007 heading to streaming? Amazon buys MGM for $8.45 billion!

1151618202131

Comments

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited April 2022 Posts: 9,511
    I'm not saying Bond won't continue... And as I told another member of this forum, with acquisitions everyone knew there'd be changes.

    It's about the two people who "resigned"; the two people who BB has cited as the ones who will give EoN time and space to get the next itineration right; it's the optics and messaging and what that means-- it means that these two were part of the MGM alliance with EoN. And...

    They are now gone.

    My immediate question was, why them? Especially after BB has been vocal about their support, and she was also vocal, several times since the announcement of the acquisition, that James Bond films are made for cinemas and not for streaming. She has said no to spin offs and the like. She was leaning into the message that this is still "business as usual".

    But with your two allies cut, and replaced with Amazon hires, it isn't business as usual for EoN.

    And with these dismissals or "resignations", Amazon is sending back its own message: this is a new world, and things are going to change down the road.

    This is a very interesting dynamic and with this latest news, it feels like the two parties are like water and oil...

    It would be great drama if we could see the boardroom conversations moving forward.

    EDIT: Barbara Broccoli is quite media shy historically, so when she makes statements, it's not off the cuff. It's to get a message out there. So with these "resignations" I can see her pushing back. Moving at her pace would be a start-- after all, Amazon can't make a Bond picture without her. They'd be forced to sit and stew and watch paint dry...

    (Or my assumptions could be completely wrong, she has no issues with the dismissals, and she delivers a new Bond actor by October)
  • Posts: 398
    peter wrote: »
    I'm not saying Bond won't continue... And as I told another member of this forum, with acquisitions everyone knew there'd be changes.

    It's about the two people who "resigned"; the two people who BB has cited as the ones who will give EoN time and space to get the next itineration right; it's the optics and messaging and what that means-- it means that these two were part of the MGM alliance with EoN. And...

    They are now gone.

    My immediate question was, why them? Especially after BB has been vocal about their support, and she was also vocal, several times since the announcement of the acquisition, that James Bond films are made for cinemas and not for streaming. She has said no to spin offs and the like. She was leaning into the message that this is still "business as usual".

    But with your two allies cut, and replaced with Amazon hires, it isn't business as usual for EoN.

    And with these dismissals or "resignations", Amazon is sending back its own message: this is a new world, and things are going to change down the road.

    This is a very interesting dynamic and with this latest news, it feels like the two parties are like water and oil...

    It would be great drama if we could see the boardroom conversations moving forward.

    Fair but they could be replaced by Hollywood insiders for all we know. I don't think we have enough information for any real response aside from curiosity. They could have been let go for their tepid track record at MGM or, maybe, they resigned for (what they perceive) as greener pastures.

    I say all that with the utmost respect for everything good you bring to this board and conversation.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,511
    😂 @Burgess all good points…. And my perspective is definitely fuelled by BB making some very clear statements in the media— my assumption there is she only speaks very carefully.

    But you’re right on especially this point: I do hope they get Hollywood talent to shepherd not just the Bond films, but all the MGM/Amazon films to come as well…
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    peter wrote: »
    It's about the two people who "resigned"; the two people who BB has cited as the ones who will give EoN time and space to get the next itineration right;...it means that these two were part of the MGM alliance with EoN. And...They are now gone....But with your two allies cut, and replaced with Amazon hires, it isn't business as usual for EoN.

    Yes, this is the crux of it.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    While @peter's analysis isn't wrong - these were allies, they are gone, that's not great - I wouldn't go as far as to see this as an attack on EON. MGM is more than Bond. My read on this is that there was a decision to be made: Will MGM "just" be a something owned by Amazon that runs mostly independently with some synergies here and there like using Prime Video as their exclusive streaming home - @Burgess gave the example of Whole Foods - or will this be much more integrated and MGM will either fully become or be a very tightly controlled shingle of Amazon Studios - more like comixology, which they've basically completely disembowelled and made into a front for Kindle Comics, throwing away comixology's original technology and distribution model. They clearly went for something closer to number two and for that, they need their own people in charge. I'm sure, Eon would have preferred it if they had taken the first route, but the decision surely doesn't just come down to an attempt to screw over Barbara Broccoli.


    (And just as a sidenote: The Washington Post isn't owned by Amazon, it's owned by Nash Holdings, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who is the biggest but no longer majority shareholder of Amazon and the exec Chairman of the Board. The important difference being there is not corporate connection between the two companies.)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,598
    It certainly feels like another possible bump in the road to the next film.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,380
    BB and MGW have worked well with other executives in the past. Amy Pascal comes to mind. This is business as usual. A merger happens, followed by a corporate restructuring. Not at all surprising.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,545
    Michael De Luca, Pam Abdy Reach Deal to Lead Warner Bros. Film Divisionhttps://hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/michael-de-luca-pam-abdy-warner-bros-1235157014

    After DeLuca and Abdy depart, their direct reports at MGM will report to Julie Rappaport, under Jen Salke’s oversight, on an interim basis until Mike Hopkins names a replacement and announces a new structure. That structure is expected to involve an expanded film effort for both MGM, including more wide theatrical releases, and Amazon.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    I notice for those in the UK they have all the Bond films available on Prime, whereas for the US it’s only GE and SF.

    I really think another factor for why Bond has been struggling in the US is it’s sporadic presence in streaming sites. They’re not as readily available for subscribers as the Marvel films are. We really should have seen a major push on streaming sites prior to the release of NTTD, especially the Craig films.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    edited June 2022 Posts: 1,351
    I don't know what it was like in the US, but here in Germany the delays really hurt that kind of strategy. Our version of Sky had a whole event month set up with one of their channels showing only Bond films around the clock and all of the films available on their streaming service leading up to I think the April 2021 date and then the film got pulled. They still did the event, but I think it had way less impact than it would have had, had NTTD come out then and I don't think they did a similar thing for the eventual release, which probably didn't help the film's box office.

    Edit: As it turns out, they are doing the exact same thing for the Pay-TV-Premiere of NTTD tomorrow. So I guess I know what I'll be doing all weekend ^^. I still would massively prefer it, if all the films had a regular subscription streaming home rather than appearing here for a month and then being unavailable for a year and then appearing somewhere else for 2 weeks...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    I assume they’ll all be permanently on Prime in the future, but as of now they’re still tied up with licensing deals they have to fulfill.

    Paramount+ had this problem with the Star Trek films, where they had to take them off their platform because they already had a deal with AMC channel to stream/air exclusively.
  • Red_SnowRed_Snow Australia
    Posts: 2,545
    Is a fully staffed FTC finally ready to challenge Amazon’s merger with MGM?
    https://dailydot.com/debug/amazon-mgm-merger-ftc/?amp
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2022 Posts: 41,011
    Is this sort of event the type of thing that may hold up production on the start of the next era then?
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Is this sort of event the type of thing that may hold up production on the start of the next era then?

    It doesn’t have to be just that. There’s a slew of other reasons why a Bond 26 may take awhile, like trying to negotiate with potential distributors. Without an international distributor, there’s no film. Universal only made a one film deal, and that was because they were only interested in Craig coming back.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited June 2022 Posts: 554
    Wouldn't be too surprised if we end up with a movie on the 65th anniversary to introduce #7.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    They may "officially" begin the search this year but I don't see an announcement or production beginning for several years.
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    edited June 2022 Posts: 554
    Maybe it's a good thing Bond died in NTTD for all of us after all. A nice little controversy to tide the fandom over!
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,036
    On a related note, all Bond films are free streaming on Prime (even in 4K) right now in the US.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    They may "officially" begin the search this year but I don't see an announcement or production beginning for several years.

    I don't either. The next one is quite a ways off, it would seem.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    On a related note, all Bond films are free streaming on Prime (even in 4K) right now in the US.

    SP isn’t available. Also for some odd reason DN and SF are only available in HD, with the 4K versions only being available via rent or purchase.
  • ImpertinentGoonImpertinentGoon Everybody needs a hobby.
    Posts: 1,351
    Reporting from March suggested that the FTC is less interested in the Amazon-MGM merger specifically and more investigating Amazon in totality. They could still try to use a lawsuit against this specific deal as a cudgel to try and beat the company with, though.

    I don't know anything about the practicalities of corporate and competition law, but these things usually take a long, long time, don't they? And given that the situation currently is that the companies are merged, there just is a possibility that that will be challenged in the future, I don't think Amazon will just let MGM lay fallow for all that time.

    The more obvious reason - to me - for Bond #26 still being quite a ways away is the already discussed departure of Abdy and De Luca, which means they need to put in a whole new leadership structure at MGM. And I am still convinced Michael G Wilson will step down before the next project starts, so EON will have to figure out their leadership as well..
  • VenutiusVenutius Yorkshire
    Posts: 3,157
    Given the transition, I was wondering if MGW would actually stay on longer than intended, just to help steady the ship through a turbulent period, etc.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,600
  • edited June 2022 Posts: 4,410
    You joke, but.......

    I'm probably one of the few people here not adverse to spin-offs. Regardless of Barbara's intentions, I think we can all agree that conversations have been going on behind the scenes at Amazon. Eon believe in the purity of the brand (there was an recent interview where Cary Fukunaga talked about how EON get loads of offers and were even once pitched a Lego 007 film). I broadly agree with Eon's approach. The Bond franchise is not well suited to a Marvel-style 'cinematic universe'.

    Though part of me got excited when I heard about Barry Jenkins pitching a Moneypenny spin-off with Naomie Harris. That would have been something I really would have wanted to see. If Eon do get pitched a cool project with an interesting director, then they should make that film! For example, the recent Joker film with Todd Phillips was considered a risky spin-off which had a unique take. Just imagine if they enticed someone like Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino to direct a period-set Blofeld origin film? Something like Brady Corbet's Childhood of a Leader (but with Blofeld)! That would be terrific, espeically if they got Timothee Chalamet to play the young Blofeld 😍😍😍 You could make a seriously prestige film with such a package. I wouldn't even mind if they bought back Michelle Yeoh or Halle Berry for the long mooted Wai Lin or Jinx spin-off.

    TFrM3oc.png
  • Agent_Zero_OneAgent_Zero_One Ireland
    Posts: 554
    You joke, but.......

    I'm probably one of the few people here not adverse to spin-offs. Regardless of Barbara's intentions, I think we can all agree that conversations have been going on behind the scenes at Amazon. Eon believe in the purity of the brand (there was an recent interview where Cary Fukunaga talked about how EON get loads of offers and were even once pitched a Lego 007 film). I broadly agree with Eon's approach. The Bond franchise is not well suited to a Marvel-style 'cinematic universe'.

    Though part of me got excited when I heard about Barry Jenkins pitching a Moneypenny spin-off with Naomie Harris. That would have been something I really would have wanted to see. If Eon do get pitched a cool project with an interesting director, then they should make that film! For example, the recent Joker film with Todd Phillips was considered a risky spin-off which had a unique take. Just imagine if they enticed someone like Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino to direct a period-set Blofeld origin film? Something like Brady Corbet's Childhood of a Leader (but with Blofeld)! That would be terrific, espeically if they got Timothee Chalamet to play the young Blofeld 😍😍😍 You could make a seriously prestige film with such a package. I wouldn't even mind if they bought back Michelle Yeoh or Halle Berry for the long mooted Wai Lin or Jinx spin-off.

    TFrM3oc.png
    You gotta let Chalamet go man, I'm starting to worry about you...
  • Posts: 1,650
    T Chalamet ? For what ? Filming the Young Bond novels ?
  • edited August 2022 Posts: 3,164
    https://deadline.com/2022/08/warner-bros-mgm-international-distribution-deal-james-bond-007-1235091889/
    Universal will release Bond 26 (apparently part of the original deal for NTTD included 26) and WB takes over for 27 on.

    So far by all accounts, MGM and Amazon Studios will be mostly separate entities. Some MGM films they don't feel will perform well theatrically may go over to the Amazon side with limited cinema releases followed by streaming (eg Thirteen Lives, Samaritan) and I presume vice versa anything Amazon feels might have traditional theatrical potential.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,215
    It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out.

    I’m surprised Universal is doing 26. I could have sworn I read reports that the deal they made with MGM/EON was strictly for NTTD?
  • Posts: 16,223
    I'd assume this deal assures a faster turn around for the next couple of films.
    Hypothetically if 5-6 years were to become the norm between films, then Warner Bros would've signed a deal that doesn't take effect until around the time of the franchise's 70th anniversary.
    B26 in 2026
    B27 in 2032.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,693
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    I'd assume this deal assures a faster turn around for the next couple of films.
    Hypothetically if 5-6 years were to become the norm between films, then Warner Bros would've signed a deal that doesn't take effect until around the time of the franchise's 70th anniversary.
    B26 in 2026
    B27 in 2032.

    Please don’t jinx it. But this may be a sign that EON are along further then we realize.
Sign In or Register to comment.