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
For any studio with a major library, keeping your catalog as exclusive to your streaming service ultimately hurts the revenues. There's ultimately more money to be made by licensing a show or a film to an outside streaming service than by keeping it forever for yourself to get more subscribers. For instance, WarnerMedia decided to kill the deal with Netflix over Friends, so they could offer it instead on HBO Max. It was a corporate move, but every simulation they had done over this was that there was no financial sense in doing this.
Similarly, when Chapek decided to basically kill the theatrical run for Black Widow (not that it was a great film to begin with) and to make three Pixar titles in a row Disney+ exclusives, he got the talents very dissatisfied, as it was basically a vote of non-confidence on them with the excuse of the pandemic. And it didn't prevent the number of subscribers from plateauing.
So, unless the executives at the new MGM have an obligation to tie everything to Prime Video, they don't have any incentive to suddenly offer their tentpole offerings as exclusives. For Bond, Amazon may be able to offer some extra stuff like the recent documentary and concert or the forthcoming reality show, but if they try for instance too hard to use to make Bond 26 an incentive to subscribe to Amazon Prime, it will dissuade TV networks and other streaming/VOD services from licensing it, hurting the revenue in a major way.
The content offering def has not matched the winner takes all strategy, streamers are very often grasping at straws with new productions and have extremely limited libraries of old quality content, so licensing is a must. They must realise they are not competing in-between themselves but with content creators on social media at some point.
Would Amazon/EON make more money licensing the next film knowing full well that the complete collection on Prime Video service will be well sought after around that time or would they make more money licensing the old films but keeping the new one exclusive and/or TVOD?
https://deadline.com/2022/11/amazon-studios-jennifer-salke-mgm-oversight-chris-brearton-mgm-plus-1235184502/
She is said to have a good relationship with BB and MGW.
I know I wasn't.
I do love me some stranger things
You know what, I just read the premise and I'll have to give it a watch
Good, because Stranger Things is so grossly overrated. It’s basically just an 80s lovefest with no depth.
You better stop before you say something you're gonna regret 😄
Apologies to Billy Ray Cyrus, but.... no.
And that even if they made a comeback, today he would opt out of a "skullet".
Knocking a snake out cold with one blow to the head earns you mullet for life.
Skullet, though - who'da thunk things could actually get any worse, man?! :-O
Just watching Hard Target, makes me want to grow a wet look mullet and punch a Rattler. Unfortunately, I don't have enough hair for a mullet.
That scene always makes me want to crawl into the fetal position. If it bit that goon on the leg, that's one thing. But it goes straight for his face. Right on the cheek. Oooff.
HappythoughtsHappythoughtsHappythoughtsHappythoughts
An important piece in the future of 007 is now in place.
Because the children that were brought up on those films and grew fond of them have a much louder voice now that they’re adults. Back in the 2000s, the prequels were mainly bashed by old school fans that were brought up on the OT and had their own preconceived notions of what the prequels would be like.
Now we see those that both grew up with the OT and PT, who undoubtedly had their own preconceived notions of how the sequels should play out. Especially by those who were brought up on the EU novels (which were never canon, and would have been wiped by Lucas himself had he don’t the sequel trilogy). But I guarantee that the kids that were brought up on the sequels will have a larger voice within ten years, and you’ll start to see articles like “why the sequels are actually good”. It’s all a matter of perspective. I’m sure that by the 2030s we’ll see fans of all trilogies united, sharing their disdain for whatever the next set of films are.
A long article, mainly focused on Hollywood studio exec tittle tattle.
It also tells us that stuff is (or was until recently) seriously up in the air at MGM. So while BB seems like a very engaged powerplayer not interested in taking the knee before the all-powerful Bezos, they might have had to hold off on a lot of development because they simply didn't have anyone at MGM who they could work with.
It shows that if she’s going to continue work on Bond, it better be under circumstances that helps production rather than be a hinderance.
Maybe that's the better way to put it.
Fair enough. I think with Amazon, they’ll want a more set schedule. Barbara’s going to have to put her award movies aside and takeover Bond. At this point, it seems like Purvis and Wade are going to takeover, “shudders.”
I got news a few weeks ago that something big was going down.
And I am now wondering if this is it:
I knew about the proposal of the TV show-- I think I may've posted on this site about BB not being happy about this and she's not interested in discussing stretching the IP into a small screen series.
That was the last I heard about this, until this article. And I assumed that this one misstep was Amazon's only misstep...
But this article is possibly putting the text I received into more clear waters:
Amazon fired/let-go of the two MGM execs that EoN enjoyed working with prior. Fine, that's their right as the new owners of MGM.
BUT, if Ms. Broccoli submitted her desire for an experienced executive to work with, and THIS is the person Amazon have given her (a person, if you read the article, that had muddled through much of her position, and has not a lot of experience putting films together, AND she brought up the TV idea AGAIN...), then, yes, I see this as a very big deal.
IF this is the case, I could see BB using her IP as leverage to get a new executive in charge of MGM who will work on ushering in the new Bond era.
I could see EoN telling all who are at HQ to go home til this is resolved.
Remember, Amazon can't fire Broccoli or Wilson.
They need this duo more than this duo needs Amazon's $$$. They can afford to wait this out.
Amazon may have more money than God-- as the article stated-- but they've got very weak management. Very weak.
I was told something big was happening (and not in a "good way"), and that certain other things going on in film business was low priority at the moment... I couldn't figure out what could be so "ground-shaking"... But a mutiny and a boardroom war, theoretically, could be what is being played out behind closed doors.
And it would be well within EoN's right to hold Amazon's feet to the fire on this one; theyre About to usher in a new era, and they can't have some novice at the helm of some BIGGGGG decisions that are on the table!!
It's interesting this article says "Salke put her foot wrong with Broccoli", as other articles about the Amazon/MGM merger have stated Salke/Broccoli are believed to have a good working relationship.
Was 'Road to A Million' a compromise, or did Salke want another TV project in addition to it?