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
The problem is that at the current rate they are working at, that means only two more EON produced Bond films before 2036. Secondly, I think that part of the cinematic Bond's appeal is those elements that EON owns, such as the Gunbarrel and the theme. One of the reasons the recent films in the series have provoked such antipathy in fans is because of the way they use/don't use these elements. Bond films that don't have the gunbarrel and theme are lesser in my eyes (I like NSNA, but the score is a big problem).
It's a bit like the recent Superman films - it loses something without the theme from the Reeve incarnation.
Yes, all the decisions in CR are fine and justified. That was the point, wasn't it? After the end when he affirms his name it should have just gone back to what it was before, only with Craig's edge and personal take on the character.
So once the copyright expires in 2036, Bond will become a public domain character much like Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan or Dracula? Therefore pretty much any producer or production company could make their own Bond films or series?
That could be interesting, however I somehow don't see anyone else making their own Bond franchise as successful as Eon.
Public domain characters always seem to come back with or without successful results. Not many people I know embraced the latest DRACULA adaptation by BBC for instance.
There was a new big screen Tarzan film a few years ago that seems all but forgotten today.
Sherlock Holmes gets many adaptations on TV and film. Many are popular, actually. Perhaps Bond would follow in a similar fashion?
I think that is because anything made with Bond as the lead character cannot be released anywhere else in the world other than Canada. That's what I read, anyway. If that restriction is removed, then potentially anyone could make a version, in the same manner in which @ToTheRight suggests.
[/quote]
Of course, most are fine. The thing I find the most hilarious is when you ask the biggest and most obsessed Star Wars fans to list their favorite movies. You quickly find out they only actually like 2/9 films. It would be like people hanging-out here who like 4 Bond films and think the rest are absolute trash.
I don't personally know too many of them. I knew one pretty well, pushed me into trying-it out. I watched 3 episodes and then never again.
Yes that’s very true. Alien fans are similar, many of them seem to like only the first two films which means that for them everything released after 1986 (nearly 40 years ago!) is a bust.
Whereas I get the impression that many Bond film fans (at least the ones who post here?) do actually like the majority of the films, or at least can see the good points even in the ones they’re not so keen on, so can still gain enjoyment from them.
Just passing by to say that I really enjoyed that TLD Lego tribute.
Yes, to be clear it’s actually the characters created by Ian Fleming that will lose copyright protection in the mid 2030s. So that’s JB, M, Moneypenny, Dr No, the 007 number, Largo, Tanner, Goldfinger, Leiter etc.
Whereas the gun barrel, the theme, Blofeld’s cat, Quantum, Stromberg, Jaws etc are the intellectual property assets of Eon. They will remain in Eon’s intellectual control and cannot be touched.
So this means that whoever makes JB film or TV show after the 2030s will still need to take care. They can use some Bond elements but not others.
There’s a parallel with The Mummy. The basic concept of an Ancient Egyptian mummy being a monster is not in copyright. Mummies have been around for thousands of years! But what is in copyright is Universal’s very specific spin on the concept. Their mummy is an Ancient Egyptian who was cursed, mummified, comes back to life in horrible form and who therefore needs to kill people in order to get ‘life force’ to restore themselves to perfect form. If you make a film with a mummy like that then Universal’s lawyers will come after you.
Caveat: I do not know whether Blofeld and Specte will leave copyright in the 2030s or not. This is because Blofeld was part of the McClory estate too, not just the Ian Fleming estate. The fact that Eon stayed away from Blofeld for so long suggests that they thought the copyright was complicated. They have the copyright now ok but that’s irrelevant because the McClory estate is a different legal estate from the Fleming estate. If Blofeld is legally part of the McClory estate then no one else can use him until the 2070s. One for the lawyers I suppose
Point is EoN owns the elements that made JB a cinematic and pop icon in the world. This is the most important and valuable asset they own. So whoever makes an “alternative” JB film or TV show in the future will lose what makes JB iconic and unique to the public. Lot of films have been made with cool spies running around but no one has this specific flavor built throughout the decades. NSNA kind of worked only because of Connery but without his presence no one would’ve cared about that “alternative version” of the character. If EoN wants to keep going making JB films, I wouldn’t worry that much about this copyright deadline.
This is a good point and the one I was trying to get across. However, the reason I said that the future was tentative was because of the amount of time between each EON produced film. If there is another 6/7 year gap, I can't say with full confidence that there wouldn't be much interest in an alternative version, especially if it was directed by an auteur like Tarantino or somebody like that.
On these boards that is not very controversial.
Welcome to the MI6 boards. You're in good company here, son.
It's not a controversial opinion. It's a potentially controversial assessment. And unfortunately I think you might be right. Even if it is a success which I think it will (then again the pandemic might change seriously the movie industry).
He has quite a lot of passionate fans on here actually and I feel the general consensus is that the film is a classic and that Lazenby's performance is very underrated. Personally I am more reserved. I think he was serviceable in the sense that the film manages to glare over his weaknesses and highlights the scenes he does well. I fear however that had he done more films, his limitations as an actor would have been further highlighted rather than the opposite.
Personally, I would've preferred if Lazenby was cut altogether and Connery did the entire Blofeld Trilogy, faithful to the books and in the correct order.
I certainly want this hunch proven wrong, and Bond 26 sooner than later.
I remember feeling optimistic that B25 could be out in 2017 to wrap up Craig's reign. We'd have the first outing of a new Bond in 2019 with a second outing aimed for 2022. That might have been great.
Hypothetical situation: say had George Lucas offered Cubby to produce RETURN OF THE JEDI, no doubt he would have turned it down simply on the grounds it was being released during a Bond year.
Bond always came first for Cubby. I think Barbara and Michael probably would have no problem postponing Bond another couple years to focus on something else.
This would have been extremely ideal. As much as I love Lazenby and OHMSS, I'd sacrifice what we have here to have a better YOLT, and to have one actor do the whole thing, as you say, in order.
I might have replaced YOLT with a faithful adaptation of MR to give Connery something low key to follow TB. Then OHMSS followed by a faithful YOLT in '71 to wrap up his era. His slightly unfit look at the time could have complimented Bond's burned out, post Tracy aftermath in the novel.
Add an out-for-revenge-Ferzetti in there and it would have been a dream.
No. The Disney lobbyists will never let their copyright expire, and Eon can just ride their coattails.