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
One of the benefits too.
I’m not sure how applicable that is to EON in practice. You have examples like MGM pressuring them to get TND released quickly and of course what happened with SP. I think they had plenty of share holder types affecting the flow of these films (even delaying them in several instances).
I’m not sure I’m keen to romanticise family businesses (they can make mistakes after all) but I think it’s fair to say they’re more likely to have a deeper level of connection to their product and more personal incentive to make something worthwhile.
And you don’t think MGM did this in the past (no matter who owned it)?
From what I understand they kinda were as they owned a share of Bond (50% in fact). Although I understand creatively EON had that control. Still though, Bond couldn’t have been made without either party, and I think in practice they’ve had the sort of relationship with their studio you’re describing, so I don’t think the issue has ever been a lack of financial incentive. If anything many of the issues with the franchise come down to that.
Covid, Amazon purchasing MGM, studio exec changes, Michael G. Wilson nearing retirement...
There were other monumental things going on than just Barbara and Michael's intentions for Bond.
Yes, I would guess there's equally likely to have been plenty of 'what state are you guys in?' coming from Eon to whatever was left of MGM during that time too.
People can paint whatever pictures they like of what was happening, but the truth is we have no idea what was going on. We actually have no idea whether Eon were working on stories and scripts, who's to say they weren't?
Yes, I never completely bought that as we on here were thinking about it and unlike them, it's not our entire lives! It's inevitable they thought about it, whatever they were saying to the press was during talks they were having with the new version of the studio.
1) Have Bond 26 screenplay written before you enter negotiations with Amazon MGM Studios. If you have a screenplay you have a road map for Bond 26. You can start negotiations from a position of strength not weakness.
2) Accept Amazon is one of richest companies on Earth so you'll have to compromise. Period. Subject to the terms of Eon's contract with Amazon MGM Studios, I assume Eon delaying Bond 26 indefinitely would result in Amazon filing a lawsuit. That would jeopardise the future of the franchise and potentially bankrupt Eon/Danjaq. The only alternative is to compromise.
3) Go into negotiations with a minimum five year plan where you want to take the franchise. For example, from 2025 to 2030 Eon Productions recommend:
Bond 26 released.
1 new James Bond video game released on all major video platforms - PlayStation 5 etc.
1 new live action Bond world spin off tv show.
1 new animated Bond world spin off tv show.
New Bond merchandise exclusively available on Amazon.
No more 007 - Road To A Million 🤭
No Bond expansion to casinos, hotels, theme parks, cruises, luxury sports cars etc.
I would brand all spin off material as Beyond Bond. When you watch a Bond tv show it starts with the Beyond Bond logo.
The Bond Beyond logo also on future video games and some merchandise.
I think one new film and two spin offs is enough 'content' for five years. If Amazon disagree then say "at the present moment in time we can't proceed with Bond 26." Stall Amazon. I'm not saying stall for years but show Amazon you are prepared to delay if Amazon want too much content.
I think Eon have to compromise but only accept two spin off shows within a five year period. The time scale would be
Bond 26 summer or winter 2027/2028
Felix Leiter tv show summer 2029
Bond animated show 2030
That seems reasonable. Bond 26 is the priority and first to be released.
I don't think Amazon would object to that plan. As for Bond not being a hero, well, adapt the screenplay to make him more heroic.
Maybe all of the above was possible. You just need to compromise and accept Amazon will want to create an extended Bond universe. If you can keep it to two tv shows only in a five year time period, that's not the ruination of the franchise. Worst case scenario the shows flop and Amazon ditch future tv shows.
If Broccoli went into negotiations with zero screenplay, no plan at all and refusing to compromise... that's foolish. Amazon probably thought "let's not waste time suing Eon for unreasonable delay. Let's buy them out."
Yes, they didn't even have Craig.
What difference a week makes
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?
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
+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.
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.
People are so dense.
Killing Bond had nothing to do with it. Craig Bond would still alive at the end of NTTD and things would still play out as they did, because the next Bond was always going to be a reboot.
Why are people so thick about that?
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.
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. Needing a break to no actor and no ideas and needing a couple of years to rethink all of this has always felt sketchy to me.
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.