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
MGM not selling it.
Short of something dramatic happening both parties are going to have to find some common ground with Bond. I don’t think EON should compromise their creative integrity here with Bond by making pointless spin offs or picking an actor they don’t think is right, but maybe there’s something that’ll appease both? I dunno what it could be - maybe a creative or marketing decision both can agree on, perhaps going for a lead that appeals to both sides (ie. someone more up and coming whose fan base ticks Amazon’s ‘algorithms’ while also being EON’s pick). It’s happened in the past I guess.
I don’t know. If things stall long enough I see no reason why Amazon can’t force MGM to accept an offer from EON should the situation occur.
Like perhaps in another 5 years if things don’t really come to fruition then I could potentially see a situation like that occurring. I’m no expert however.
I think Eon has enough money to buy the rights, just as they did with McClory and SPECTRE, and sort of with CR in 2005 (which was more of a Sony swap).
But for some reason, over all these years, Eon has chosen not to buy back the former Saltzman rights from MGM/Amazon.
Recall that Michael is a lawyer.
Plus someone has to finance the movies.
If Eon wanted to buy them, they would, or structure some sort of financing deal with their preferred partner.
I think it is all about financing each individual film. They currently have more financial upside than downside on each film.
They don't want to risk it by self-financing.
Cubby was ruthless and he cut a great deal for himself and Harry with UA. He is why Michael and Barbara hold all the cards no matter who the studio is.
I think this article could be the first step in getting Amazon to relinquish control. That's what these organizations do in the public, to get their way. BB letting the world know it's an untenable relationship could force Amazon to sell, just to save face in the public. She just told everyone who is stopping her from making Bond again, she knows what she's doing.
I don’t really see why Amazon would do that, giving up some of their lucrative property.
Nah, she is the one who doesn't want to make the movie.
And why should she? If she thinks the film is going to be below standard?
While i hate to agree.. i absolutely do..
And again my point is shared universes have become so boring these days.. that i think Amazon is behind the times with this one thinking its still 2010-2017…
I wonder if this is why the game is being held up as well
@Benny
@Venutius
Thanks, chaps. I'm glad we agree on the importance of keeping Bond from falling into the wrong hands. Do we want a Bond film every year or so, with two TV series and a cartoon in between? I'm exaggerating, of course, but streaming services do seem to be branching things out easily. Even the Godzilla / King Kong 'monsterverse' has squeezed in a few TV series and cartoons for no reason other than to win the extra subscription. I could just "not watch", but that's easier said than done, especially when it's all "interconnected". Furthermore, I'm sure the quality of a film is at risk when part of the attention has shifted to other things. And, lastly, too much is too much. Bond is not the kind of property that people cannot get enough of, other than the most ardent fans. Too much Bond means no Bond at all in a matter of time. Bond deserves better than such an exploitative business model.
(This is also the reason why I'm not on board with those Moneypenny and Q books.)
I think her stubbornness is much needed, right now. Your reference to SW is valid. Unless one in unemployed, wealthy, single, and a bit of an introvert, it's hard to keep up with Disney's relentless pursuit of more content. Recent SW series haven't exactly set the room on fire either; fans seem to be checking out early, or at the very least finish a series with a big dose of criticism. I hope Barbara can prevent a similar churning out of Bond product from happening. I want the films, if and when they come out, to be an event, something to look forward to, something unique and special. I don't want them to subsist on the constant injection of "007" in the programming of a streaming service.
When studios own the rights to film series they usually don't like to sell them to smaller entities because they wont want any one person having control.
Take the Back to the Future trilogy. There was never a 4th one made even when MJF was in good health because Robert Zemeckis owns the rights to the films and he refuses to sell them because he doesnt want anyone else to make more or more to make. Had he sold them there probably be more films and some spin off films.
Why would they sell? They own half of James Bond.
But what exactly is the financial incentive for keeping the rights if no films are going to be made? If another 5 or so years pass with no movement on the next era, why WOULDN’T Amazon sell off their share? At that point they wouldn’t have made much of a return investment.
EON can't play chicken forever.
They still have the back catalog, which is very valuable.
Not all of us!
It’s costs them nothing to own half of James Bond. Obviously, it’s in every relevant parties interest to make a James Bond movie, but there’s no financial loss to not make a movie. That is unless, like MGM, the survival of the studio depends almost solely on releasing a James Bond movie at regular intervals. That isn’t the case with Amazon. Yes, they’d like to see a return on investment. Yes, they’d like to have something making money sooner rather than later. But this relationship will unfreeze. When? Hopefully soon. But institutions have patience that people don’t. Amazon and EON will be here in two or five years.
To put it another way, MGM, now Amazon, owns the rights to the Stargate franchise. Should they sell it simply because, as of right now, they’re not making Stargate films and tv shows? There are instances where selling a property makes financial sense but isn’t that scenario.
On top of that, studios—even Amazon—want to make films that not only make money but gives them industry cache. Amazon can make a James Bond knockoff or a Lord of The Rings-esque show that’s successful but making the real thing brings a level of notoriety that lasts into posterity.
Every Bond has his day and his fans. It's unlikely the next Bond will be a dud. You'll miss Craig like some of us missed Connery. But life and Bond go on.
Because you own all of the rights for all 007 movies to be made in perpetuity. Yes there's an impasse right now, but it would be as stupid as Saltzman ditching all his rights back in the mid 70s or Lazenby passing up the role because Bond wasn't as cool as Easy Rider. Remember all those Easy Rider sequels? Good call right?
I honestly don't understand why folks are thinking that MGM would sell up. If you owned half of James Bond would you sell up? Come on.