›

EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

1…242526272830»

Comments

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,493
    bondywondy wrote: »
    Had she actually bothered to get a screenplay done (she had five years to do it) then I'd have some respect for her. But she didn't.

    You disrespect Barbara Broccoli, who helped to keep Bond relevant and successful for almost three decades, because after the exhausting endeavour that was NTTD she didn't "bother" to get a screenplay fast enough? I cannot follow you there, I'm sorry.
  • DEKE_RIVERSDEKE_RIVERS
    Posts: 1,637
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    .
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Does the writer of that piece mean 'vitriolic'? Seems the wrong word there.

    I just listened to this week's Rest Is Entertainment where they talked about the situation, and I took it with a pinch of salt to be honest. The main thrust was that Broccoli (who had supposedly been in charge since 'mid way through the Brosnan films) was too attached to Craig and let Craig lead the decision of killing Bond off and couldn't think of a way out of it, and it sounded like Marina Hyde had more been reading forums than talking to people in the know. There's no 'way out of it' to find: he's just a new version of Bond, same as with the case for so many other characters. It's quite a puzzling conversation.

    What I do buy is that she was in a funk and couldn't think of a new spin on it exciting enough to actually want to make- I can totally buy that after doing your ultimate version of it for the last twenty years that the enthusiasm barrel rather runs dry. It doesn't mean it can't be done, but it probably does need someone else who's excited to make something like, say, GoldenEye again- but these guys have done that and there's not much in the way of creative hunger left if you've been there and done that, especially if you have taken it in a creative direction and had massive success with it. No-one is expecting Chris Nolan to ever make a new Batman film again, with another new spin on it, for example.

    Yes, her enthusiasm had gone. The fact she killed off her intellectual property is the evidence of little to no enthusiasm.

    Consider this....

    I doubt Lucasfilm would kill off Indiana Jones in one film then be motivated to reboot the franchise in the next film.

    I doubt Warner Bros would kill off Harry Potter in one film then be motivated to reboot the franchise in the next film.

    Everything that happened with NTTD is consistent with the outcome in 2025. Craig gone, Bond dead, Eon with no enthusiasm to continue = no development of Bond 26 = Amazon taking over.

    And, of course, her obvious lack of enthusiasm to carry on would have been made stronger when Amazon offered the cash. it's very easy to go from "I'm kinda unsure if I want to carry on" to absolute conviction: "yes, I've had enough, I quit!" when Amazon are offering to pay you a billion dollars to quit. Kinda makes the decision a lot easier.

    I am reminded of the old Nilsson song: "I can't live...if living is without yooooou!" She decided that she could not do another Bond film without Daniel in it. And so his suggestion that the character die in the end made perfect sense to her.

    It actually all seems so sad and understandable, and adds an important para-textual element to the entire Craig era. She was secretly (and maybe not so secretly) in love with him.

    If Barbara Broccoli was a man, absolutely no one would push this ridiculous and toxic narrative. The fact that some Bond fans throw it around with no evidence is disappointing. No one says this about Michael Wilson!

    Barbara clearly has the hots for Daniel, that's well established, and she has said numerous times she can't think of Bond after Daniel. Those are the inconvenient facts. Cubby Broccoli meanwhile, had no problem throwing a Bond out the door if he was a problem. People say this about Barbara and not Michael because she has seemingly had a bit more control than Wilson.

    Cubby took three times (arguably four!) to replace Connery which seems to be the identical "problem" you are saying? Does this mean that Cubby Broccoli had the hots for Connery?

    Don't tell me your this dense.

    You're the one making a sexist claim. Cubby's attachment to one actor is OK but Barbara's is not OK. The only difference is that she is a woman.

    It's because your opinion is ridiculous and factually incorrect. Cubby was most definitely not attached to Sean. Sean only came back for DAF because UA offered him $1m and funding for two movies of his choice. If Cubby was attached to Sean, he would have made him a partner which is one of the reasons he left after YOLT. You're probably the only person on this forum whos ever confidently asserted that CUBBY BROCCOLI had an attachment to Sean. I say this because they famously did not get along for many years.

    My point is by any objective measure they struggled to replace him: Lazenby left after one film, then the guy they cast in "Diamonds are Forever", then Connery came back, then they finally landed on a guy.

    I will not let this get twisted. Saying that "Barbara Broccoli had the hots for Daniel Craig" is on its face sexist. There is no argument that this is not using gender coded language with a negative connotation. This happens all the time with a woman in a powerful position — either she must have slept her way to the top OR she is too emotional for the position. This is unacceptable language and is unbecoming. Grow up.

    The ladies are not going to sleep with you my friend. Don't play at being a white knight with your stupid argument. Look at practically any Barbara Broccoli interview where she's talking about Craig. I don't care how you perceive my and (everybody else who said the exact same thing) straightforward observation. You think a male film producer has never been attracted to a Hollywood starlet? Just quit.

    @Daltonforyou
    Let's not make this ugly, please. It's a well-known fact around here that @BMB007 has a massive penis. The ladies are most eager to sleep with him!

    All joking aside, there's no need for such attacks. You've been with us long enough to know that we're not that kind of forum. And @BMB007 is not "just" going to "quit". We value his opinion as much as yours. Thank you.

    Barbara Broccoli clearly appreciated working with Craig. His dedication and vigor were evident, and critical responses were overwhelmingly positive. She frequently expressed her admiration for Craig. Many filmmakers openly shower praise on their stars or business partners, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything beyond professional admiration. Ultimately, it's also part of effective PR: praising those you collaborate with helps promote your product. Even if Barbara harbored genuine admiration for Craig — which wouldn't be uncommon — it's most likely that their relationship remained strictly professional. Why wouldn't she value an actor who boosted ticket sales, excelled as Bond, and upheld her father's legacy?

    Lastly, if Michael had objected, it likely wouldn’t have happened—he had a say in this as well. Frankly, this feels like an odd debate for fans to have. I've never heard anyone criticize Spielberg’s unshakable bond with Williams or Burton’s with Elfman. But when one is a woman and the other a man, it suddenly becomes easier to spin things in a more frivolous direction. It just feels utterly pointless to go there.

    I think some fans are saying her obvious fondness for Daniel Craig may have been a reason/excuse not to continue the franchise or not to develop Bond 26. That's not the same as a director liking a certain film composer.

    By the way, the studio would have the power to veto a film composer. If the studio didn't want a certain film composer I very much doubt Spielberg and Burton could change their mind.

    Barbara Broccoli is the main producer not a director. Her fondness for Craig may have been to the detriment of the franchise if - I stress if! - her fondness clouded her judgement and made her reluctant to recast the role or develop Bond 26. The evidence supports the claim she was reluctant to recast and develop Bond 26. No development in five years. No script. A draft script could have been written in a few months. The plot - the three act structure all doable during 2020. But Broccoli said there was no script so what was she doing for five years? 🤔

    You phrase it as reluctance, but look at it from their point of view. They've been producing these films since 1989- 36 years (and obviously were working on them before that). They reinvented it twice in that time, the first time was to sort of restore it to its glory days and rework the traditional version of it, which was a massive hit and started a new series running for seven years with four massive hit movies. The second time they got more confident and creative with it, with a proper artistic vision of what it could be. Again: huge hit with the audience, created a new icon (I'm not asking for individual opinions on whether you liked Craig or Brosnan- they objectively went down very well).

    Now, twenty years later, at age 64 and 83 they're staring down the barrel of starting from scratch yet again, starting another run which would ideally last 15 years again. It needs long term creative investment, and they just put everything they had into their ultimate version of Bond, which lasted 15 years. Maybe they haven't got anything left. Doing another slightly trad version would likely not appeal massively as they've been there, done that. Chris Nolan's creative vision for Batman lasted three films, people loved them, he stopped and moved on to something else as he'd said his piece. But these guys are expected to do what he didn't? Working on their fourth, fifth version of the same thing, coming up with a concept for third reinvention- it must be daunting.
    As for the five years, they probably wanted a break, and then the Amazon sale undoubtably has seen an awful lot of to-ing and fro-ing behind closed doors and and willingness to protect this thing their family had built. Same thing happened to her dad, and then when the series finally came back he wasn't involved any longer either.

    It's not about being in love with a hunky actor or however else people want to reductively put it: it's about following up one bold and wildly successful creative vision with another and potentially having nothing left to give.

    Yeah but as cliché as it sounds... "time is money." And five years of zero development Bond 26 is a lot of time wasted? And regardless of the sale of MGM to Amazon, Eon and MGM could have hired writers to work on a Bond 26 screenplay. Broccoli and Wilson could do whatever they want, produce a play or independent film and still get a draft screenplay done. Have the basic idea what to do with Bond 26 determined.

    NTTD's original theatrical release was February 14th 2020. It was released September 30th 2021. That's a seventeen months gap. A screenplay could have been completed within that time period. Barbara Broccoli could have been at the world premiere of NTTD knowing she had a screenplay ready for Bond 26.

    Having a screenplay in 2021 would have given her a far better bargaining position in 2025. Her negotiations with Amazon were from a far weaker position because she had no plan where to take the franchise. Had she got a screenplay done in 2021 or 2022 then in 2025 she had a plan! She can show Amazon her completed screenplay.

    Barbara Broccoli to Amazon:

    "This is it. This is Eon Productions screenplay for Bond 26. The reboot of James Bond. We're open to your feedback but we, as producers retaining creative control, will not change the storyline. We are happy to compromise on other aspects of the screenplay but the story itself is not up for change."

    That could have led to a compromise. But Broccoli went into negotiations without a plan and no screenplay. This was a terrible error of judgement and, to be brutally frank, incompetence. You don't waste five years not developing a coherent screenplay or detailed plan. Amazon knew Eon were negotiating from a weaker position so they probably had zero respect for Broccoli.

    The bottom line is you cannot go into negotiations with a 2 trillion dollars company and have no clear plan. That's amateurish. And she lost. If Barbara Broccoli still loves Bond then she lost. The one billion dollars pay out doesn't justify her clueless lack of a plan, lack of a screenplay.

    Broccoli won the battle to get a huge pay out but she lost control of Bond. I can't respect that. Had she actually bothered to get a screenplay done (she had five years to do it) then I'd have some respect for her. But she didn't.

    3 years without an actor was the kiss of death.

    Cubby at least had Dalton.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited 12:23pm Posts: 483
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    .
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Does the writer of that piece mean 'vitriolic'? Seems the wrong word there.

    I just listened to this week's Rest Is Entertainment where they talked about the situation, and I took it with a pinch of salt to be honest. The main thrust was that Broccoli (who had supposedly been in charge since 'mid way through the Brosnan films) was too attached to Craig and let Craig lead the decision of killing Bond off and couldn't think of a way out of it, and it sounded like Marina Hyde had more been reading forums than talking to people in the know. There's no 'way out of it' to find: he's just a new version of Bond, same as with the case for so many other characters. It's quite a puzzling conversation.

    What I do buy is that she was in a funk and couldn't think of a new spin on it exciting enough to actually want to make- I can totally buy that after doing your ultimate version of it for the last twenty years that the enthusiasm barrel rather runs dry. It doesn't mean it can't be done, but it probably does need someone else who's excited to make something like, say, GoldenEye again- but these guys have done that and there's not much in the way of creative hunger left if you've been there and done that, especially if you have taken it in a creative direction and had massive success with it. No-one is expecting Chris Nolan to ever make a new Batman film again, with another new spin on it, for example.

    Yes, her enthusiasm had gone. The fact she killed off her intellectual property is the evidence of little to no enthusiasm.

    Consider this....

    I doubt Lucasfilm would kill off Indiana Jones in one film then be motivated to reboot the franchise in the next film.

    I doubt Warner Bros would kill off Harry Potter in one film then be motivated to reboot the franchise in the next film.

    Everything that happened with NTTD is consistent with the outcome in 2025. Craig gone, Bond dead, Eon with no enthusiasm to continue = no development of Bond 26 = Amazon taking over.

    And, of course, her obvious lack of enthusiasm to carry on would have been made stronger when Amazon offered the cash. it's very easy to go from "I'm kinda unsure if I want to carry on" to absolute conviction: "yes, I've had enough, I quit!" when Amazon are offering to pay you a billion dollars to quit. Kinda makes the decision a lot easier.

    I am reminded of the old Nilsson song: "I can't live...if living is without yooooou!" She decided that she could not do another Bond film without Daniel in it. And so his suggestion that the character die in the end made perfect sense to her.

    It actually all seems so sad and understandable, and adds an important para-textual element to the entire Craig era. She was secretly (and maybe not so secretly) in love with him.

    If Barbara Broccoli was a man, absolutely no one would push this ridiculous and toxic narrative. The fact that some Bond fans throw it around with no evidence is disappointing. No one says this about Michael Wilson!

    Barbara clearly has the hots for Daniel, that's well established, and she has said numerous times she can't think of Bond after Daniel. Those are the inconvenient facts. Cubby Broccoli meanwhile, had no problem throwing a Bond out the door if he was a problem. People say this about Barbara and not Michael because she has seemingly had a bit more control than Wilson.

    Cubby took three times (arguably four!) to replace Connery which seems to be the identical "problem" you are saying? Does this mean that Cubby Broccoli had the hots for Connery?

    Don't tell me your this dense.

    You're the one making a sexist claim. Cubby's attachment to one actor is OK but Barbara's is not OK. The only difference is that she is a woman.

    It's because your opinion is ridiculous and factually incorrect. Cubby was most definitely not attached to Sean. Sean only came back for DAF because UA offered him $1m and funding for two movies of his choice. If Cubby was attached to Sean, he would have made him a partner which is one of the reasons he left after YOLT. You're probably the only person on this forum whos ever confidently asserted that CUBBY BROCCOLI had an attachment to Sean. I say this because they famously did not get along for many years.

    My point is by any objective measure they struggled to replace him: Lazenby left after one film, then the guy they cast in "Diamonds are Forever", then Connery came back, then they finally landed on a guy.

    I will not let this get twisted. Saying that "Barbara Broccoli had the hots for Daniel Craig" is on its face sexist. There is no argument that this is not using gender coded language with a negative connotation. This happens all the time with a woman in a powerful position — either she must have slept her way to the top OR she is too emotional for the position. This is unacceptable language and is unbecoming. Grow up.

    The ladies are not going to sleep with you my friend. Don't play at being a white knight with your stupid argument. Look at practically any Barbara Broccoli interview where she's talking about Craig. I don't care how you perceive my and (everybody else who said the exact same thing) straightforward observation. You think a male film producer has never been attracted to a Hollywood starlet? Just quit.

    @Daltonforyou
    Let's not make this ugly, please. It's a well-known fact around here that @BMB007 has a massive penis. The ladies are most eager to sleep with him!

    All joking aside, there's no need for such attacks. You've been with us long enough to know that we're not that kind of forum. And @BMB007 is not "just" going to "quit". We value his opinion as much as yours. Thank you.

    Barbara Broccoli clearly appreciated working with Craig. His dedication and vigor were evident, and critical responses were overwhelmingly positive. She frequently expressed her admiration for Craig. Many filmmakers openly shower praise on their stars or business partners, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything beyond professional admiration. Ultimately, it's also part of effective PR: praising those you collaborate with helps promote your product. Even if Barbara harbored genuine admiration for Craig — which wouldn't be uncommon — it's most likely that their relationship remained strictly professional. Why wouldn't she value an actor who boosted ticket sales, excelled as Bond, and upheld her father's legacy?

    Lastly, if Michael had objected, it likely wouldn’t have happened—he had a say in this as well. Frankly, this feels like an odd debate for fans to have. I've never heard anyone criticize Spielberg’s unshakable bond with Williams or Burton’s with Elfman. But when one is a woman and the other a man, it suddenly becomes easier to spin things in a more frivolous direction. It just feels utterly pointless to go there.

    I think some fans are saying her obvious fondness for Daniel Craig may have been a reason/excuse not to continue the franchise or not to develop Bond 26. That's not the same as a director liking a certain film composer.

    By the way, the studio would have the power to veto a film composer. If the studio didn't want a certain film composer I very much doubt Spielberg and Burton could change their mind.

    Barbara Broccoli is the main producer not a director. Her fondness for Craig may have been to the detriment of the franchise if - I stress if! - her fondness clouded her judgement and made her reluctant to recast the role or develop Bond 26. The evidence supports the claim she was reluctant to recast and develop Bond 26. No development in five years. No script. A draft script could have been written in a few months. The plot - the three act structure all doable during 2020. But Broccoli said there was no script so what was she doing for five years? 🤔

    You phrase it as reluctance, but look at it from their point of view. They've been producing these films since 1989- 36 years (and obviously were working on them before that). They reinvented it twice in that time, the first time was to sort of restore it to its glory days and rework the traditional version of it, which was a massive hit and started a new series running for seven years with four massive hit movies. The second time they got more confident and creative with it, with a proper artistic vision of what it could be. Again: huge hit with the audience, created a new icon (I'm not asking for individual opinions on whether you liked Craig or Brosnan- they objectively went down very well).

    Now, twenty years later, at age 64 and 83 they're staring down the barrel of starting from scratch yet again, starting another run which would ideally last 15 years again. It needs long term creative investment, and they just put everything they had into their ultimate version of Bond, which lasted 15 years. Maybe they haven't got anything left. Doing another slightly trad version would likely not appeal massively as they've been there, done that. Chris Nolan's creative vision for Batman lasted three films, people loved them, he stopped and moved on to something else as he'd said his piece. But these guys are expected to do what he didn't? Working on their fourth, fifth version of the same thing, coming up with a concept for third reinvention- it must be daunting.
    As for the five years, they probably wanted a break, and then the Amazon sale undoubtably has seen an awful lot of to-ing and fro-ing behind closed doors and and willingness to protect this thing their family had built. Same thing happened to her dad, and then when the series finally came back he wasn't involved any longer either.

    It's not about being in love with a hunky actor or however else people want to reductively put it: it's about following up one bold and wildly successful creative vision with another and potentially having nothing left to give.

    Yeah but as cliché as it sounds... "time is money." And five years of zero development Bond 26 is a lot of time wasted? And regardless of the sale of MGM to Amazon, Eon and MGM could have hired writers to work on a Bond 26 screenplay. Broccoli and Wilson could do whatever they want, produce a play or independent film and still get a draft screenplay done. Have the basic idea what to do with Bond 26 determined.

    Could they? How do we know that? We don't know what legal issues were potentially bunging up the works, and starting to work on a screenplay isn't a great bargaining chip if you have an issue with your production partner.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    NTTD's original theatrical release was February 14th 2020. It was released September 30th 2021. That's a seventeen months gap. A screenplay could have been completed within that time period. Barbara Broccoli could have been at the world premiere of NTTD knowing she had a screenplay ready for Bond 26.

    This is fantasy stuff, producing a full screenplay for a film which hasn't been greenlit seems massively unlikely to me. And you're ignoring what we seem to be looking at here: they couldn't come up with that plan.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    That could have led to a compromise. But Broccoli went into negotiations without a plan and no screenplay. This was a terrible error of judgement and, to be brutally frank, incompetence.

    Nah, I don't think that someone not doing something you want equals incompetence.
    bondywondy wrote: »
    The bottom line is you cannot go into negotiations with a 2 trillion dollars company and have no clear plan. That's amateurish. And she lost. If Barbara Broccoli still loves Bond then she lost. The one billion dollars pay out doesn't justify her clueless lack of a plan, lack of a screenplay.

    She's not an amateur, 36 years of hit movies proves that, and frankly if they needed more evidence of her expertise then they're the amateurs. Proven track records don't come much bigger: she had nothing to prove.

    Look, you think she's a clueless incompetent, terrible at her job, if all of the hit movies don't point otherwise to that there's not much I can say to convince you, but it's all moot now as she's no longer making them.

    It is amateurish and unprofessional to own the James Bond franchise and go into negotiations with a two trillion dollars valued company and have no plan how to move the franchise forward.

    "No script." That's what Broccoli said in December 2024. So what was her plan?

    Nothing. No clear idea how to make Bond 26/no clear idea how to reboot the franchise.

    It's also unprofessional to kill your IP in the last film. But we've discussed Bond's death a gazillion times so it's a redundant topic, I guess.

    I don't mean to attack her personally but maybe it's time to be brutally honest and not assume she knew what she was doing. If, however, she planned to quit all along then she achieved it. She bailed on Bond and got a big pay out.

    She was very smart or very foolish. Take your pick.

    Getting a billion dollars is not evidence of foolishness so my guess/opinion is she had no intention to make Bond 26 period. It was never going to happen. She was stalling MGM prior to the sale and then stalling Amazon MGM after the sale to get them to agree the highest offer to buy her out.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,335
    Does Kevin Feige have a crush on Robert Downey Jr???
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 12:29pm Posts: 4,674
    None of us truly know anything about what’s happened and never will even when more comes to light in the future about it. We don’t know any of these people and 99.9% of us have no concept of these decisions. We simply can’t know their thought process, insofar as it’s probably not as straightforward as we believe. It’s important to remember that when we play armchair critics and use our time to criticise these people from afar.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,700
    @Pierce2Daniel good detective work mate
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,513
    bondywondy wrote: »
    .
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    Daltonforyou wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondywondy wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Does the writer of that piece mean 'vitriolic'? Seems the wrong word there.

    I just listened to this week's Rest Is Entertainment where they talked about the situation, and I took it with a pinch of salt to be honest. The main thrust was that Broccoli (who had supposedly been in charge since 'mid way through the Brosnan films) was too attached to Craig and let Craig lead the decision of killing Bond off and couldn't think of a way out of it, and it sounded like Marina Hyde had more been reading forums than talking to people in the know. There's no 'way out of it' to find: he's just a new version of Bond, same as with the case for so many other characters. It's quite a puzzling conversation.

    What I do buy is that she was in a funk and couldn't think of a new spin on it exciting enough to actually want to make- I can totally buy that after doing your ultimate version of it for the last twenty years that the enthusiasm barrel rather runs dry. It doesn't mean it can't be done, but it probably does need someone else who's excited to make something like, say, GoldenEye again- but these guys have done that and there's not much in the way of creative hunger left if you've been there and done that, especially if you have taken it in a creative direction and had massive success with it. No-one is expecting Chris Nolan to ever make a new Batman film again, with another new spin on it, for example.

    Yes, her enthusiasm had gone. The fact she killed off her intellectual property is the evidence of little to no enthusiasm.

    Consider this....

    I doubt Lucasfilm would kill off Indiana Jones in one film then be motivated to reboot the franchise in the next film.

    I doubt Warner Bros would kill off Harry Potter in one film then be motivated to reboot the franchise in the next film.

    Everything that happened with NTTD is consistent with the outcome in 2025. Craig gone, Bond dead, Eon with no enthusiasm to continue = no development of Bond 26 = Amazon taking over.

    And, of course, her obvious lack of enthusiasm to carry on would have been made stronger when Amazon offered the cash. it's very easy to go from "I'm kinda unsure if I want to carry on" to absolute conviction: "yes, I've had enough, I quit!" when Amazon are offering to pay you a billion dollars to quit. Kinda makes the decision a lot easier.

    I am reminded of the old Nilsson song: "I can't live...if living is without yooooou!" She decided that she could not do another Bond film without Daniel in it. And so his suggestion that the character die in the end made perfect sense to her.

    It actually all seems so sad and understandable, and adds an important para-textual element to the entire Craig era. She was secretly (and maybe not so secretly) in love with him.

    If Barbara Broccoli was a man, absolutely no one would push this ridiculous and toxic narrative. The fact that some Bond fans throw it around with no evidence is disappointing. No one says this about Michael Wilson!

    Barbara clearly has the hots for Daniel, that's well established, and she has said numerous times she can't think of Bond after Daniel. Those are the inconvenient facts. Cubby Broccoli meanwhile, had no problem throwing a Bond out the door if he was a problem. People say this about Barbara and not Michael because she has seemingly had a bit more control than Wilson.

    Cubby took three times (arguably four!) to replace Connery which seems to be the identical "problem" you are saying? Does this mean that Cubby Broccoli had the hots for Connery?

    Don't tell me your this dense.

    You're the one making a sexist claim. Cubby's attachment to one actor is OK but Barbara's is not OK. The only difference is that she is a woman.

    It's because your opinion is ridiculous and factually incorrect. Cubby was most definitely not attached to Sean. Sean only came back for DAF because UA offered him $1m and funding for two movies of his choice. If Cubby was attached to Sean, he would have made him a partner which is one of the reasons he left after YOLT. You're probably the only person on this forum whos ever confidently asserted that CUBBY BROCCOLI had an attachment to Sean. I say this because they famously did not get along for many years.

    My point is by any objective measure they struggled to replace him: Lazenby left after one film, then the guy they cast in "Diamonds are Forever", then Connery came back, then they finally landed on a guy.

    I will not let this get twisted. Saying that "Barbara Broccoli had the hots for Daniel Craig" is on its face sexist. There is no argument that this is not using gender coded language with a negative connotation. This happens all the time with a woman in a powerful position — either she must have slept her way to the top OR she is too emotional for the position. This is unacceptable language and is unbecoming. Grow up.

    The ladies are not going to sleep with you my friend. Don't play at being a white knight with your stupid argument. Look at practically any Barbara Broccoli interview where she's talking about Craig. I don't care how you perceive my and (everybody else who said the exact same thing) straightforward observation. You think a male film producer has never been attracted to a Hollywood starlet? Just quit.

    @Daltonforyou
    Let's not make this ugly, please. It's a well-known fact around here that @BMB007 has a massive penis. The ladies are most eager to sleep with him!

    All joking aside, there's no need for such attacks. You've been with us long enough to know that we're not that kind of forum. And @BMB007 is not "just" going to "quit". We value his opinion as much as yours. Thank you.

    Barbara Broccoli clearly appreciated working with Craig. His dedication and vigor were evident, and critical responses were overwhelmingly positive. She frequently expressed her admiration for Craig. Many filmmakers openly shower praise on their stars or business partners, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything beyond professional admiration. Ultimately, it's also part of effective PR: praising those you collaborate with helps promote your product. Even if Barbara harbored genuine admiration for Craig — which wouldn't be uncommon — it's most likely that their relationship remained strictly professional. Why wouldn't she value an actor who boosted ticket sales, excelled as Bond, and upheld her father's legacy?

    Lastly, if Michael had objected, it likely wouldn’t have happened—he had a say in this as well. Frankly, this feels like an odd debate for fans to have. I've never heard anyone criticize Spielberg’s unshakable bond with Williams or Burton’s with Elfman. But when one is a woman and the other a man, it suddenly becomes easier to spin things in a more frivolous direction. It just feels utterly pointless to go there.

    I think some fans are saying her obvious fondness for Daniel Craig may have been a reason/excuse not to continue the franchise or not to develop Bond 26. That's not the same as a director liking a certain film composer.

    By the way, the studio would have the power to veto a film composer. If the studio didn't want a certain film composer I very much doubt Spielberg and Burton could change their mind.

    Barbara Broccoli is the main producer not a director so her decisions are final. Her fondness for Craig may have been to the detriment of the franchise if - I stress if! - her fondness clouded her judgement and made her reluctant to recast the role or develop Bond 26. The evidence supports the claim she was reluctant to recast and develop Bond 26. No development in five years. No script. A draft script could have been written in a few months. The plot - the three act structure all doable during 2020. Covid-19 would have no bearing on the development of a screenplay because the screenwriters could write Bond 26 during the lockdowns. But Broccoli said there was no script so what was she doing for five years? 🤔

    This evidence glosses over Covid--for a while, everyone wasn't sure if they would live or die--and the behind-the-scenes corporate struggle between Eon and Amazon which we discovered only a month ago was much worse than we all thought.

    It is not that different than the Eon/MGM fights of the '80s and '90s...just with an arguably much worse outcome this time.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 2,065
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    I think with Michael retiring, the stuff with Amazon, and her wanting to do other projects that she just lost interest in Bond.

    Or had nothing left.

    That too.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 2,065
    Maybe one day Barbara and Michael will write a book about their time as Bond producers and maybe we’ll know the truth about why in the end they really decide to sell other than money.
  • LucknFateLucknFate 007 In New York
    Posts: 1,716
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    Maybe one day Barbara and Michael will write a book about their time as Bond producers and maybe we’ll know the truth about why in the end they really decide to sell other than money.

    Yeah, they need time to come up with a story for why it's not just money.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited 1:50pm Posts: 6,513
    Eon was always going to make money from Bond, whether they had control or not.

    I think this was about leverage, corporate leverage, and ultimately Eon couldn't outlast Amazon and its trillions.

    I am surprised as anyone that Eon seemingly caved but look at the numbers:

    Amazon is worth $2.24 trillion, and even if you estimate Eon was worth $1 billion before the sale (Eon is privately held, so no one knows), that means Amazon was worth 2240 times Eon going into the negotiation.

    Eon didn't stand a chance against Amazon. You try holding out against someone with 2000 times your net worth.

    If Eon spent 1% on lawyers in a year, that's $10 million. If Amazon spent 1% on lawyers in a year, that's $20 billion.

    No chance.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,683
    Will Bond 26 release before or after Batman part 2? :-?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,100
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Will Bond 26 release before or after Batman part 2? :-?

    At this rate, either is possible. I just read yesterday Part II still doesn't have a script ready, but part of me is thinking they're waiting to see how Superman does in theaters before continuing with more of Pattinson's Batman.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    edited 3:24pm Posts: 4,674
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Mendes4Lyfe wrote: »
    Will Bond 26 release before or after Batman part 2? :-?

    At this rate, either is possible. I just read yesterday Part II still doesn't have a script ready, but part of me is thinking they're waiting to see how Superman does in theaters before continuing with more of Pattinson's Batman.

    I know they’re not bringing that version into the official DC films. Personally I’m much more interested in part 2 than I am Superman or a new DC Batman. It’d be a shame if they felt they couldn’t have two Batman versions and leave it at part 2 (if it did happen it’d be a stark warning for Bond/a good lesson not to indulge in multiple Bond versions such as a faithful Fleming adaptation series alongside the official films). That said I’m pretty sure their plan’s always been for 3.

    I’m not sure if Bond would want to go head to head with Batman but I could be wrong too. But it’d just be a case of coming up with an alternate month for the release if it’s a 2027 one (who knows, maybe they’ll do a summer release under Amazon). I don’t think it’s unlikely it’d be 2028 in practice either though considering they seem to be starting from square 1.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    Posts: 4,659
    Pattison's Batman film rivals TDK and blows any of the 90s Batmans out of the water.

    On another note. We all know that the word "content" was thrown around months ago when the discussions between EON and Amazon.

    Based on your own personal gut feelings, do you think that Amazon will create a bunch of spin-off shows that rival what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars?
  • MalloryMallory
    Posts: 2,197
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Pattison's Batman film rivals TDK and blows any of the 90s Batmans out of the water.

    On another note. We all know that the word "content" was thrown around months ago when the discussions between EON and Amazon.

    Based on your own personal gut feelings, do you think that Amazon will create a bunch of spin-off shows that rival what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars?

    Yes (sadly), but not immediately.

    In terms on fiction/narrative stuff they need a film (and a bloody good one) to build this all off.

    So we will likely get a film first.

    I can see them doing more documentaries etc to fill the gap, a bit like the specials you would get on TV.
  • 007HallY007HallY
    Posts: 4,674
    Mallory wrote: »
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Pattison's Batman film rivals TDK and blows any of the 90s Batmans out of the water.

    On another note. We all know that the word "content" was thrown around months ago when the discussions between EON and Amazon.

    Based on your own personal gut feelings, do you think that Amazon will create a bunch of spin-off shows that rival what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars?

    Yes (sadly), but not immediately.

    In terms on fiction/narrative stuff they need a film (and a bloody good one) to build this all off.

    So we will likely get a film first.

    I can see them doing more documentaries etc to fill the gap, a bit like the specials you would get on TV.

    I’d be happy if we got things like that personally. Depends on what they cover ultimately though.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited 4:03pm Posts: 17,192
    Mallory wrote: »
    Last_Rat_Standing wrote: »
    Pattison's Batman film rivals TDK and blows any of the 90s Batmans out of the water.

    On another note. We all know that the word "content" was thrown around months ago when the discussions between EON and Amazon.

    Based on your own personal gut feelings, do you think that Amazon will create a bunch of spin-off shows that rival what Disney is doing with Marvel and Star Wars?

    Yes (sadly), but not immediately.

    In terms on fiction/narrative stuff they need a film (and a bloody good one) to build this all off.

    So we will likely get a film first.

    I can see them doing more documentaries etc to fill the gap, a bit like the specials you would get on TV.

    Yeah I think you're right: the first TV stuff we get won't be an expensive drama but some kind of documentary or hosted programme. I could imagine a travel or lifestyle show where they take someone like, say, Naomie Harris to some super exclusive five star hotels around the world and have her drive nice Aston Martins, something like that.
  • bondywondybondywondy Uk
    edited 5:43pm Posts: 483
    From this week:
    For the first time ever, Amazon has passed Walmart in quarterly revenue, unseating Walmart from the top spot it’s held for over a decade.

    Amazon reported quarterly revenue of $187.8 billion earlier this month, while Walmart reported its own earnings Thursday afternoon, posting a top line of $180.5 billion

    Walmart is currently ranked the richest company in the world based on consolidated revenue. Source: Fortune Global 500 list Fortune Magazine.

    With Amazon making more money than Walmart, Amazon may replace Walmart as the richest company in the whole wide world!

    "Global domination, Mr Bond. And neither you nor Barbara Broccoli can stop me."

    BgG42VE.jpeg

    ;))
Sign In or Register to comment.