Amph 60+ Years of James Bond 007

To be fair, modern productions are far more involved then films from the 60s. The special effects alone can take years.

But, as to having a more cohesive plan, totally agreed.

And I suspect with Amazon paying the freight, money should not be an obstacle. The real challenge is writing and the cohesion of vision.

I suspect Amazon wants a tent pole film every 2-3 years, with spin-off streaming content (whether that is in-universe stories, or "making of" documentaries, or "Bond: Looking Back" interview shows).

Eon is probably well aware of that expectation, and are playing things conservatively...either to consciously and studiously make good decisions about the trajectory of the franchise in this new production model...or...in a deliberately reluctant and unflappable crawl to subtext a power play against the corporate overlords who owns their souls.

Could be both.

I also suspect any choices they make will be royally roasted by the public. It always is. So doing as much of it quietly out of sight and under the table is probably the only way to truly gauge potential choices while also preparing them for the agony & the ecstasy they are calling down on themselves.

All I know is we are not even 18 months out from the most recent release. They are probably still riding the residual influx on physical media from No time to Die.

I bet nothing official happens this year. 2024, something goes into production. Christmas 2025 would be my guess. And even then, it could be a spin-off, and they hold off on new Bond for a couple more years.

 

Yes thank you.

Lol

Edit

They are going to take 5 years off anyway so there's time to work something out.

And fire those writers. Get some fresh blood.

 

Just to clarify some, Amazon owns MGM, but they do not own Eon. MGM owns distribution (and co-owns production with Eon) of Bond movies, but Eon owns the character and the production of the actual movies.

 

If Eon decided to sell 007, can they shop around for the highest bidder or are they stuck with Amazon?

Also whatever Bond is worth - not having the rights free and clear makes it worth considerably less to any other studio other than MGM.

For an independent production company it could be great buy in. On if the best know and established franchises with a built in distribution deal in place.

 

Good question and good points. I don't know if they could shop around or not, but I hope Eon doesn't decide to sell... I think the brand benefits from their long term ownership and investment in it.

Edit to add: Eon is basically Bond... there wouldn't be much left for the company to do without 007.

 

I agree with you about hoping Eon doesn’t sell. They’d shepherded bond for 60 years. I’d they weren’t successful Bond wouldn’t be around today.

 

For what a wiki is worth:

That is the whole point of the power struggle. Eon can make a Bond film, but not release it without MGM, and MGM (and anyone else, for that matter) can't produce a Bond film without Eon. And nothing happens unless the actually IP for Bond is licensed to Eon from Danjaq (which is a private "company" for Broccoli and Saltzman...basically insurance if Eon went Bankrupt, the Bond IP couldn't be sold to pay creditors).

Eon has made PR statements about playing nice with Amazon. Amazon has said one of the big attractions of buying MGM was getting the rights to distribute (stream) the Bond Library and future projects.

EON could decide not to make any more Bond projects to screw Amazon. Amazon could screw EON by refusing to distribute, or just dumping them to the public without fanfare.

I suspect Amazon thought MGM had more pull in the relationship with Eon then they really do. MGM has been a shell for decades, held afloat by the graces of Eon making a new Bond to get money coming in.

Now, Eon has to deal with a distributor who doesn't have to look at them as their only hope to make payroll anymore.

It is quite intriguing.

But it is anyone's guess what the contract language says about shopping the rights each side has.

But I think both sides know the value of the brand. Eon is going to make a show of not being bullied or coerced into changing their formula (unless, you know, they do it.) Amazon is going to make a point of presenting all the Bond they can and proudly anticipate more to come for Prime members.

At the end of the day, if everyone makes money, the relationship will work fine.

 

Amazon seems like they made the worst major franchise deals. They don’t outright own bond or LotR. All that money and so little to show for it.

 

At the end of the day, the streaming branch of the Amazon Empire is still quite small.
I think what they wanted was to be more like Netflix, and develop their own properties.
But what they failed to properly evaluate was how much non-netflix content drove people to Netflix for years. Netflix is trying to retain viewers with their content, and only to a lesser extent attract new ones. That is what years of viewing habit data was for.

If Amazon is serious about winning the streaming wars, they will start buying other streamers, not just production houses. They have the money to gobble up the competition. Paramount and WB could both be acquired without crippling Amazon's bottom line. Universal is still sitting out there without an exclusive table to sit at. Even Netflix could be bought at a hefty price.

I suspect serious consolidation will begin soon. And that usual means the biggest fish eat the smaller ones. The sharks are Amazon and Disney...everyone else is potential prey.

And they all better pay careful attention to what Walmart is doing. They are dabbing toes in the pool. If they jump in with their billions, even if they fail, they will ruin others in the process.

 

Universal is Peacock. Comcast owns Universal and NBC.

 

Interesting. I know they were under the corporate umbrella...but my understanding was that Peacock is NBC's baby, and they do deals with studios for film rights, including Universal. But that also means Universal's library is not fully loaded on Peacock.

Example: The Fast and Furious films are not available on Peacock.

HBO and Hulu are common landing spots for Universal films, in addition to Peacock. Netflix has a deal with Universal Animation.
They are still playing the field. I suspect they can get better license deals from competitor platforms with subscription coffers, then add it to Peacock as content filler down the road...much like in the model with tv networks for decades.

Peacock is kind of a bizarre hybrid...still trying to be a host of tv networks, but with on-demand content from the family of stations, and a scattering of film titles (mostly old, but some new) thrown in. It is almost like the next step for the Xfinity cable box, only available to everyone.

 

Excellent points. Universal may still have streaming deals in effect that predate Peacock.

I’ve noticed the big Universal movies in 2022 went to Peakcock first. Then movies like Jurassic World 3 went to Amazon.

I need to look into this more because you are right about the universal back catalogue not all being there. At the same time Universal is advertised as part of Peacock.

Here is a link to news on newUniversal films going to Peacock.

https://www.reuters.com/business/me...-films-stream-exclusively-peacock-2021-12-09/

Here is another article.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...will-go-to-peacock-instead-but-theres-a-catch

Basically Peacock is the home of Universal but there are old deals in place that have yet to expire. HBO still has streaming rights to many Universal movies this way.

 

Makes sense.

I wonder what terms they agreed to. Disney managed to yank it's material from most other places pretty darn fast.

Peacock has been running nearly 3 years now. Those deals have to be coming to an end...unless they promised "ALL F&F films in the future or ALL Jurassic movies in the future"...yikes, would that be something to fire your lawyers over right quick.

 

Disney still has things it is waiting on. Especially with fox content. It took The Last Jedi over a month to get to D+ and even longer for Solo.

Also Disney decided earlier than its rivals it was going all in on streaming and had prep-time to not renew licensing agreements and have them expire before Disney+ launched.

 

i think eon or rather the owners need to do the right thing and now is the perfect time.

brocculi needs to have her limo give down an ally and stop at the hobo.

she gets out and drops the keys to the james bond franchise in their hands.

she gets into the limo and drives away

que ending credits music

should play out just like this

 

The porn parody?

 

its more of a key parody

 

Bone. James Bone.

 

Bond movies leave Crave in Canada today. I ended up rewatching Die Another Day in the end as it was the only Bronsan one I deliberately chose not to revisit. If you kind of go into it thinking, "Okay, this is the one with the invisible car and I shall accept that" it's watchable, like the duel between Bond and the baddie that just dials up to 11 in an instant is kind of amusing. and Moneypenny finally kisses Bond (in VR). But you can see why they turned it way back in the next movie to Casino Royale as it can only be big and dopey for so long. But if it's just accepted as "Moonraker: Part II" I can wrap my head around it. Honestly, it's been 20 years so kind of due for another "Die Another Day" "Moonraker" style gigantic yet oddly entertaining misfire.

As I understand the Bond flicks ended up on Amazon recently (for a limited time) at least in the US so I'm hoping they'll land there too in Canada, as there is a Sound of Bond documentary on there that looks quite lonely without the other content.

 

I have all the 20 first on DVD collection.

 

Urgent update!

So actually nothing new at all, except a recent confirmation from the casting director herself that they haven't even talked to potential new actors, and that the rumors of potential actors make her laugh.

https://thedirect.com/article/james-bond-next-actor-search-casting

 

this is a weird way to make money.