EoN sells up - Amazon MGM to produce 007 going forwards

13031333536

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,359
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    They lost the battle but not the war.

    My point is they lost the battle for Dalton.

    And my point is that they made GoldenEye and not a TV series.

    Then you’re doing a pretty terrible job at trying to make your point across, because you never even brought up a TV series in this conversation.

    Besides, they did make a TV series between LTK and GE.
  • Posts: 2,087
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If you think about it, had Daniel Craig left the role after Spectre and EON got somebody else locked in to play Bond for Bond 25 and beyond, they probably would have been in a better position against Amazon. But like its been discussed before, Barbara loved Craig too much and just couldn’t let him go. Can’t blame her because Craig made the franchise a lot of money with his movies and that she ended up being right in the end that Craig was a great Bond and that her gut choice was right

    It wasn't about not wanting to let him go and 'loving him too much', it's that you have a star who's proven to be really successful and is great in the role, if he will make another film with you why wouldn't you?
    You could say Kevin Feige couldn't let Downey Jr go before Endgame, but why would he have done that?

    Would you phrase it that Feige loved Downey too much? Or was he just an actor the audience loved in a role? Did Cubby love Connery too much?
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    I agree if you have a star and he wants to do one more film you do it. Craig doing No Time To Die was the right thing to do. I’m just saying long-term with killing off the character, not having a plan afterwards, not having another actor locked in after Craig. It hurt EONs negotiations with Amazon in the long run.


    I’m saying it would’ve been easier for EONs play against Amazon had a new actor been locked in already in a film under his belt proven he could be successful
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If you think about it, had Daniel Craig left the role after Spectre and EON got somebody else locked in to play Bond for Bond 25 and beyond, they probably would have been in a better position against Amazon. But like its been discussed before, Barbara loved Craig too much and just couldn’t let him go. Can’t blame her because Craig made the franchise a lot of money with his movies and that she ended up being right in the end that Craig was a great Bond and that her gut choice was right

    It wasn't about not wanting to let him go and 'loving him too much', it's that you have a star who's proven to be really successful and is great in the role, if he will make another film with you why wouldn't you?
    You could say Kevin Feige couldn't let Downey Jr go before Endgame, but why would he have done that?

    Would you phrase it that Feige loved Downey too much? Or was he just an actor the audience loved in a role? Did Cubby love Connery too much?
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    I agree if you have a star and he wants to do one more film you do it. Craig doing No Time To Die was the right thing to do. I’m just saying long-term with killing off the character, not having a plan afterwards, not having another actor locked in after Craig. It hurt EONs negotiations with Amazon in the long run.


    I’m saying it would’ve been easier for EONs play against Amazon had a new actor been locked in already in a film under his belt proven he could be successful

    It depends what they were trying to negotiate.

    They had creative control of the character, they didn't have to give that up unless they wanted to. Having a plan they were excited about wouldn't have been something to use in negotiations, it would have been a reason to win negotiations.

    Yeah it would of been easier for them to win negotiations with Amazon
  • Posts: 2,087
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    So is Dalton a liar then we he has said he walked away because he didnt want to commit to more than 1 movie?
  • edited February 27 Posts: 4,699
    Personally it seems unlikely to me that NTTD’s ending had anything directly to do with this. Beyond maybe something more intangible (ie. They knew it’d be the last film of Craig and probably Wilson - an end of an era vibe I guess), and honestly even that’s only with hindsight and likely nothing connected with any long term business decision this specific. At least not beyond wiping the slate clean for future instalments. I mean, Amazon bought MGM in 2022, right? That’s a year after NTTD was released and even longer after they came up with the idea. That’s an awful long period of time between then and the current deal (they seemingly began writing early drafts of NTTD in March 2017! I know deals take time like the one with Amazon, but 8 years knowing a big business decision in advance and crafting the ending to accommodate this, before Amazon had even acquired MGM, to me is drifting into an implausibility. Not impossible, but unlikely to have occurred in the way many are claiming). Rarely are things like this neatly pre-planned in that manner. People can get conflicted, change their minds etc.

    Ultimately none of us know, but I don’t see any evidence for it at the current time. As humans we like to seek narratives, but often situations like this in history and film are much less simple than we like to see in hindsight.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,359
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    So is Dalton a liar then we he has said he walked away because he didnt want to commit to more than 1 movie?

    No, I’m sure even if he did end up doing GE he wouldn’t have wanted to do more beyond that. But the whole thing of Dalton “deciding” to leave the part was part of the publicity machine in order to make it not look like MGM fired him, even though his contract was expired. It was all about optics and Dalton was playing to that as well.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 27 Posts: 17,234
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    They had JAMES BOND 007!!
    CrabKey wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The more news that comes out over this, the more I think Barbara went into NTTD knowing it'd be her last one, especially with Craig and Wilson retiring. She knew she'd be selling the franchise afterwards, so she went along with Craig's decision to kill him off as a way to separate her version of the character from whatever would come after. I don't think she had any intention of making Bond 26.

    Of course none of us know with any certainty, but this idea seems plausible. The death of Bond was planned long before the completion of filming.

    It would be a weird thing to shoot without planning to :D
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If you think about it, had Daniel Craig left the role after Spectre and EON got somebody else locked in to play Bond for Bond 25 and beyond, they probably would have been in a better position against Amazon. But like its been discussed before, Barbara loved Craig too much and just couldn’t let him go. Can’t blame her because Craig made the franchise a lot of money with his movies and that she ended up being right in the end that Craig was a great Bond and that her gut choice was right

    It wasn't about not wanting to let him go and 'loving him too much', it's that you have a star who's proven to be really successful and is great in the role, if he will make another film with you why wouldn't you?
    You could say Kevin Feige couldn't let Downey Jr go before Endgame, but why would he have done that?

    Would you phrase it that Feige loved Downey too much? Or was he just an actor the audience loved in a role? Did Cubby love Connery too much?
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    I agree if you have a star and he wants to do one more film you do it. Craig doing No Time To Die was the right thing to do. I’m just saying long-term with killing off the character, not having a plan afterwards, not having another actor locked in after Craig. It hurt EONs negotiations with Amazon in the long run.


    I’m saying it would’ve been easier for EONs play against Amazon had a new actor been locked in already in a film under his belt proven he could be successful
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If you think about it, had Daniel Craig left the role after Spectre and EON got somebody else locked in to play Bond for Bond 25 and beyond, they probably would have been in a better position against Amazon. But like its been discussed before, Barbara loved Craig too much and just couldn’t let him go. Can’t blame her because Craig made the franchise a lot of money with his movies and that she ended up being right in the end that Craig was a great Bond and that her gut choice was right

    It wasn't about not wanting to let him go and 'loving him too much', it's that you have a star who's proven to be really successful and is great in the role, if he will make another film with you why wouldn't you?
    You could say Kevin Feige couldn't let Downey Jr go before Endgame, but why would he have done that?

    Would you phrase it that Feige loved Downey too much? Or was he just an actor the audience loved in a role? Did Cubby love Connery too much?
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    I agree if you have a star and he wants to do one more film you do it. Craig doing No Time To Die was the right thing to do. I’m just saying long-term with killing off the character, not having a plan afterwards, not having another actor locked in after Craig. It hurt EONs negotiations with Amazon in the long run.


    I’m saying it would’ve been easier for EONs play against Amazon had a new actor been locked in already in a film under his belt proven he could be successful

    It depends what they were trying to negotiate.

    They had creative control of the character, they didn't have to give that up unless they wanted to. Having a plan they were excited about wouldn't have been something to use in negotiations, it would have been a reason to win negotiations.

    Yeah it would of been easier for them to win negotiations with Amazon

    Are you saying they lost negotiations? That they were somehow forced to give it up?
    There's no reason to think that anything other than what the Broccolis wanted happened here. They haven't been forced out: there's nothing to say this was anything other than an offer they relented to, because Amazon had no power to force them out- they both had equal hands in 007.

    The only power I can see Amazon possibly had was that they would prevent Eon from making any more Bond films in the future because they both had to agree on it. A power which Eon also had over them.
  • edited February 27 Posts: 1,657
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    They lost the battle but not the war.

    My point is they lost the battle for Dalton.

    And my point is that they made GoldenEye and not a TV series.

    Then you’re doing a pretty terrible job at trying to make your point across, because you never even brought up a TV series in this conversation.

    Besides, they did make a TV series between LTK and GE.

    It's an example, nothing more. They didn't make a female James Bond movie with Sharon Stone either.

    They made the movie, they didn't have to sell the rights or anything like that. They won the war.

    ;)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 17,234
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    They lost the battle but not the war.

    My point is they lost the battle for Dalton.

    And my point is that they made GoldenEye and not a TV series.

    Then you’re doing a pretty terrible job at trying to make your point across, because you never even brought up a TV series in this conversation.

    Besides, they did make a TV series between LTK and GE.

    It's an example, nothing more. They didn't make a female James Bond movie with Sharon Stone either.

    They made the movie, they didn't have to sell the rights or anything like that. They won the war.

    ;)

    Deke, just disagreeing with every statement isn't the same thing as a coherent argument. I have no idea what your point is.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 27 Posts: 4,626
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 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.

    Where did I say it wasn't OK? And where did I imply that?

    I have read a lot from Barbara in regards to Craig, and I have listened to her. She was very, very attracted to him. She all but admitted it. And she showers him with affection in Being James Bond.

    But in no way have I stated this is a bad thing or inappropriate. If anything, I feel empathy for her. Heck, nobody on this site has more of a man crush on Craig than I do! LOL. When she said that he is a charismatic man, whom you can't take your eyes off, she's right! I saw Craig leave a theater stage door back in 2013...I was three feet from him. Yes, he just exudes that charisma. As she says, "He's lit from within."

    Are you sexually attracted to him? I don’t know your persuasion.
    Because it’s perfectly possible to say all of those things and not be attracted to him. I think he’s extremely striking and handsome, but I’m a hetero male and I don’t physically lust after him. That she and Wilson were aware of how attractive he is doesn’t mean they wanted to have sex with him or that they were making decisions based on lust as some have suggested, it just makes them good producers as the role is supposed to be played by an attractive guy. Did they also talk up how charismatic and sexy this man is who is playing the role of a famously sexy superspy in their movies? Sure, that’s promotion, being a producer.

    Cubby Broccoli had several tight and quite acrimonious business deals with Roger Moore where they battled over money, but come time to promote the new movie you didn’t see Broccoli lavishing anything but praise on him, it was his job.

    I am 100%* hetero, married for 20 years. I am also secure enough in my masculinity to admit when someone else's masculinity (manners, style, gestures) is totally alluring. It's not necessarily a sexual thing. But that's why I can see why Barbara was so taken by him. (BTW: Isn't that the appeal to Bond, in general? I never went for the big action hero--Rambo or Superman or Batman. They're fine. But Bond was different--more suave, sophisticated, interesting, about the Martini and the tux as much as the guns.)

    * ok, maybe 99.99% LOL
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 27 Posts: 17,234
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 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.

    Where did I say it wasn't OK? And where did I imply that?

    I have read a lot from Barbara in regards to Craig, and I have listened to her. She was very, very attracted to him. She all but admitted it. And she showers him with affection in Being James Bond.

    But in no way have I stated this is a bad thing or inappropriate. If anything, I feel empathy for her. Heck, nobody on this site has more of a man crush on Craig than I do! LOL. When she said that he is a charismatic man, whom you can't take your eyes off, she's right! I saw Craig leave a theater stage door back in 2013...I was three feet from him. Yes, he just exudes that charisma. As she says, "He's lit from within."

    Are you sexually attracted to him? I don’t know your persuasion.
    Because it’s perfectly possible to say all of those things and not be attracted to him. I think he’s extremely striking and handsome, but I’m a hetero male and I don’t physically lust after him. That she and Wilson were aware of how attractive he is doesn’t mean they wanted to have sex with him or that they were making decisions based on lust as some have suggested, it just makes them good producers as the role is supposed to be played by an attractive guy. Did they also talk up how charismatic and sexy this man is who is playing the role of a famously sexy superspy in their movies? Sure, that’s promotion, being a producer.

    Cubby Broccoli had several tight and quite acrimonious business deals with Roger Moore where they battled over money, but come time to promote the new movie you didn’t see Broccoli lavishing anything but praise on him, it was his job.

    I am 100%* hetero, married for 20 years. I am also secure enough in my masculinity to admit when someone else's masculinity (manners, style, gestures) is totally alluring. It's not necessarily a sexual thing. But that's why I can see why Barbara was so taken by him.

    * ok, maybe 99.99% LOL

    I can see he's attractive and a sexy guy, but I'm asking if, because you can see those things too, your objective side is out of the window and you follow him everywhere because he's so dishy and you love him so? Can he ever do anything you'd criticise or a film you'd not bother watching him in?
    Because all this stuff about Broccoli 'loving' him basically comes with the implicit suggestion that she was never thinking with her head and just did whatever he wanted because of his beautiful baby blues, and that's quite insulting.
  • edited February 27 Posts: 1,657
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    They lost the battle but not the war.

    My point is they lost the battle for Dalton.

    And my point is that they made GoldenEye and not a TV series.

    Then you’re doing a pretty terrible job at trying to make your point across, because you never even brought up a TV series in this conversation.

    Besides, they did make a TV series between LTK and GE.

    It's an example, nothing more. They didn't make a female James Bond movie with Sharon Stone either.

    They made the movie, they didn't have to sell the rights or anything like that. They won the war.

    ;)

    Deke, just disagreeing with every statement isn't the same thing as a coherent argument. I have no idea what your point is.

    Read again. 3 years without a Bond....you are asking for the sharks to eat you.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,359
    Read again. 3 years without a Bond....you are asking for the sharks to eat you.

    ron-burgundy-doesnt-make-sense-reaction-anchorman-j3kb82t1txakhajl.gif
  • Posts: 1,657
    Read again. 3 years without a Bond....you are asking for the sharks to eat you.

    ron-burgundy-doesnt-make-sense-reaction-anchorman-j3kb82t1txakhajl.gif

    You know what doesn't make sense? Not knowing who the new Bond is yet.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,359
    79f9b706-1398-417f-b5de-43256b6f0377_text.gif
  • Posts: 2,087
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    They had JAMES BOND 007!!
    CrabKey wrote: »
    slide_99 wrote: »
    The more news that comes out over this, the more I think Barbara went into NTTD knowing it'd be her last one, especially with Craig and Wilson retiring. She knew she'd be selling the franchise afterwards, so she went along with Craig's decision to kill him off as a way to separate her version of the character from whatever would come after. I don't think she had any intention of making Bond 26.

    Of course none of us know with any certainty, but this idea seems plausible. The death of Bond was planned long before the completion of filming.

    It would be a weird thing to shoot without planning to :D
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If you think about it, had Daniel Craig left the role after Spectre and EON got somebody else locked in to play Bond for Bond 25 and beyond, they probably would have been in a better position against Amazon. But like its been discussed before, Barbara loved Craig too much and just couldn’t let him go. Can’t blame her because Craig made the franchise a lot of money with his movies and that she ended up being right in the end that Craig was a great Bond and that her gut choice was right

    It wasn't about not wanting to let him go and 'loving him too much', it's that you have a star who's proven to be really successful and is great in the role, if he will make another film with you why wouldn't you?
    You could say Kevin Feige couldn't let Downey Jr go before Endgame, but why would he have done that?

    Would you phrase it that Feige loved Downey too much? Or was he just an actor the audience loved in a role? Did Cubby love Connery too much?
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    I agree if you have a star and he wants to do one more film you do it. Craig doing No Time To Die was the right thing to do. I’m just saying long-term with killing off the character, not having a plan afterwards, not having another actor locked in after Craig. It hurt EONs negotiations with Amazon in the long run.


    I’m saying it would’ve been easier for EONs play against Amazon had a new actor been locked in already in a film under his belt proven he could be successful
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    If you think about it, had Daniel Craig left the role after Spectre and EON got somebody else locked in to play Bond for Bond 25 and beyond, they probably would have been in a better position against Amazon. But like its been discussed before, Barbara loved Craig too much and just couldn’t let him go. Can’t blame her because Craig made the franchise a lot of money with his movies and that she ended up being right in the end that Craig was a great Bond and that her gut choice was right

    It wasn't about not wanting to let him go and 'loving him too much', it's that you have a star who's proven to be really successful and is great in the role, if he will make another film with you why wouldn't you?
    You could say Kevin Feige couldn't let Downey Jr go before Endgame, but why would he have done that?

    Would you phrase it that Feige loved Downey too much? Or was he just an actor the audience loved in a role? Did Cubby love Connery too much?
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    I agree if you have a star and he wants to do one more film you do it. Craig doing No Time To Die was the right thing to do. I’m just saying long-term with killing off the character, not having a plan afterwards, not having another actor locked in after Craig. It hurt EONs negotiations with Amazon in the long run.


    I’m saying it would’ve been easier for EONs play against Amazon had a new actor been locked in already in a film under his belt proven he could be successful

    It depends what they were trying to negotiate.

    They had creative control of the character, they didn't have to give that up unless they wanted to. Having a plan they were excited about wouldn't have been something to use in negotiations, it would have been a reason to win negotiations.

    Yeah it would of been easier for them to win negotiations with Amazon

    Are you saying they lost negotiations? That they were somehow forced to give it up?
    There's no reason to think that anything other than what the Broccolis wanted happened here. They haven't been forced out: there's nothing to say this was anything other than an offer they relented to, because Amazon had no power to force them out- they both had equal hands in 007.

    The only power I can see Amazon possibly had was that they would prevent Eon from making any more Bond films in the future because they both had to agree on it. A power which Eon also had over them.

    This is why Babs and Michael need to write a tell all book about what happened. We’re just guessing at this point.
  • DaltonforyouDaltonforyou The Daltonator
    edited February 27 Posts: 629
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    With Dalton they carried a bad hand according to MGM because the last film underperformed and came out five years ago, which back then, was an eternity in Bond world. And I'm not going to stop saying that Barbara Broccoli had an attraction to Daniel Craig. It wasn't the same with Pierce.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 126
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    You don't need an actor to negotiate a movie. If anything, it might have made Amazon less interested in making a movie with an actor chosen by someone else.

  • Posts: 1,657
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    You don't need an actor to negotiate a movie. If anything, it might have made Amazon less interested in making a movie with an actor chosen by someone else.

    Well, now they're so interested that they have control of the franchise.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 27 Posts: 17,234
    The idea they have nothing to offer when they're the people who introduced the last three 007s onscreen, who have produced twelve massive Bond films.
    Also the idea that they were definitely fighting to stay in creative control: we don't know whether they still wanted that by the end.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,359
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    With Dalton they carried a bad hand according to MGM because the last film underperformed and came out five years ago, which back then, was an eternity in Bond world. And I'm not going to stop saying that Barbara Broccoli had an attraction to Daniel Craig. It wasn't the same with Pierce.

    To be fair, it was perfectly understandable to let go of Brosnan.
  • Not from a financial point of view.
  • Posts: 2,087
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    With Dalton they carried a bad hand according to MGM because the last film underperformed and came out five years ago, which back then, was an eternity in Bond world. And I'm not going to stop saying that Barbara Broccoli had an attraction to Daniel Craig. It wasn't the same with Pierce.

    To be fair, it was perfectly understandable to let go of Brosnan.

    Not really. All four of his movies were financially successful, the fans wanted a 5th Brosnan movie, and Pierce would’ve been younger during his fifth movie then Daniel Craig was in No Time To Die
  • edited February 27 Posts: 4,699
    fjdinardo wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    starting negotiations with a Bond who is alive is going to be a good start

    Would have made no difference: it's not like Amazon didn't want Bond and they needed something to persuade them. They wanted Bond desperately.

    +1. Also, let's say EON hired Theo James, or Richard Madden, or ATJ as Bond #7 and they filmed a movie with him, then Amazon bought Bond and decided that the actor didn't have enough star power and attraction to the public. Amazon would probably recast the character; they wouldn't care about "legacy", just focus on making as much money as possible.

    At least they would have something to negotiate with.

    Cubby had Dalton in 90's and he could have made a third movie. That possibility existed.

    When you have nothing you have nothing.

    It didn’t. Dalton was let go because John Calley refused to green light the next Bond film unless they recast, especially if it meant getting Brosnan. Cubby, Barbara and Michael fought very hard for Dalton but they lost that battle.

    With Dalton they carried a bad hand according to MGM because the last film underperformed and came out five years ago, which back then, was an eternity in Bond world. And I'm not going to stop saying that Barbara Broccoli had an attraction to Daniel Craig. It wasn't the same with Pierce.

    To be fair, it was perfectly understandable to let go of Brosnan.

    Not really. All four of his movies were financially successful, the fans wanted a 5th Brosnan movie, and Pierce would’ve been younger during his fifth movie then Daniel Craig was in No Time To Die

    Well, for what it’s worth these things aren’t purely financial but practical, and to be perfectly honest there was even room for financial improvement by the end of Brosnan’s tenure which was linked to the creative direction (it was successful, no doubt, but Bond had been in better positions and was subsequently/even adjusted for inflation).
    mtm wrote: »
    The idea they have nothing to offer when they're the people who introduced the last three 007s onscreen, who have produced twelve massive Bond films.
    Also the idea that they were definitely fighting to stay in creative control: we don't know whether they still wanted that by the end.

    Aye, decisions like the one recently taken by EON aren’t planned to the letter 8-10 years in advance. They’re subject to many things - change in circumstance, how they feel at any given time etc.

    Personally, my gut instinct is I think everyone initially thought EON in some form would take Bond into the new era, even if in the short term. I do not believe BB was committed to selling the creative rights to Bond 8 years before this deal was made, and 4+ years before the circumstances were right for her to do so.
  • edited February 27 Posts: 5
    Pierce wasn't allowed a victory lap in which they fawned over him with praise for years, following a conclusive final entry to his tenure. There was no 'Being James Bond' for the man who successfully relaunched the character for the 90s. He was kicked to the curb without dignity.
  • Posts: 6,786
    Pierce wasn't allowed a victory lap in which they fawned over him with praise for years, following a conclusive final entry to his tenure. There was no 'Being James Bond' for the man who successfully relaunched the character for the 90s. He was kicked to the curb without dignity.

    That...is not untrue. And a crying shame. And even years later, the man self criticizes himself too often for things that were not is fault (lousy scripts, ethos, directors, ...). Even Dalton says he liked what he did with what he was given. Pierce can't even say that. He really was kicked to the curb, anyone who lived through those days knows that. It was an ugly affair, undeserved.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,705
    I watched the Sound of 007 documentary last night, it feels weird watching it now after the Amazon deal. It feels less like a celebration of the series and more of commemoration of the series.
    It's as if they knew it was coming to an end

    It makes more sense why they spent so much time covering Hans Zimmer's excellent Final Ascent track on NTTD
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited February 27 Posts: 4,626
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 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.

    Where did I say it wasn't OK? And where did I imply that?

    I have read a lot from Barbara in regards to Craig, and I have listened to her. She was very, very attracted to him. She all but admitted it. And she showers him with affection in Being James Bond.

    But in no way have I stated this is a bad thing or inappropriate. If anything, I feel empathy for her. Heck, nobody on this site has more of a man crush on Craig than I do! LOL. When she said that he is a charismatic man, whom you can't take your eyes off, she's right! I saw Craig leave a theater stage door back in 2013...I was three feet from him. Yes, he just exudes that charisma. As she says, "He's lit from within."

    Are you sexually attracted to him? I don’t know your persuasion.
    Because it’s perfectly possible to say all of those things and not be attracted to him. I think he’s extremely striking and handsome, but I’m a hetero male and I don’t physically lust after him. That she and Wilson were aware of how attractive he is doesn’t mean they wanted to have sex with him or that they were making decisions based on lust as some have suggested, it just makes them good producers as the role is supposed to be played by an attractive guy. Did they also talk up how charismatic and sexy this man is who is playing the role of a famously sexy superspy in their movies? Sure, that’s promotion, being a producer.

    Cubby Broccoli had several tight and quite acrimonious business deals with Roger Moore where they battled over money, but come time to promote the new movie you didn’t see Broccoli lavishing anything but praise on him, it was his job.

    I am 100%* hetero, married for 20 years. I am also secure enough in my masculinity to admit when someone else's masculinity (manners, style, gestures) is totally alluring. It's not necessarily a sexual thing. But that's why I can see why Barbara was so taken by him.

    * ok, maybe 99.99% LOL

    I can see he's attractive and a sexy guy, but I'm asking if, because you can see those things too, your objective side is out of the window and you follow him everywhere because he's so dishy and you love him so? Can he ever do anything you'd criticise or a film you'd not bother watching him in?
    Because all this stuff about Broccoli 'loving' him basically comes with the implicit suggestion that she was never thinking with her head and just did whatever he wanted because of his beautiful baby blues, and that's quite insulting.


    That's not what I am saying at all. But she wanted him for the role and almost wouldn't take no for an answer ("We only wanted him"). Her reasoning made sense: she knew Bond needed charisma. And DC had that, in her estimation. She noted something interesting in Everything or Nothing: Cubby asked her mother about Connery, at the time he was being considered for the part, wanting to know if she found him sexy. "Yes, he's very sexy," her mother said. One can tell, from Barbara's recollection of this, that it was an important aspect of the actor playing the role and it stayed with her. She had the same tone when talking about DC in Being James Bond. No doubt her relationship to/with Craig was important. She did not hide it. She was very open about it. She publicly expressed the difficulty in seeing Craig leave the role.

    2006: "He's such a superb actor. He's incredibly sexy, he's very charismatic, he has enormous screen presence and when he takes on a role he completely inhabits the character, and in this case he did everything. He's phenomenal. I think audiences will really embrace him."

    2013: "He's the most gorgeous man in the world...Brilliant actor, and he is the greatest Bond ever - I’m not letting him go, not for a long time."

    2020: “I’m in total denial. I’ve accepted what Daniel has said, but I’m still in denial. It’s too traumatic for me.”

    2020: Broccoli also recently told Empire how she would have cried if Craig has turned down No Time To Die.

    2021: "I would love for Daniel to continue forever.”

    So, am I suggesting something here that is insulting? Or am I merely reading the things Barbara says and drawing a proper conclusion? You tell me.
  • edited February 27 Posts: 4,699
    Univex wrote: »
    Pierce wasn't allowed a victory lap in which they fawned over him with praise for years, following a conclusive final entry to his tenure. There was no 'Being James Bond' for the man who successfully relaunched the character for the 90s. He was kicked to the curb without dignity.

    That...is not untrue. And a crying shame. And even years later, the man self criticizes himself too often for things that were not is fault (lousy scripts, ethos, directors, ...). Even Dalton says he liked what he did with what he was given. Pierce can't even say that. He really was kicked to the curb, anyone who lived through those days knows that. It was an ugly affair, undeserved.

    While I feel for Brosnan, none of that’s fair from what I can see. Like it or not his contract was over. It was crunch time for either an older (potentially lame duck) Bond for one film or going a different direction with a new actor.

    It’s a shame they were working stuff out later in his tenure (although I don’t personally think he was good enough a dramatic actor to do TWINE justice or parts of DAD) but nonetheless he was the face of Bond for those years, a major factor in the franchises’ success post ‘89, and a damn good Bond too. But his time had finished. EON did the right thing as far as I can see. It’s nothing against Brosnan, and I sympathise with him.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 27 Posts: 17,234
    007HallY wrote: »
    Personally, my gut instinct is I think everyone initially thought EON in some form would take Bond into the new era, even if in the short term. I do not believe BB was committed to selling the creative rights to Bond 8 years before this deal was made, and 4+ years before the circumstances were right for her to do so.

    Yeah, I tend to agree. My guess is that they expected a way through would appear (which creatively is how the Bond films have always worked: plan for a FYEO and make a MR when the wind blows that way) and it just didn't, and having Amazon take over MGM just added more friction and time and wasted energy and wore them down.
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    BMB007 wrote: »
    BMB007 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.

    Where did I say it wasn't OK? And where did I imply that?

    I have read a lot from Barbara in regards to Craig, and I have listened to her. She was very, very attracted to him. She all but admitted it. And she showers him with affection in Being James Bond.

    But in no way have I stated this is a bad thing or inappropriate. If anything, I feel empathy for her. Heck, nobody on this site has more of a man crush on Craig than I do! LOL. When she said that he is a charismatic man, whom you can't take your eyes off, she's right! I saw Craig leave a theater stage door back in 2013...I was three feet from him. Yes, he just exudes that charisma. As she says, "He's lit from within."

    Are you sexually attracted to him? I don’t know your persuasion.
    Because it’s perfectly possible to say all of those things and not be attracted to him. I think he’s extremely striking and handsome, but I’m a hetero male and I don’t physically lust after him. That she and Wilson were aware of how attractive he is doesn’t mean they wanted to have sex with him or that they were making decisions based on lust as some have suggested, it just makes them good producers as the role is supposed to be played by an attractive guy. Did they also talk up how charismatic and sexy this man is who is playing the role of a famously sexy superspy in their movies? Sure, that’s promotion, being a producer.

    Cubby Broccoli had several tight and quite acrimonious business deals with Roger Moore where they battled over money, but come time to promote the new movie you didn’t see Broccoli lavishing anything but praise on him, it was his job.

    I am 100%* hetero, married for 20 years. I am also secure enough in my masculinity to admit when someone else's masculinity (manners, style, gestures) is totally alluring. It's not necessarily a sexual thing. But that's why I can see why Barbara was so taken by him.

    * ok, maybe 99.99% LOL

    I can see he's attractive and a sexy guy, but I'm asking if, because you can see those things too, your objective side is out of the window and you follow him everywhere because he's so dishy and you love him so? Can he ever do anything you'd criticise or a film you'd not bother watching him in?
    Because all this stuff about Broccoli 'loving' him basically comes with the implicit suggestion that she was never thinking with her head and just did whatever he wanted because of his beautiful baby blues, and that's quite insulting.


    That's not what I am saying at all. But she wanted him for the role and almost wouldn't take no for an answer ("We only wanted him"). Her reasoning made sense: she knew Bond needed charisma. And DC had that, in her estimation. She noted something interesting in Everything or Nothing: Cubby asked her mother about Connery, at the time he was being considered for the part, wanting to know if she found him sexy. "Yes, he's very sexy," her mother said. One can tell, from Barbara's recollection of this, that it was an important aspect of the actor playing the role and it stayed with her. She had the same tone when talking about DC in Being James Bond. No doubt her relationship to/with Craig was important. She did not hide it. She was very open about it. She publicly expressed the difficulty in seeing Craig leave the role.

    2006: "He's such a superb actor. He's incredibly sexy, he's very charismatic, he has enormous screen presence and when he takes on a role he completely inhabits the character, and in this case he did everything. He's phenomenal. I think audiences will really embrace him."

    2013: "He's the most gorgeous man in the world...Brilliant actor, and he is the greatest Bond ever - I’m not letting him go, not for a long time."

    2020: “I’m in total denial. I’ve accepted what Daniel has said, but I’m still in denial. It’s too traumatic for me.”

    2020: Broccoli also recently told Empire how she would have cried if Craig has turned down No Time To Die.

    2021: "I would love for Daniel to continue forever.”

    So, am I suggesting something here that is insulting? Or am I merely reading the things Barbara says and drawing a proper conclusion? You tell me.

    She thinks he's great (she's right), they both know he's sexy, which is the job he's hired for, and talk up how perfect the man they chose for the role is (yes MGW doesn't really go at it with as much vigour as she does, but that's his character). But I don't like to draw the conclusion that she's in love with him or anything like that from it.
  • Having listened to the recent James Bond and Friends podcast, I find myself extremely curious as to what Greg Wilson said/did that helped cement this whole ordeal. My bet is his comment to the press about family businesses not lasting past the 3rd generation.
Sign In or Register to comment.