Bond was a struggling studio's lifeline. It is something very different for Amazon, and how it performs at the box office has now been massively de-prioritized (for MGM/Amazon, not Eon) in light of that.
The Bond franchise is a collectible for Bezos, not a cash cow. By some estimates, Bezos makes over two billion dollars per week. He doesn't need Eon to change a single thing about how they operate, as the most successful Bond film ever is less than a week's salary for him. He and Barbara Broccoli have never even spoken.
The roles now appear to be reversed, while Bond was MGM's lifeline (and MGM's history of financial troubles have in the past contributed to delays and uncertainty) EON now will have a partner with unlimited financial resources, a veritable sugar daddy for the franchise.
While Bond may not exactly be a cash cow for Amazon, I think it does go well beyond the realm of just a "collectable" or "prestige" brand for Bezos/Amazon. Bond, and MGM to an even greater extent, bring a huge influx of valuable streaming content to Amazon Prime in an ever growing and highly competitive market. Also, Amazon is probably the world's biggest seller of physical media (Blu Ray, DVD, 4K UHD Blu Ray) and having the rights to that MGM catalogue along with Bond (and the highly anticipated release of the classic the Bond films on 4K Blu Ray) there definitely are big bucks to be made.
But that doesn't change the dynamic of "big bucks" for Bond is a drop in the ocean to Amazon. If Bezos is pulling down two Skyfalls a week, he's going to be unmoved to involve himself in the franchise. It's closer to what you'd call a "loss leader" - it doesn't even need to make him money because it will still drive customers to his business.
Amazon owns half of Bond and they also sell this. The metrics are out the window.
can anybody sum up the unusual gaps between films over the years (ie longer than 2 years) and how much of that was due to MGM's problems rather than EON's?
Daniel Craig saying he'd rather slit his wrists was surely nothing to do with MGM, and EON maybe should have just replaced him as soon's he said that rather than begging him to come back. But now he's gone his attitude is no longer a factor.
Wrist slashing or no, the MGM deal with Sony ended after Spectre, and MGM (who've been in financial trouble of some kind or another since 1981) needed to find a distribution partner. Not sure when they settled THAT, but Craig confirmed less than two years after Spectre that he was coming back (on Colbert, August of 2017). The delays after that were largely on Eon (Boyle) and a pandemic.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,917Chief of Staff
correct me if I'm wrong @Sir Miles but isn't the context that he didn't want to do another Bond film and had to be persuaded to return? and that substantial time passed by before he agreed?
I think some people are deluded if they think Amazon who paid $8.5 billion for MGM which gives them 50% ownership of the Bond franchise is going to spend that much money to obtain MGM's marquee franchise (as well as many many others) and just sit back as a quiet owner and let Barbara and Wilson do what they want. Some of the bond movies had to be put on hold because of MGM's money problems and critics of the buyout have been quick to mention that Amazon have very deep financial pockets. This maybe so but Amazon is not going to dig deep into it's pockets to pay for a Bond movie without getting what it's wants.
Well as he said, it was because he needed a rest and did then pretty much decide that he wouldn't do another one: he had a really bad experience shooting Spectre with his injury and did have to be tempted back to do a final one- as I remember they say all that in the Being James Bond doc. So I think it is possible that added a little time between films, although as Phil points out he was back onboard less than two years after Spectre.
thank you @emtiem for taking the time to explain the context.
apologies for making a smartass remark about Craig's infamous quote (and I know its not my first, its just ironic he said that given the end of the new film). My intent was not to argue about what Craig meant, though I appreciate seeing it clarified. My intent with this post above...
can anybody sum up the unusual gaps between films over the years (i.e. longer than 2 years) and how much of that was due to MGM's problems rather than EON's?
..was to open up discussion about behind the scenes matters I don't really know anything about. Some speculated Amazon would be a more stable corporate partner that would allow, even encourage, the Bond series to get back on regular schedule. Some said it wouldn't make a difference. I thought at this point it might be helpful to list some of the past reasons for delays, whether they were due to MGM, EON or other.
and if I sometimes ask questions that should be common knowledge, my general intent is always to encourage discussion by suggesting a topic.
Yeah I think the 'wrist-slashing' quote actually turns to be more truthful than I thought at the time: I thought it was a comment based on him just being tired from doing a straight year or so on Spectre (I think the question he was answering was about whether he'd be up for another one straight away), but actually it seems like he really was done with Bond once and for all in his own mind. But happily he was persuaded back!
Having finished the second season of the Witcher, it’s hard to imagine how they could do better than Cavill. Perhaps he’s too famous, too obvious, and too busy. But some things just make too much sense.
I'm watching Aidan Turner's new series "Leonardo" about the fellow from Vinchy. He plays a more insecure and sensitive character than Poldark. He also plays Leonardo as a young man, probably in his early twenties, and convincibly so. Having range is good.
Deffo agree about Cavill. Looks the part, can do all the action scenes with ease and seems enthusiastic about getting the gig. Can’t imagine him moaning about not enough dialogue in the films, having to do press etc etc
Comments
Bond was a struggling studio's lifeline. It is something very different for Amazon, and how it performs at the box office has now been massively de-prioritized (for MGM/Amazon, not Eon) in light of that.
The Bond franchise is a collectible for Bezos, not a cash cow. By some estimates, Bezos makes over two billion dollars per week. He doesn't need Eon to change a single thing about how they operate, as the most successful Bond film ever is less than a week's salary for him. He and Barbara Broccoli have never even spoken.
The roles now appear to be reversed, while Bond was MGM's lifeline (and MGM's history of financial troubles have in the past contributed to delays and uncertainty) EON now will have a partner with unlimited financial resources, a veritable sugar daddy for the franchise.
While Bond may not exactly be a cash cow for Amazon, I think it does go well beyond the realm of just a "collectable" or "prestige" brand for Bezos/Amazon. Bond, and MGM to an even greater extent, bring a huge influx of valuable streaming content to Amazon Prime in an ever growing and highly competitive market. Also, Amazon is probably the world's biggest seller of physical media (Blu Ray, DVD, 4K UHD Blu Ray) and having the rights to that MGM catalogue along with Bond (and the highly anticipated release of the classic the Bond films on 4K Blu Ray) there definitely are big bucks to be made.
But that doesn't change the dynamic of "big bucks" for Bond is a drop in the ocean to Amazon. If Bezos is pulling down two Skyfalls a week, he's going to be unmoved to involve himself in the franchise. It's closer to what you'd call a "loss leader" - it doesn't even need to make him money because it will still drive customers to his business.
Amazon owns half of Bond and they also sell this. The metrics are out the window.
can anybody sum up the unusual gaps between films over the years (ie longer than 2 years) and how much of that was due to MGM's problems rather than EON's?
Daniel Craig saying he'd rather slit his wrists was surely nothing to do with MGM, and EON maybe should have just replaced him as soon's he said that rather than begging him to come back. But now he's gone his attitude is no longer a factor.
Wrist slashing or no, the MGM deal with Sony ended after Spectre, and MGM (who've been in financial trouble of some kind or another since 1981) needed to find a distribution partner. Not sure when they settled THAT, but Craig confirmed less than two years after Spectre that he was coming back (on Colbert, August of 2017). The delays after that were largely on Eon (Boyle) and a pandemic.
Can’t believe people still bang on about DC and the wrist slashing line…it was taken out of context then, and is again now.
correct me if I'm wrong @Sir Miles but isn't the context that he didn't want to do another Bond film and had to be persuaded to return? and that substantial time passed by before he agreed?
It's about time we had another Scottish Actor playing James Bond? For example Richard Madden from Bodyguard?
Consider yourself corrected. It’s all about the context. Which you haven’t bothered with. Again. 🍸
could you be so kind as to explain the context? thanks
I think some people are deluded if they think Amazon who paid $8.5 billion for MGM which gives them 50% ownership of the Bond franchise is going to spend that much money to obtain MGM's marquee franchise (as well as many many others) and just sit back as a quiet owner and let Barbara and Wilson do what they want. Some of the bond movies had to be put on hold because of MGM's money problems and critics of the buyout have been quick to mention that Amazon have very deep financial pockets. This maybe so but Amazon is not going to dig deep into it's pockets to pay for a Bond movie without getting what it's wants.
A face for voice acting! Just joking.
He's not on my favourites list, but I've seen far worse suggestions.
NNnnnooooooooo!!!! he was the guy that played that Cuban/Spanish guy in the movie Cuban Fury :)
And he’s another big Liverpool FC fan - so that works for me 🤣
I’m sure you can find the whole interview on the internet…and then you could look for the interview where DC explains exactly why he said that 🍸
Well as he said, it was because he needed a rest and did then pretty much decide that he wouldn't do another one: he had a really bad experience shooting Spectre with his injury and did have to be tempted back to do a final one- as I remember they say all that in the Being James Bond doc. So I think it is possible that added a little time between films, although as Phil points out he was back onboard less than two years after Spectre.
thank you @emtiem for taking the time to explain the context.
apologies for making a smartass remark about Craig's infamous quote (and I know its not my first, its just ironic he said that given the end of the new film). My intent was not to argue about what Craig meant, though I appreciate seeing it clarified. My intent with this post above...
can anybody sum up the unusual gaps between films over the years (i.e. longer than 2 years) and how much of that was due to MGM's problems rather than EON's?
..was to open up discussion about behind the scenes matters I don't really know anything about. Some speculated Amazon would be a more stable corporate partner that would allow, even encourage, the Bond series to get back on regular schedule. Some said it wouldn't make a difference. I thought at this point it might be helpful to list some of the past reasons for delays, whether they were due to MGM, EON or other.
and if I sometimes ask questions that should be common knowledge, my general intent is always to encourage discussion by suggesting a topic.
Yeah I think the 'wrist-slashing' quote actually turns to be more truthful than I thought at the time: I thought it was a comment based on him just being tired from doing a straight year or so on Spectre (I think the question he was answering was about whether he'd be up for another one straight away), but actually it seems like he really was done with Bond once and for all in his own mind. But happily he was persuaded back!
It must have been a slow day for news at the BBC, so they have published a list of the bookies' favourites:
At least they put some reasonably fresh names at the end and avoided mentioning female candidates. I've seen worse.
I saw Tom Hopper mentioned. At 6'5" 230lbs they would not be lying if they touted a Hopper/Bond film as the "Biggest Bond of all".
Jack Lowden. British, promising British actor, 31 years old and 6'2''.
Brendon Thwaites, another Aussie like Lazenby but better actor, 32, 6', 180 lb.
he was great in that sailing show with Gustav Graves! 😁
Yes. Black Sails was a great show. Got a bit off the rails the last season but great none the less. Tom Hopper was excellent as "Billy Bones".
Don't see him as Bond though. With his imposing size and physique would make a great villain IMO.
Let's hope we know the name of the next James Bond by this time next year! 🤞
I actually think it's fairly realistic.
Having finished the second season of the Witcher, it’s hard to imagine how they could do better than Cavill. Perhaps he’s too famous, too obvious, and too busy. But some things just make too much sense.
Couldn’t agree more!!
I'm watching Aidan Turner's new series "Leonardo" about the fellow from Vinchy. He plays a more insecure and sensitive character than Poldark. He also plays Leonardo as a young man, probably in his early twenties, and convincibly so. Having range is good.
Deffo agree about Cavill. Looks the part, can do all the action scenes with ease and seems enthusiastic about getting the gig. Can’t imagine him moaning about not enough dialogue in the films, having to do press etc etc