› ›

Should Disney buy James Bond in 2016?

1246

Comments

  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Actors like Pryce can be utterly brilliant, take his recent performance in Wolf Hall but also can be utterly hammy and dreadful, Anthony Hopkins was originally intended for that role, I'm not sure he'd have been much better.

    Yes you have gems like Remains of the Day & The Elephant Man but then you have the likes of Hannibal and Red Dragon, ham tastic.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Well, in the original draft, Elliot Carver's character wasn't much of an enthusiast as we've seen in the film. He was cold, blunt and arrogant, which would've perfectly suited Hopkins whom I believe Feirstein had in mind when he wrote that.

    But, think about it, Pryce's performance of a flamboyant insane media mogul isn't that different from what we see in the presence of the likes of Donald Trump, for instance (no, I'm not speaking politically or wouldn't want to get into that). I find Carver's behaviour very similar to the category of the real-life figures as aforementioned.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    At least Carver was funny on purpose and OTT on purpose as well and it fit with the tone of the movie.
  • tanaka123tanaka123
    Posts: 4,325
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Well, in the original draft, Elliot Carver's character wasn't much of an enthusiast as we've seen in the film. He was cold, blunt and arrogant, which would've perfectly suited Hopkins whom I believe Feirstein had in mind when he wrote that.

    But, think about it, Pryce's performance of a flamboyant insane media mogul isn't that different from what we see in the presence of the likes of Donald Trump, for instance (no, I'm not speaking politically or wouldn't want to get into that). I find Carver's behaviour very similar to the category of the real-life figures as aforementioned.

    Hopkins was also in mind for Trevelyan in GE back when the intial scripts had him as an older man.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    tanaka123 wrote: »
    ClarkDevlin wrote: »
    Well, in the original draft, Elliot Carver's character wasn't much of an enthusiast as we've seen in the film. He was cold, blunt and arrogant, which would've perfectly suited Hopkins whom I believe Feirstein had in mind when he wrote that.

    But, think about it, Pryce's performance of a flamboyant insane media mogul isn't that different from what we see in the presence of the likes of Donald Trump, for instance (no, I'm not speaking politically or wouldn't want to get into that). I find Carver's behaviour very similar to the category of the real-life figures as aforementioned.

    Hopkins was also in mind for Trevelyan in GE back when the intial scripts had him as an older man.
    Yes. Augustus Trevelyan, responsible for the death of three 00-agents in a false mission plant while 007 watched. While I loved Alec, a likable villain, Augustus was the Blofeld Bond never confronted in the films.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,163
    At first I had my apprehensions. But I wouldn't be too opposed to Disney buying Bond.
    They have the funding to make great movies.
    The have marketing like no other.
    I like what they're doing with the Star Wars brand.
    With the investment it would cost, they're not just going to flush that down the toilet.
  • Mack_BolanMack_Bolan
    edited June 2017 Posts: 377
    Yes
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    Disney owning Bond would be a disaster. Another DAD would certainly be on the horizon.
  • suavejmfsuavejmf Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 5,131
    dalton wrote: »
    Disney getting Bond would be about the worst thing that could happen to the franchise. I'd much rather see them just stop making the films if Disney were the only alternative, as they'd run it so far into the ground, making the films so completely unrecognizable from the original Fleming source material that it would be pointless to even call it "Bond".

    Yep.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    Disney owning Bond is my worst nightmare to tell you the truth.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Bond needs Disney moreso than it being the other way round from a business perspective. If Disney did buy Bond, the fear of Disney micromanaging would be unwarranted because they wouldn't do that. It'll just be another revenue stream to them and not even a key profitable one at that considering the franchises and properties in their stable. They'd let EoN get on with things without adversely interfering but on the flipside, to avoid monopolisation i'd prefer distribution to go elsewhere but Bond would deginitely be in great hands if he were to go over to Disney.
  • lady_xanaxlady_xanax
    Posts: 22
    There's no way Disney would buy Bond; a franchise known for sex and violence doesn't fit with family friendly. With the Craig era seriousness, there's not going to be much of a merchandise opportunity. Star Wars was not an inconceivable purchase for Disney; family film, plenty of opportunities to sell toys.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    Disney is the only studio that I feel might conceivably push for a female Bond. I don't know, just based on what they did to Star Wars (twice now!) I could see it happening.
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited May 2016 Posts: 3,333
    If I had been asked this question before I'd seen the Force Awakens, I'd have said Disney wouldn't be such a bad fit. Now that I've seen SW: TFA I withdraw any support I orginally might have had. Despite some here holding up Captain America as a shining example of how Disney can do things right, that's more down to the appointment of Kevin Feige, unlike Star Wars, which has Kathleen Kennedy as its creative head. I was reading somewhere that up until Age of Ultron everything Marvel did movie-wise had to be checked with Isaac Perlmutter's Creative Committee first, and as a result most of the actors/directors wanted to jump ship, including Downey Jr and Evans. Compare that to now - Evans is talking about how much he wants to stay with Marvel Studios, Downey Jr is signed up for Spider-Man: Homecoming and Joss Whedon is talking about how he'd like to work with them again after saying he was done with Marvel. If what I've read is correct then that would mean Feige no longer has to go through Isaac Perlmutter before getting the green-light after Ultron. And that's the problem with Disney, we don't really know who we're going to get as the Creative Committee and what problems they might cause amongst the artists, writers and directors.

    As a side note, it's funny how a lot of people here were putting forward big name directors (and only big name directors) to direct the next Bond movie, then along came Feige who took a gamble on Joe and Anthony Russo to helm Winter Soldier. And apart from a couple of comedies, their background came mostly from TV work, proving it wasn't necessary to hire a Nolan, an a Alfonso Cuaron or another big name director to helm your action franchise (or whatever you want to call it?).

    Clearly, Eon are in a partnership with whoever happens to own the other 50%, whether it be UA, MGM, its creditors, or Sony. They can not go ahead and finance their own production without the blessing and input of their partners.

    So, for now, I say: "Keep your white gloves in your red pants, Mickey... I don't want you anywhere near Bond".
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited May 2016 Posts: 5,185
    Disney and Bond does not match AT ALL in my opinion. not sure who came up with that and why?
    I don't think Disney would be interested in Bond anyways, or a franchise like Bourne or MI.
    Disney is doing Marvel and Star Wars because they are FOR KIDS mostly, at least they are easily marketable to kids with lots of toys.

    i would love to see another R Rated Bond one day. Even though most Bond movies might be PG13 and have outrageous stunts and humor, they are still marketed towards and made for adults.
    The last thing i ever want to see is a James Bond Rollercoaster in Disney World
  • bondsumbondsum
    edited May 2016 Posts: 3,333
    To say Disney would not be interested in acquiring a hugely successful franchise like Bond is forgetting that Disney is foremost a corporation, and like any corporation their other purpose, apart from making movies and creating theme parks, is also acquisitions. The family-friendly image some of you talk of was realigned decades ago with Touchstone Pictures. If they hadn't wanted to shrug off the kiddie image, they would never have bought Marvel or made movies like Pirates of the Caribbean or mega-flop The Lone Ranger.

    If, and it's a big "if", Disney did buy Bond then they'd use a different logo to introduce the movie, not the Walt Disney castle logo. Besides, this is just semantics, it wouldn't stop their purchase of a worldwide brand such as Bond. Also, Bond is not an R-rated series, so it's not such a huge leap from their other PG/12A movies, such as Pirates, Avengers and Maleficent.

    Bourne and MI can not be considered in the same business model as James Bond, simply as both appear to rely heavily on its stars Tom Cruise or Matt Damon to continue the series, much the same way as the The Indiana Jones franchise is dependant on Harrison Ford. Bond has proven it can continue with a change of actor in the lead role.
  • 00Agent00Agent Any man who drinks Dom Perignon '52 can't be all bad.
    edited May 2016 Posts: 5,185
    Sorry but i can not agree on that,
    All the Movies you listed are still family friendly entertainment movies, that you can watch with your parents/kids etc. All the Movie franchises currently under disney have tons of characters like Pirates of the carribean, that you can sell costumes and action figures of, same goes for Marvel and Star Wars. Endless financial possibilities and Disney is taking advantage of all of them, with theme park attractions that match the Franchises and again, are marketed towards kids.
    Disney/Lego games, AGAIN marketed to kids... do you start to recognize a pattern here?

    Bond does not have that. Bond is mostly one guy, not an universe of characters, and definitly not family friendly, unless you are looking forward as a kid to sit in the theater with your parents, while Bond has semi-rape-sex with a woman who gets shot 10 minutes later to Bonds complete disinterest. Or watch Bond viciously kill some hitman in a hotelroom for no reason whatsoever. This is part of the character and needs to stay.

    Point is, Disney is mostly interested in selling TONS of Merchandise (which made George Lucas rich) that are fueld by a Movie Franchise, which is simply not possible with Bond on the same level as the other mentioned Franchise, and because of that will never be as Big or lucrative to Disney...
    EXCEPT if they seriously start changing key aspects of it to make it more 'kid friendly', which would be my personal nightmare.
    But that would be too Hard to accomplish and could totally backfire in everybodies face when everyone starts boycotting the Franchise over night.

    So basically this will always remain a pipe dream and nothing more.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    On a business/production/marketing front, Bond would be great with Disney. However, it stops there, and I fear the movies would turn into something completely unrecognizable eventually.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    Posts: 4,116
    EoN of course isn't selling Bond. And I doubt MGM is selling their half either.

    Now distribution is a different matter but still doubt it.
  • PDJamesBondPDJamesBond
    Posts: 669
    At least with Disney we wouldn't have a three or four year gap between movies anymore. We'd get them every two years, like clockwork. Of course, I'm only talking quantity, not quality...
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    At least with Disney we wouldn't have a three or four year gap between movies anymore. We'd get them every two years, like clockwork. Of course, I'm only talking quantity, not quality...

    I don't know if would be a good or a bad thing. Not sure how the dynamics would work between EoN and Disney.

    Could be released through the Touchstone distribution label.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    At least with Disney we wouldn't have a three or four year gap between movies anymore. We'd get them every two years, like clockwork. Of course, I'm only talking quantity, not quality...

    I don't know if would be a good or a bad thing. Not sure how the dynamics would work between EoN and Disney.

    Could be released through the Touchstone distribution label.
    Exactly right. As I've said before, a deal can be worked about between these two if needed. People seem to be writing off Disney as having only one ambition, namely world domination.

    They are quite a bit savvier than that imho, and I'm sure realize that Bond is a tremendous adult 'brand name' that shouldn't be messed with. Perhaps the largest 'franchise name' outside of Batman that they don't yet own.

    As long as EON hold the creative cards, but draw on Disney's formidable business and process acumen, it could work. It all depends on how it's structured imho.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On a business/production/marketing front, Bond would be great with Disney. However, it stops there, and I fear the movies would turn into something completely unrecognizable eventually.

    IMO it's already happening without Disney's involvement. Blofeld and Bond having a childhood dynamic, Bond and his scooby gang out in the field, sex scenes being unusually bland and pedestrian. The films have been all personal vendettas and inside moles for almost 3 decades. If people are worried about things changing and being unrecognisable; it's already happening.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On a business/production/marketing front, Bond would be great with Disney. However, it stops there, and I fear the movies would turn into something completely unrecognizable eventually.

    IMO it's already happening without Disney's involvement. Blofeld and Bond having a childhood dynamic, Bond and his scooby gang out in the field, sex scenes being unusually bland and pedestrian. The films have been all personal vendettas and inside moles for almost 3 decades. If people are worried about things changing and being unrecognisable; it's already happening.
    This is an excellent point. I agree.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,007
    @PDJamesBond, it's all dependent on the skill behind those involved. If we get Bond movies every other year, it doesn't necessarily mean they'd drop in quality, just like having more time put into Bond movies doesn't always equate to an excellent return, as we've had two Bond movi
    doubleoego wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    On a business/production/marketing front, Bond would be great with Disney. However, it stops there, and I fear the movies would turn into something completely unrecognizable eventually.

    IMO it's already happening without Disney's involvement. Blofeld and Bond having a childhood dynamic, Bond and his scooby gang out in the field, sex scenes being unusually bland and pedestrian. The films have been all personal vendettas and inside moles for almost 3 decades. If people are worried about things changing and being unrecognisable; it's already happening.

    I thought about that in hindsight after I posted, and it's a fair, spot on point. It's why I've been wanting another straight forward, stand alone spy thriller for quite some time, and yet the movies only seem to get bigger and bigger.
  • mcdonbbmcdonbb deep in the Heart of Texas
    edited May 2016 Posts: 4,116
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    At least with Disney we wouldn't have a three or four year gap between movies anymore. We'd get them every two years, like clockwork. Of course, I'm only talking quantity, not quality...

    I don't know if would be a good or a bad thing. Not sure how the dynamics would work between EoN and Disney.

    Could be released through the Touchstone distribution label.
    Exactly right. As I've said before, a deal can be worked about between these two if needed. People seem to be writing off Disney as having only one ambition, namely world domination.

    They are quite a bit savvier than that imho, and I'm sure realize that Bond is a tremendous adult 'brand name' that shouldn't be messed with. Perhaps the largest 'franchise name' outside of Batman that they don't yet own.

    As long as EON hold the creative cards, but draw on Disney's formidable business and process acumen, it could work. It all depends on how it's structured imho.

    No doubt Mickey Mouse is indeed seeking world domination (giant mouse stroking a cat ...how's that for a visual? :) ).

    You're very right ...Disney has some very significant selling points.

    Disney already published Young Bond so there is a history there.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    If Disney can turn SW into a teeny film why should they not be willing to do the same to Bond??
  • BMW_with_missilesBMW_with_missiles All the usual refinements.
    Posts: 3,000
    bondjames wrote: »
    mcdonbb wrote: »
    PDJamesBond wrote: »
    At least with Disney we wouldn't have a three or four year gap between movies anymore. We'd get them every two years, like clockwork. Of course, I'm only talking quantity, not quality...

    I don't know if would be a good or a bad thing. Not sure how the dynamics would work between EoN and Disney.

    Could be released through the Touchstone distribution label.
    People seem to be writing off Disney as having only one ambition, namely world domination.

    World domination; the same old dream. ;)
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,438
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    If Disney can turn SW into a teeny film why should they not be willing to do the same to Bond??

    Yeah, I'm not up for a female Bond, so best to stay away from Disney, I think.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    Posts: 9,020
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    If Disney can turn SW into a teeny film why should they not be willing to do the same to Bond??

    Yeah, I'm not up for a female Bond, so best to stay away from Disney, I think.

    Absolutely or we will one day see a Bond tv-show with Justin Bieber as Bond and Selena Gomez as Bond girl, or even for a movie...
    ...and they will undoubtably do an animated show as well.
    Moneypenny: Tales of a secretary
    M for Mother
    Tanner's Tale
Sign In or Register to comment.