It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think maybe, if it were ten years ago, Naomie Harris' Moneypenny could potentially have had her own series. Not being a Bond-a-like, but perhaps a bit more of a low key, London-centric spy show. I think she would have been strong enough to carry it and the characters were popular around that time. But yeah, can't do it now the Craig films are over, time's moved on.
It can have M and Moneypeny. And they could do all the silly things without ruining Bond.
The global box office has shrunk dramatically since Covid-19. Very few films are making over 700 million worldwide and a tiny amount hit the big 1 billion mark. Prior to Covid, Disney broke box office records by having nine films make 1 billion dollars in the year 2019.
I doubt anything close to those stats will ever happen again. However....
Disney had a catastrophic year in 2020 when covid hit and everything was closed for months. Disney went from huge record breaking profit to deficit. The global box office dropped a staggering 80 percent in 2020. The industry has not recovered. Only two films have made over a billion dollars in 2024.
1 - Inside Out 2
2 - Deadpool & Wolverine.
And just six films made over 500 million. Will Bond 26 make more than 500 million? Very likely. More than 750 million? Probably not. Close to a billion? I'm guessing no.
Maybe Amazon don't care about the box office. They've no reason to want to share their box office profits with the cinema chains. The chains take approximately half the box office. If Amazon go straight to video streaming/streaming rental/retail with Bond 26 the cinema chains get not one cent! 🤭
I'm guessing Bond 26 would be free on Amazon Prime (obviously) but then available to rent/buy for non Prime customers soon after or on release date. Amazon would get more customers signing up to Prime to see Bond 26 and the rest of the customer base would pay the rental fee. That's a lot of cash coming in? I assume so. I don't know it's enough to make Bond 26 profitable though. But if more people join Amazon Prime as a result of Bond 26 exclusively on Amazon then over time the extra money coming in should cover the cost of making Bond 26. It's possible Amazon do want to make Bond 26 or future Bond films straight to vod (video on demand) but Eon are resistant to that idea/strategy and that could be one of the reasons for the alleged impasse.
Amazon owns MGM, which bought half the rights to Danjaq, and the other half is the Broccoli family. Quite literally neither can make Bond without the other. MGM when briefly run by Pathe in the early 90s tried doing things with the Bond films that Cubby didn’t approve of, which is partly why there was a lawsuit that put Bond 17 on hold for six years.
So if Amazon tried doing anything that touches Bond and Eon is not on board, they can sue Amazon.
Mendes4Lyfe wrote
But Amazon wouldn't make 700 million. They'd make approximate 350 million as cinema chains take around half the box office receipts. There's also any other investors getting their smaller cut of the box office pie. It's possible future Bond films have shorter theatrical distribution periods so the theater chains get less share of the box office. Bond 26 or 27 would have a high ish PVOD rental and purchase price because it's exclusive on Amazon Prime. People that waited to see it on streaming pay the premium price and get to see Bond 26 or Bond 27 in the comfort of their home.
I don't have Amazon Prime and in my last post I incorrectly suggested Bond 26 would be free if you have Amazon Prime. Pardon my error.
If there are millions of potential customers prepared to rent or buy PVOD Bond 26 it must be a potential money maker for Amazon. Maybe it makes sense to have a limited theatrical release for Bond 26 then lure customers to rent the film. This would not be to Eon's liking but streaming is not going to go away so Eon will have to adapt to the modern technology. If Amazon do insist on a shorter theatrical release it will put Eon in a difficult position.
Barbara is the dom, and Amazon is the sub. ;)
According to Mi6 website "Maibaum had originally planned to introduce Lazenby with a plastic surgery sub-plot. In his first draft, Bond was to undergo the surgery at the very beginning of the film, his appearance being changed because his face was now too well known to his enemies. Thankfully, the idea was quickly dropped."
This was a plot device to explain how a new fella was playing Bond.
What if in OHMSS a plot device of Bond receiving plastic surgery was used to explain Bond's changed appearance?
Would this have tied the producers hands for future adventures? Would they have had to address it in the next film? How do you think this would have played out if they had left it in the script?
Makes sense. OHMSS has now reached iconic status among fans (and maybe with the public in general), but a lot of its creative process was played by ear, especially when it had to do with recasting Bond: there's the "other fellah" line, the fact that Bond and Blofeld don't recognise each other, etc.
In an alternate universe, Connery only did DN-TB and then Lazenby hung in there for OHMSS-YOLT-TMWTGG. The rest of the Bond timeline has different actors.