of this — take “Killers of the Flower Moon,” for example: a high-budget, emotionally-charged historical thriller complete with a long runtime and some of the most expensive cast and crew on Earth. The movie flopped at the box office, but Apple executives predicted this and, simply put, didn’t mind so much. The movie went to theaters as an advertisement for Apple TV Plus, where it would travel immediately following its time on the big screen. The message was something like this: “We have the best movies, with the best actors and the best directors, on our platform, and all of it is original content.”

Every single film in the “007” franchise, previously not free on any streaming platform (although available for purchase on Apple TV and Amazon) will soon come to Amazon Prime Video. This will likely be more lucrative for Amazon in the long run than their upcoming new film will ever be, at least in terms of box office success. Having full creative control over the IP will also allow for the creation of spinoff media — I am personally predicting at least one “007” television series to be released exclusively on Prime Video within the next four years. The goal of all of this advertisement is likely to generate hype around James Bond the character, rather than for any one film. Until consumers wrap their minds around this, they will continue to feel let down at the theater — it is their emotional investment that is monetized, not their desire for any sort of high art.

All it takes is one quick look at the few successful action movies of the 2020s: 2023’s “John Wick: Chapter 4” was the highest-grossing film of its franchise. Produced by a relatively small company in Thunder Road Productions, who specialize in stylistically-similar action movies, it does not yet have a home on any streaming services, and neither do any of its predecessors. 2024’s “Monkey Man” was initially a Netflix production (it was to become, in essence, a streaming film) but the service dropped Dev Patel’s project midway through production — presumably because its audience seemed rather small, and the film looked set to be banned in India, where Netflix has been rapidly expanding its influence. In theaters, it made back its miniscule budget in full, and then some.

I’m not a “007” fan. Truthfully, I couldn’t care less about these movies. However, I find the prospect of losing a cultural icon to a contest for media hegemony quite sad, and you should too.