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
Linman knows this too.
But he's a notoriously strange man, and is known for not liking when people look at him. There are reasons why Damon didn't want him back for Bourne.
As for the Bourne fallout, after Supremacy, Matt Damon did say publicly that he'd be happy to be directed solely by Liman and Greengrass for the rest of his career. But yes, while it was Stacey Snider at Universal who (according to Doug) screwed Liman out of his contract, vetoed him from any Bourne sequels and tried to get him blackballed, all Damon had to do to get around it was to refuse to do any sequels unless Liman directed them. Which he obviously didn't do. So there's a clue there about the reality, rather than the public face of it. Still, Damon's just made another film with Liman directing, so...water under the bridge and all that.
And if Damon's producing, he hand-picked Liman.
But I'll tell you a story that was shared with me from a stuntman on Mr and Mrs Smith:
When Pitt was attached to Mr and Mrs Smith, and Liman was attached as director, Pitt supposedly went to Damon to ask what the director was like to work with. According to the story, Damon told him to "run the other way".
According to this same stunt performer, the tension on that set grew so much that the stars were more comfortable having second unit directing them than the actual director.
So, indeed, there must have been some thawing of relationships over the last fifteen or twenty years. Saying that, Im still surprised these two are back in business.
If that figure is accurate and let's say Jeff Bezos wants Bond 26 to be the most expensive film ever made (!)... let's say 450 million dollars... and even if it goes straight to streaming so doesn't make any box office profit...
450 million loss would mean Amazon made 1 billion in a day not 1.4. Amazon are so wealthy - total net worth as of 2024: 1.76 trillion dollars - they could make Bond films and not care if they never have a cinema release. This might also explain why Eon don't need to speed up Bond 26. Amazon don't need Bond 26 a.s.a.p. Amazon make enough money without Bond and without MGM! There is no rush to get Bond 26 made.
It's going to be fascinating if Amazon do put pressure on Eon to go straight to streaming. Amazon are a 1 trillion dollar multinational corporation. If they want Bond 26 to go straight to Amazon Prime I doubt Eon can stop them. Bond 26 may be released in 2026 or 2027 and the worldwide box office may be far worse than now. Maybe straight to streaming will be very common place. If Amazon think Bond 26 exclusively on Amazon Prime is the best marketing tool to attract more Amazon customers they may try to limit Bond 26s theatrical release or have none at all. Streaming superfast 5g 4k and possibly 8k hd content is where we're at now. There's no certainty Bond 26 will get a wide theatrical release.
Bond is arguably Amazon's greatest media acquisition so who knows where the franchise is heading. Barbara Broccoli may have met her match with Amazon.
If they played that game, she’d dig her heels in and not make the film. Amazon/MGM can’t make a Bond film without EoN.
And EoN purposely released their intent: Bond is theatrical. Period.
Perhaps Bezos has met his match in Broccoli and Wilson?
Yeah this is such a silly fear born from ignorance on who actually owns/controls these movies.
And it's not even relevant, given Amazon (to an extent) putting their money where their mouth is and doing wide, theatrical releases of a variety of both MGM and Amazon Studios films over the last year or so. Ironically — now they've merged them into one entity (Amazon MGM Studios)!
Regarding Bond 26...
The paradox is Amazon make so much money - one trillion plus valued company - they don't need a new Bond film any time soon. Back in the Cubby era MGM relied on regular Bond films to keep the studio a viable asset (accepting the fact the studio had a long history of money troubles including bankruptcy in 2010). As I say, the paradox is Amazon don't need Bond so unless they're going to give Eon a specific deadline to make Bond 26, we could be in another long film gap.
NTTD 2021 - Bond 26 2027/28?
From a marketing perspective Bond 26 in 2026 makes sense but who knows if that will happen.
Oh, i thought you were saying Amazon would have the power to give EoN an ultimatum about going straight to streaming. I must have misread the post.
Ah, I see. Good to know I’m not starting to see things that aren’t there, 😂. Yes, I agree that that’s not going to happen. In the end, everyone will want to make the best film possible. No one wants to go to court. They’re in partnership to deliver a worldwide box office smash.
The money does not make sense for films with Bond's budget to go to streaming.
All the big streamers are contracting production right now because the numbers are becoming obvious — streaming doesn't make money. Interest rates went up and the debts carried are too expensive.
That's 84 million dollars revenue minus corporation tax and operating costs/salaries.
Let's say 65 million.
Okay, so to guarantee you make profit you don't invest in tv shows/films that exceed that 65 million threshold. That way you make profit.
If Netflix/Amazon etc are making billions in revenue from subscriptions but making too much product/too expensive a product (apparently Rings of Power and Citadel are the most expensive tv shows ever made!) then they won't make profit. There's also advertising on streaming apps which should generate more income. You can opt to watch streaming content with adverts.
If streaming is a loss making venture it's because there's too much product which sounds paradoxical because too much product would suggest streaming should be a success. The more choice should mean more subscribers.
With the introduction of advertising revenue you could argue streaming is now similar-ish to network tv. The original streaming model has failed? I guess so.
Exactly my point — they are raising rates on Prime Video because it doesn't make money. Just because AWS makes a lot of money doesn't mean they are ok with every other business unit losing money.
We're in an unprecedented time in movie making. Two of the most profitable companies on the planet investing in the tv/film industries. The studios cannot compete with Apple and Amazon. They're in a different money league. If Apple's stock rises that covers the budget of Argylle. This is crazy but this the reality of capitalism. Unless Apple and Amazon face financial disaster (maybe there is a huge global economic crash)... Amazon can afford to make a 400 to 500 million dollar Bond 26 and not release it in cinemas. That sounds insane but if the value of the company doesn't fall dramatically on the stock market and millions of people are buying items via Amazon there is minimal impact on its profit margins. It's a negligible loss.
I would argue Bond 26 only available to view on Amazon Prime is an amazing marketing tool. Aside from bittorrent pirate uploads, everyone else have will have to watch Bond 26 on Amazon Prime and that's amazing marketing for Amazon. And if Bond 26 gets great early reviews the hype will be be amazing.
I know this sounds crazy but it's possible Amazon and Apple will rule Hollywood. It's been rumoured Disney may be sold to Apple. We're living through never seen before times. Two of the most successful companies in history trying to compete with the established studio system. And regardless of streaming's profitability or lack of, the technology is never going away. No company can disconnect the global internet so streaming is here to stay and that means more and more films will bypass the established theatrical release model and go direct to streaming services. And if Amazon think Bond is best served by bypassing the cinema they will do it. I doubt Eon can stop them. Eon cannot compete with a 1.7 trillion dollar company. Eon are dealing with one of the most profitable companies that's ever existed. This is not MGM that was badly run and filed for bankruptcy. Eon are dealing with the big league now!
:))
If these companies are ok losing money on perpetuity — why are they cutting back development deals and raising prices?
Stock price does not equate to operating income.
There are so many things wrong with your post but that central assumption your whole argument is based around is plainly wrong.
I'm not surprised. Vaughn is slowly becoming one of the worst directors out there. The first Kingsman film is his last good film.
And between The Marvels and this, Samuel L Jackson is one of the biggest one note actors out there. And I think a lot of people are getting tired of him.
I couldn't agree more.
Bezos can live without Bond. The others... I don't think so.
By 2030 many people will not care if it is released in theaters or not.
You really have your finger on the pulse, don't you?
You beat me to it. I would think the Broccolis are probably worth close to $1B.
Yeah, I know but Bezos fortune is bigger.
Anyway, It's a good news. Bond is not that important to Amazon/MGM. We are not in the 90's
Uh... Okay...