IMO EON is not selling off the rights to Bond. Yes, they would be set for many lifetimes on what they would get (I am sure Barb and Michael are very, very wealthy already) but it's the family business and legacy and there appears to be some young adult children who are now involved also. Plus, Barbara is only in her 50's and as I have said before, Bond is what makes her a bigtime player in the industry. Michael Wilson is now in his 70's and I could see him moving into semi retirement and an advisory role at some point.
As far as Craig coming back to prevent TH (whatever TH is being referred to) from taking over as Bond because of some personal dislike; well it sounds like Tabloid fodder to me. I guess that means Craig and TH are the new Bette Davis and Joan Crawford .
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Eon's strategy is no doubt to make as much $$ as they can until 2034, when their exclusivity expires with Fleming's copyright. Then they will aggressively defend things such as the theme, etc.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,757Chief of Staff
IMO EON is not selling off the rights to Bond. Yes, they would be set for many lifetimes on what they would get (I am sure Barb and Michael are very, very wealthy already) but it's the family business and legacy and there appears to be some young adult children who are now involved also. Plus, Barbara is only in her 50's and as I have said before, Bond is what makes her a bigtime player in the industry. Michael Wilson is now in his 70's and I could see him moving into semi retirement and an advisory role at some point. As far as Craig coming back to prevent TH (whatever TH is being referred to) from taking over as Bond because of some personal dislike; well it sounds like Tabloid fodder to me. I guess that means Craig and TH are the new Bette Davis and Joan Crawford .
1. Dannyboy is getting visually older pretty quick - so it's best to shoot with him as fast as possible before he reaches the end of expiry
2. It'd give him more time for other projects instead of starting all over again for B26
3. Pretty sure that the production cost for B2B will be significantly cheaper than doing them seperately and start all over again with production for B26.
4. It opens EON to benefit from an only 1 year gap between 2 movies, which may be interesting to see how they do at the box office.
5. It may have been the only deal that Nolan was willing to agree instead of contracting him for 3 which means a period of 7-8 years in total
etc.
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
IMO EON is not selling off the rights to Bond. Yes, they would be set for many lifetimes on what they would get (I am sure Barb and Michael are very, very wealthy already) but it's the family business and legacy and there appears to be some young adult children who are now involved also. Plus, Barbara is only in her 50's and as I have said before, Bond is what makes her a bigtime player in the industry. Michael Wilson is now in his 70's and I could see him moving into semi retirement and an advisory role at some point. As far as Craig coming back to prevent TH (whatever TH is being referred to) from taking over as Bond because of some personal dislike; well it sounds like Tabloid fodder to me. I guess that means Craig and TH are the new Bette Davis and Joan Crawford .
IMO EON is not selling off the rights to Bond. Yes, they would be set for many lifetimes on what they would get (I am sure Barb and Michael are very, very wealthy already) but it's the family business and legacy and there appears to be some young adult children who are now involved also. Plus, Barbara is only in her 50's and as I have said before, Bond is what makes her a bigtime player in the industry. Michael Wilson is now in his 70's and I could see him moving into semi retirement and an advisory role at some point. As far as Craig coming back to prevent TH (whatever TH is being referred to) from taking over as Bond because of some personal dislike; well it sounds like Tabloid fodder to me. I guess that means Craig and TH are the new Bette Davis and Joan Crawford .
But which tabloid reported that?
Asp9mm Weekly
That's a quality news service...much better than the HiggyBum Times
Craig is returning for sure. If he shoots the two films he's signed up for back to back from this September as some genius has suggested :007) , then he can go on to do Purity mid next year. Shooting films back to back means just that, they are filmed pretty much at the same time. I think we will see less action and more character driven plots.
Nolan wanted to do three films. I don't know, but maybe doing two like this will be the clincher that brings him on board. I don't know if it is the case, but they have been talking to him.
Craig was out. Another bloke was signed up if DC didn't take up an option offered. His initials are TH but not the one I thought. He signed up to do it if DC didn't take them up on their offer. It was enough for DC to decide as apparently he was the last person he wanted to take the role after himself. Don't know their history, but it's one of loathing.
^^ All this may be bunkum of course.
The "back-to-back" thing contradicts the thing you'd mentioned about Broccolis selling off the franchise after the next one. I wonder what shifted there, whether this kicks that down the road or undoes that plan.
Not really. Shooting back to back means it's being shot as just one long film and released as two. That keeps costs down as sets can be re-used as well as props and other items/ amenities such as wardrobe and catering, etc. It also appeases the studios that weren't that interested in a one picture deal with a new Bond at the helm. All evidence suggests that they will sell Bond off after this, and this is from different people involved to a greater or lesser extent. Certain inventories are already being written up with stock taken with the idea of shipping it Stateside in the near future.
Lifestyle guide to the products and locations featured in the James Bond films.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
If Eon does 'take the money and run' - i.e., sell out - it will truly be a brave new world
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"Daniel Craig will be a guest on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' on Tuesday, 15 August, 2017 at 11:35/10:35c on CBS."
It makes sense. Announcement during the early hours of the day, then DC interview later confirming his return, etc.
A lot of times, these things are just announced on talk shows. If nothing is said earlier in the day, and Colbert doesn't ask Craig about his future as Bond, we know Colbert has been strictly told not to ask the question.
As far as I know when it comes to Marvel for instance, Disney does not interfere at all. They provided money back in the days when MCU wasn't stupid rich like it is today, but otherwise there is no interference from them when it comes down to creative control. That's why Daredevil is so brutal for instance - it's still made by Marvel and therefore Disney. Another example is Guardians of the Galaxy 2 where we had penis jokes, a brothel and some other adult stuff. Not to mention Infinity War, which supposedly will have a much darker tone than the previous movies.
So I'd actually be happy if Disney will buy the rights, the franchise will have a strong production company supporting it and maybe they will set the right tempo when it comes to movie releases. It's total BS that it's not possible to do a Bond movie every two years.
As far as I know when it comes to Marvel for instance, Disney does not interfere at all. They provided money back in the days when MCU wasn't stupid rich like it is today, but otherwise there is no interference from them when it comes down to creative control. That's why Daredevil is so brutal for instance - it's still made by Marvel and therefore Disney. Another example is Guardians of the Galaxy 2 where we had penis jokes, a brothel and some other adult stuff. Not to mention Infinity War, which supposedly will have a much darker tone than the previous movies.
So I'd actually be happy if Disney will buy the rights, the franchise will have a strong production company supporting it and maybe they will set the right tempo when it comes to movie releases. It's total BS that it's not possible to do a Bond movie every two years.
When it comes to any discussion of EON selling the rights to Bond one cannot ignore the fact that for better or worst, MGM still owns half of Bond. Not that EON would have any problem finding a buyer, my guess is that Disney, Warners, etc would probably prefer not to partner with the perennially cash strapped, fiscally challenged once great production company and studio.
With regard to EON holding on until 2034: I am sure their legal people have been doing their due diligence when it comes to what will continue to remain protected by trademark (the Bond Theme, the 007 gun logo, and any other part of the Bond canon that originated with EON and not Fleming). Unlike other franchises, Bond is unique in that it is literally a "brand" that has immediately recognizable traditions, canon, etc. Without them you basically have NSNA minus Connery.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
One can only hope that Purvis & Wade's "Bond Scribe For Life" positions would come to an end following a change of ownership
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
As far as Craig coming back to prevent TH (whatever TH is being referred to) from taking over as Bond because of some personal dislike; well it sounds like Tabloid fodder to me. I guess that means Craig and TH are the new Bette Davis and Joan Crawford
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
But which tabloid reported that?
1. Dannyboy is getting visually older pretty quick - so it's best to shoot with him as fast as possible before he reaches the end of expiry
2. It'd give him more time for other projects instead of starting all over again for B26
3. Pretty sure that the production cost for B2B will be significantly cheaper than doing them seperately and start all over again with production for B26.
4. It opens EON to benefit from an only 1 year gap between 2 movies, which may be interesting to see how they do at the box office.
5. It may have been the only deal that Nolan was willing to agree instead of contracting him for 3 which means a period of 7-8 years in total
etc.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Hope announcement soon, this teasing is killing me. Preferred the silence
Asp9mm Weekly
Well maybe we got one early in the Commander? I think maybe the bods at omega were expecting a film this year.
That's a quality news service...much better than the HiggyBum Times
That rag is just full of adverts for green trainers!
Indeedy.
Not really. Shooting back to back means it's being shot as just one long film and released as two. That keeps costs down as sets can be re-used as well as props and other items/ amenities such as wardrobe and catering, etc. It also appeases the studios that weren't that interested in a one picture deal with a new Bond at the helm. All evidence suggests that they will sell Bond off after this, and this is from different people involved to a greater or lesser extent. Certain inventories are already being written up with stock taken with the idea of shipping it Stateside in the near future.
Mind you the Rolex boys would love bonds new watch, even has a nato
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"Daniel Craig will be a guest on 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' on Tuesday, 15 August, 2017 at 11:35/10:35c on CBS."
It makes sense. Announcement during the early hours of the day, then DC interview later confirming his return, etc.
A lot of times, these things are just announced on talk shows. If nothing is said earlier in the day, and Colbert doesn't ask Craig about his future as Bond, we know Colbert has been strictly told not to ask the question.
"You're forgetting one thing- if I fail to report, Mickey Mouse replaces me."
"I trust he will have better duck."
"Do you expect me to quack?"
"No, Mr Bond, I expect you to fry!"
As far as I know when it comes to Marvel for instance, Disney does not interfere at all. They provided money back in the days when MCU wasn't stupid rich like it is today, but otherwise there is no interference from them when it comes down to creative control. That's why Daredevil is so brutal for instance - it's still made by Marvel and therefore Disney. Another example is Guardians of the Galaxy 2 where we had penis jokes, a brothel and some other adult stuff. Not to mention Infinity War, which supposedly will have a much darker tone than the previous movies.
So I'd actually be happy if Disney will buy the rights, the franchise will have a strong production company supporting it and maybe they will set the right tempo when it comes to movie releases. It's total BS that it's not possible to do a Bond movie every two years.
+1 totally.
With regard to EON holding on until 2034: I am sure their legal people have been doing their due diligence when it comes to what will continue to remain protected by trademark (the Bond Theme, the 007 gun logo, and any other part of the Bond canon that originated with EON and not Fleming). Unlike other franchises, Bond is unique in that it is literally a "brand" that has immediately recognizable traditions, canon, etc. Without them you basically have NSNA minus Connery.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM